14 votes

Common Law

A lot of legal theories are out there amongst liberty lovers because we can see that the rules of the constitutional republic are not being followed by those who have been hired to follow them.

So ...

Let's have a conversation about what the current "law profession" (lawyers, judges, cops, and politicians) think our system IS, versus what it actually was intended to be, and how we can push the people who have it wrong into doing what is right.

Let's start with: What is the Common Law? The Common Law dates back before the Revolution to Merry Ol' England. Does it date back before England? (I don't know; I'm asking). Anyway, we (Americans) inherited the Common Law system. It is the "common practices" by the people, as determined in court cases. When enough court cases all say the same thing ("If you steal your neighbor's mule, you must pay him twice the amount in value" or something like that), then that was considered "the law." There was no need for a legislature to make up a "code" for this; it was determined by court cases.

Fast forward to today and the "Common Law" is still court cases. But now it is mixed with court cases that have to do with legal principles in general (not too many of those) and court cases that are adjudicating regarding statutes (almost all cases these days).

If you have a dispute with your neighbor, there MIGHT be a Common Law principle that COULD allow a judge to render a verdict, BUT most likely that judge will INSTEAD turn to the Municipal Code to figure out how to make a judgement.

That is my take on it. Seems like the Common Law has been pushed aside because now there are so many statutes that judges just do what is easy and written down: they enforce codes.

Do I have this basically right or not? Correct if I am in error.

Now then ...

Those of you who post (or don't post) various legal theories as to what is really going on these days, where up seems down and black seems white, I have some questions:

(1) In a few sentences, how did this change occur? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

(2) What legal basis is used by a judge to use a statute rather than the Common Law, and can this same legal basis be used by me in reverse to enforce the Common Law on the judge? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

(3) What are the SPECIFIC things someone can do to AFTER they are either dealing with a bureaucrat by mail who is making allegations that the person "must" do this or that, or when dealing with a judge AFTER some sort of ticket has been written or charge made, that can go around statutes that have nothing to do with anyone violating another person's rights? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

I don't know how clear all this is because I am trying to understand these issues myself, so I don't know for sure what the right questions are. In a nutshell: How did everything go to hell in a hand basket, and what can we do outside of political elections and within the legal system to re-assert our rights -- WITHOUT declaring "sovereignty" or anything that turns our life upside down.

After all, IF the power has been usurped and is being enforced unlawfully, then by definition it is not valid. WE shouldn't have to upend our lives because of THEIR unlawful actions.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

original jurisdiction vs. appellate jurisdiction

appellate jurisdiction, or reviewing court, or court of review, is not the same as original jurisdiction. Courts with original jurisdiction hear cases at the trial level only ...
Hope that helps clarify a little. Also one of the law definations of agency: 2.A governmental body with the legal authority to administer and implement specific legislation. In closing Mr. Miller is exactly right.... You said you would LOVE to be wrong about it. Well... you might be.

Oh I see so you think you

Oh I see so you think you have it all figured out... So why did you ask if you were correct in your OP? Sigh! How many cases have you won? How many do you think Carl has won? Did it ever dawn on you that was probably a misquote or typed in wrong? I have a found a few things like that in his stuff but very few. This is why he tells you read the cases for yourself and the sections of law etc. He can't do it all for you and your not going to just copy a few quotes from him and win your case you need to understand what you are doing and why.

I am telling you I have studied this stuff near 30 years and been over all the so called gurus stuff and their strategies and advice filed all kinds of paper work and tried several strategies of theirs and Carl's stuff is the most sound and straight forward I have seen. If you think you know better knock yourself out and best of luck to you.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

No, I don't have it figured out ...

... that's why I started this thread. I wanted to see if we can flesh it out.

I haven't won any cases, certainly not with "non-conventional" stuff. Carl hasn't won any, either, as far as I can tell. Someone made a claim, but I don't see any proof.

It is unlikely that he simply misquoted a statute -- not Mr. Carl Miller. Hard to imagine that, but I can imagine that some of the statutes have been moved around and have different numbers now (like UCC 1-207 is now 1-308). That happens. BUT ... I doubt if his claim regarding a judge losing jurisdiction in the above example is anywhere specified in the statutes. Would LOVE to see it if it's there.

Carl also takes court rulings out-of-context. Still, his overall theme MUST be right. How could it not be? If the Constitution, Article 6, says ALL laws must be in conformance with it, and if there ARE Supreme Court cases that say that people have rights that cannot be turned into privileges, THEN there must be a way out.

THAT is what I am looking for. I just don't think Carl really fleshed it out in a way that could be (a) explainable to a judge in a court so that the judge dismisses the case, (b) explainable to a cop so that there is at least a 50/50 shot at getting out of a ticket, or (c) explainable to Average Joe so that we can convert more sheep.

I've read Howard Freeman's stuff, and I think he was the originator of the UCC arguments. I've also seen a debunk site that shows that some of the court cases he cites have nothing to do with what he claims, and that his claim of 1938 being a magic year is nonsense.

On the other hand ... his ideas about how to deal with a judge regarding jurisdiction seem to be credible and MIGHT be a way to go. "Judge, is this a criminal case or a civil case? --> Is it common law, equity, admiralty, etc."

Marc Stevens uses similar questions and gets cases thrown out -- he even does tax stuff, though I don't know how successful he's been with that. Still, there is nothing to connect all the dots to present a solid, sound argument.

Maybe such an argument does not exist, but that's what I'm after.

We can't just assume that people we HOPE are right really do have their ducks in a row. Because if they don't, and we try their stuff, there's a good chance it will flop.

I've read forums where cops are posting about various experiences they have, some of it with the sovereign stuff, especially in court rooms where, they claim, the "sovereign" always loses. But more important, it is obvious the pure disdain they have for anyone who would challenge "what is right" according to them.

I'm looking for that solid argument to back up liberty, as enshrined in the American founding.

Doesn't seem like it should be all that hard. But it is.

Some people just gotta learn

Some people just gotta learn the hard way I guess... Sigh! You say you want to flesh it out here but then say There is no proof Carl has won any cases and you think you're going to get proof here of anyone winning any cases? LOL!

You claim its not a misquote he didn't type all that stuff himself you know someone else did. And of course there is little context that is why you need to read the cases yourself he can't post each entire case that would be thousands of pages. With all the stuff bangin around in his head it is easy to quote the wrong cite on a law or case. They guy is getting up there in years too and is a Vietnam vet whose been shot 4 times in War and has other injuries but you don't trust him because of a couple errors... Sigh. What ever buddy I tried to help you best of luck.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!