Common Law Court of Record
Portrait of Olde Tyme Judge
What is Sovereignty? You should know. You are one.
Sovereignty is the ownership of one's own rights, and property. In that sense we are all sovereign in one capacity or another. Some have claimed more rights than others, yet we all are equal or so it would seem.
Common law is an age old traditional court that may actually even predate the feudal system of Europe. The Magna Carta gives much common law consideration. It has been used for centuries, and is still in use today. When the IRS attacks you, they are a tribunal in the common law sense issuing an order of the court of the IRS. It's their court literally. I will explain how.
Back in the old days of the feudal system, a sovereign king (who is the highest authority of the land) would convene his court. The duties of the court took up too much of the king's time from fox hunting so he would appoint someone to act as his fiduciary agent or what is known today as a prosecutor. If someone stole the king's horse, the prosecutor would order (not ask) the magistrate of the court to issue a warrant to bring this lowly nave to face the court. The court would grant him a jury. The jury would decide the fate of the accused thief.
The rules of the court were decided by the tribunal/prosecutor, and all orders given including contempt. Not the magistrate. He was merely a recorder. Thus the name "Court of Record" came into being. You very rarely ever see this in modern court systems because it is assumed that the tribunal is the judge. All orders and rulings are decided by the judge, not the plaintiff's lawyer. As you can imagine, the court or record was heavily slanted towards the plaintiff. Very few people got a fair trial. They could make the rules up as they go along as well. Hard to study a law that has not yet been written isn't it?
In modern times elements of the court of record is used by the IRS, and by private citizens. I will post a link below of a series of audio files that explain in great detail the process in which a gentleman used the court of record in California. He had to fight the judge for tribunal jurisdiction, then the judge he appealed it to, then before it was over, he had four judges named as co-defendants for his constitutionally guaranteed by California right to do this.
You see statutory courts do not have a remedy for everything. In fact if someone hits you with their car, and their mandatory minimum insurance is not enough to cover your surmounting medical bills, there is no remedy, awe but there is! It's called common law. In common law, most statutes do not apply. That means you can sue for the entire amount, regardless of the statutory insurance limit. It usually doesn't cover punitive damages. You can't get extra money just because they hurt your feelings. It has to be provable damage.
Every state has a court that can be a court of record. Where I live in Colorado it is the district courts. Your state will have some constitutional or statutory decision on where these courts are to be convened. Also, every commonwealth country has them as well. Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand all have common law conventions somewhere in their court system.
Judges don't like giving up the tribunal to the plaintiff though. They will give you orders, yell, make threats, even use cheap tricks like "wipe that smile off your face!" If you pull the corners of your mouth down to speak, you obeyed an order, he just regained jurisdiction over you. It's off to the slammer you go for contempt! I don't know whether they are orders to keep the tribunal hat on at all costs by the higher courts, or it's just because they have HUGE egos and cannot stand the thought of taking orders from a layman. It still seems strange they would go to such great lengths to block a lawful activity.
There are many left-wing freedom haters who claim sovereignty/common law is based on racism and class-ism. I'll post a link down below that shows a black man using the same exact type of jurisdictional challenges that everyone else can use. The movement among black people in America I sometimes hear referred to as "Moors" like the Moorish doctrine of sovereignty. There is a history of feudal system courts in Morocco. It was under Portuguese, Spanish, and even French rule for a time. Many of those common court traditions lingered long after.
Now back to our favourite government agency, the IRS. When you get an order from them, they are giving you an order as a Sovereign court. If you obey it, you are their subject. When you do not, you must do so in writing, They will assume you have obeyed, because you did not object to their court ruling, and furthermore, they can seize your property without even so much as a hearing.They actually had a hearing. You weren't invited though. The sovereign director of the IRS ordered his tribunal prosecutor to give you an order. It's that simple. I've heard a lot of complaints from people about the IRS. "It's like the judge works FOR the prosecutor." He does, Duh!!! The judge is only a magistrate. the tribunal (highest authority) in the room is the prosecutor. He orders the magistrate. Even experienced attorneys don't see the true nature of the relationship in a court of record. One thing I know for sure is, if you can get a court of record on someone, you have a serious advantage. If someone gets this over you, I'm pretty sure you're screwed unless you have a good knowledge of common law, or find a lawyer that studies this discipline. Not many of them do.
I've seen interviews of jury members in IRS court. They don't understand it either. Nobody told them the true nature of the court. The prosecutor never told them, the magistrate couldn't. He did not receive tribunal orders to do so. They kept repeatedly asking the judge "Show us the law that says this man must pay taxes." The magistrate could only reply "You have everything you need." The law was written the day the IRS sent him the letter saying "You must pay your taxes." They wrote common law.
I wrote common law the other day. My mother in law wanted to take my child on a trip. We wrote an agreement that states. "(mother-in-law's name here) has the authority to take my child, out of state (on these days) and make medical decisions for her." A notary public witnessed the signing, and stamped a seal on it. It is law. No cop, judge, or doctor can rule over that unless they claim that someone else's individual rights are violated theoretically. You can write you're own law, and it can say whatever you want, as long as it does not overlap someone else's law. Then you could be in big trouble when you try to enforce your law.
I once heard a saying "Swing your fist in any direction as long as it is well clear of anyone else's nose."
Some good links
- Moors in Court
He's disputing jurisdiction. He's challenging her under common law. The case cannot move forward until jurisdiction is settled. Sovereign concepts can be used by anyone. It is not an issue of race.
- SOVEREIGNTY AUDIO LECTURE
This fellow talks about the nature of a court of common law, the constitution, and how he sued 4 judges to get a court of record. He even found a judge in contempt of court when he gained CLEAR tribunal jurisdiction. This series is a long one.
More by this Author
The full view of Hydrogen Good news is that it ships with many distributions like 64studio and Medibuntu. That means the live cd will run it, and you won't have to go through installing a new operating system just to...
In my research for common law remedies of which I wrote a hub about, I've come across a movement known as the Freeman-on-the-land. I hadn't heard the term in over a decade. It has been since I knew a fellow who had...