Skankbeat explains Common Law

[ashlynne39]

Nikki - your explanation and discussion was good but I sort of like Skankbeat's legal analysis:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... a698fca7aa

First, skankbeat explains why common law has become non-existent

It seems to me that the only reason common law has the appearance of disuse is that it is in fact in disuse. This does not mean it is defunct. With so many people disowning their sovereignty and acting through lawyers, it is no wonder why common law has been obfuscated. Common law is basic, the average joe can bring a common law action. With common law, why would you need a lawyer unless you were utterly incompetent?

It's the lawyers that are to blame . . .but not to worry, with skankbeat on the case, there is a three prong process for restoring common law . . .unless of course you're completely incompetent

In a court of law i would think judicial notice would suffice in directing the court to act under common law. You would: 1) assert you are one of the people of <state> and a sovereign; 2) reserve your common law sovereign rights; 3) make sovereign contract with the court to bind court officers to common law. What more does a sovereign have to do when he is in a republican government judicial court on the land?

And then there is this little gem of wisdom, though honestly I'm not sure what it means . . .but I'm okay with that as I don't really want to "think" the way skankbeat does

Common law is the elephant in the room, as you will soon see when you research this.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...What more does a sovereign have to do when he is in a republican government judicial court on the land?

Get ready for the cattle prod.

[ashlynne39]

In another thread, Skankbeat continues his "what is common law" discussion by going into the specifics of filing for conversion and "trover." I'm just going to admit that I missed or slept through the discussion of trover in law school.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2618

All the judicial courts recognize common law. If they recognize constitution law, they recognize common law.

Yep, the internet is full of "tips." Just try your friendly sovereign website and you're sure to find all sorts of sucess stories and forms where this has worked.

If you diligently search the internet you will find materials that show you how to bring a common law action, such as for trespass. You will also find example court cases. It is fairly simple affair.

Because when I want to file a lawsuit the first place I go for instruction is the dictionary:

You may also want to check out the resources referenced in the above law dictionary citations. I know one source is available on google books.

When I read stuff like this, I have to wonder what exactly these people think common law is. I really think they do see common law as some sort of mystical, magical thing that is right within their grasp and if only they could grasp it all would be right with the world.

What is different about a common law action is that you are acting as prosecutor- you control the proceedings. In the civil complaint you are merely a complaining party "praying" for relief from a magistrate. Big difference!

Bring out the peace officers. They'll make sure you get the common law.

Keep in mind that with common law, you have multiple avenues of remedy: 1) via the courts; 2) via peace officers; 3) as a sovereign. Yes, you have the common law right to enforce the common law. You probably heard about "citizen's arrest" statutes in some states. Where did those statutes derive their authority from? Common law. Common law exists in the 50 states. That means all the 50 states have sovereign arrest rights. Just because the common law is not codified does not make it nonexistent.

This might be the most honest thing Skankbeat has ever said

I have not fully verified these last statements yet, but something to think about.

[Pottapaug1938]

One thing that fascinates me about the Common Law worshippers is that they look back to halcyon days when the Common Law ruled... and every person was the subject of the King, whose word was law (and, once again, I've misplaced the URL for the excellent "White Man's Ghost Dance" article on these idiots).

[The Dog]

One thing that fascinates me about the Common Law worshippers is that they look back to halcyon days when the Common Law ruled... and every person was the subject of the King, whose word was law (and, once again, I've misplaced the URL for the excellent "White Man's Ghost Dance" article on these idiots).

Is this it?
http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

[Pottapaug1938]

One thing that fascinates me about the Common Law worshippers is that they look back to halcyon days when the Common Law ruled... and every person was the subject of the King, whose word was law (and, once again, I've misplaced the URL for the excellent "White Man's Ghost Dance" article on these idiots).

Is this it?
http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

That's exactly it! Thanks, Dog!

[Brandybuck]

Is this it?
http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

While insightful, the article does make the mistake of conflating nearly everyone within the freedom movement with these nutters. Just because you want limited government does not mean you want to live in that mythical England of yesteryear.

[Pottapaug1938]

Is this it?
http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

While insightful, the article does make the mistake of conflating nearly everyone within the freedom movement with these nutters. Just because you want limited government does not mean you want to live in that mythical England of yesteryear.

That's not how I read it. To me, the article talks about people who use the words like "constitutionalist" and "common law" as if they were Ghost Dance shirts, or some sort of legal Kryptonite which repels those who seek to administer the very laws that these clowns seek to revere. I have no issue with those in what you call the "freedom movement" who accept the reality of things as they are but seek to change them into what they think is a more positive direction.

[Omne]

McKinney v. Regan, 599 F.Supp. 126, 129 (M.D.La. 1984)

"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Cavalry—ZERO."