4.  THE TRUE AMERICAN WAY IN LAW   (The views expressed herein are not necessarily identical with those held by the Court).

 

We have found that the rules and procedures regarding the common law were eventually combined with the rules and procedures of e- quity; "justified" under the guise of a "state of emergency." [NOTE: As of Oct 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, going as far back as prezident Carter. ]

To understand the full implications of this amalgamation, we first must examine (american) equity.

 

This distinction between what is and what ought to be may serve as a rough guide to the difference between common law and equity in the centuries after the fourteenth. Equity supplements the common law; its rules do not contradict the common law; rather, they aim at securing substantial justice when the strict rule of common law might work hardship. [Origins of the Common Law]

    In England, equity was a necessary extension of the common law, because their common law was based on the feudal law concerning freeholders. As the feudal system died out and the people's sense of right and wrong matured, equity (fairness) was introduced. We must understand that equity was introduced to promote what is right and just. In England the Courts of Equity were an attractive alternative to the common law. Unfortunately, it contains a principle of law that wicked men have used as to pervert American Justice; viz, the judge is not bound by supremacy of law.

 

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity [Art III, Sec. II, US Constitution]

 

Now, what was the Founding Fathers understanding of equity at the time of the writing of the Constitution? Our best guess is that they felt equity was a valid court to be used in a manner that resembles our binding arbitration of modern times. For whatever reason the parties to a suit might feel more inclined to let a judge determine the matter than having a jury. For instance, a small and insignificant matter could be quickly settled by a judge without the whole town being needlessly involved.

 

In American Equity the judge decides the matter, in American Common Law the jury does. Obviously, the procedures in equity will be dif- ferent than at law. That is to say, the rules of common law are inappropriate for many functions of the judicial system. The courts needed to be able to operate under two sets of procedural rules. One where the prerogatives lay with the jury, and one where the prerogatives lay with the magistrate. Magistrates would often prefer equity because not only was it expedient, it was up to the magistrate to decide what was right and what was wrong.

 

It's been said that equity had its origin in the "Divine right of King's." This is true, because the King has a right to establish courts over his subjects. However, it is a somewhat misleading statement, because in American Law every free person is considered a sovereign in his own right. America is a community of Kings, so there are very few natural persons which could be involuntary compelled to equity. The law is clear: A sovereign cannot be forced into a court of equity against his own will.  Equity follows the law.    [Bouvier's Dictionary]

 

In equity, the magistrate authority has the prerogative to decide what is right and just. The quality of what is right and just is directly re- lated to the integrity of the magistrate. Before the courts buried the common law, the body sovereign had insignificant exposure or direct contact with the "in-equity" side of the court.

 

The intent of the founders was to have a judicial system that would have the procedures and powers necessary for it to carry out its de- legated functions. It is indisputable that the purpose of the "in-equity" side of the court was to execute those objects necessary to keep secure the unalienable rights of the People. Equity has its place, and that is subordinate to the common law. Equity is good and needed, but the wicked have used it to bury the law.

 

In American Law, Godgiven rights to Man are supreme over any law passed by the government instituted by the People. It is your God- given right to life, liberty, and to the fruits of your labor.  Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property - this is man. And in spite of political leaders' games, these gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws. [Fred Bastiat]

This is a foremost principle of American Law…that no human legislation may rightfully interfere with your Rights. Thus, laws founded in individual rights are supreme over other types of law.

Well, we obviously have laws on the books that are not founded in the preservation of individual rights. These other laws are founded u- pon public policy. This is as it should be, however, those laws which are not founded upon our fundamental law are subordinate to the same.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of a law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment…In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.  A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in- sofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [16 Am Jur 2d 177, late Am Jur 2d 256]

 

To most of us, it is quite clear that the fundamental laws override everything to the contrary. Let us then try to apply this to a real world example. For instance, say you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. The fundamental law says that you have a right of liberty as long as you don't encroach on someone else's liberty. Obviously, the seat belt law is contrary to this, so we know that the seat belt law is pho- ny. Yet when we go to court, we are fined for not wearing the seat belt. The issue is clear: If the court is not observing the fundamental laws, then what laws are they observing, and how do they pull off such treachery? They pretend that we have volunteered to be before the judge in an e-quity proceeding.

[Also, one is free to act as he pleases in his own space (apt, garden, car) as long as he does not vio-late public rights, safety, wellfare, mo- rals, …]

Once the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Emergency was a political question – not a question of law or procedure – the Constitu- tion was broken. On that day the courts, which were established to secure God-given rights, began their journey to shut down the funda-mental law. The New Deal was to be built on the premise that our rights were at the mercy of the martial law authority. There was no other way to effect the New Deal that would even resemble law.

 

At this point, we must take a moment to explain that this was and continues to be a delusion on the part of American government. What is being done cannot be constructed as anything but treason : the body sovereign has been removed from its rightful position of autho- rity by men who would be God. We do not support their fallacious rationalizations; rather we report and oppose this treachery. Now when such acts are being committed, it is the wise despot who does so out of the spotlight. Thus the courts didn't come out and declare:

 

"Everyone is now under martial law, we are henceforth proceeding by rules of equity. All your supposed God-given rights have been sur- rendered to us – your government." Instead they began the process of intentionally ignoring a sovereign right here and there. One of those rights is the right to a trial by jury of peers from the locale where the crime was alleged to have occured according to the rules of the common law. When the court combined the rules of equity with the rules of at-law that right was denied. Our courts now operate almost entirely under the rules of equity. Since the judge is sitting in equity the prerogative to determine right and just is up to him. Sin- ce the U.S. is under martial law, the court says that anything the government says (public policy) is just and right.

 

The judges have wantonly abandoned their foremost function; viz, the safeguarding of the People's unalienable rights. They have sought absolution under the Supreme Court's ruling that the court has no authority to determine the question as to whether or not there is an actual invasion or rebellion. This is a blatant ruse for the courts to usurp powers for themselves. With the burial of the common law under the "in-equity" side of the court, the judges are left to determine what is right or wrong in all cases whatsoever.

                                                                                                                * * *

It seems obvious that most legislators, judges, law enforcement officers, etc. do not understand that the law has been turned upside down. They are just as confused (if not worse) than we are. They have been so busy jumping through hoops to get into their profession they've believed (hook, line, and sinker) everything the real Aristocrats of this game have been teaching them. Most of the folks in go- vernment (especially local government) are mere pawns, and so they don't realize how and why the law has been twisted. The Aristocrats know how and why the law has been twisted, some see it as the only means to control the unruly peasants, and others see it as the means to their own power and wealth.

These government agencies, as the teachings continue, can only accomplish their missions by dictating to the people what they can and what they cannot do. These commissions must, of necessity, have the authority to issue directives with the force of law. Since these a- gencies are staffed with highly trained government "experts," they are the only ones qualified to judge and interpret their own admini- strative orders. And, since government has been commissioned by the Constitution to provide for the General Welfare, it is the duty of government and a primary function of law to regulate and provide these services. [Ted Pedemonti]

 

Mr. Pedemonti correctly (in my opinion) shows the dangerous mentality of well-meaning, all-po-werful bureaucrats. Also, that the Federal and State Bureaucracies are self-appointed Aristocrats. We think it is clear that some of them have genuine, well-intentioned socialistic beliefs, and they are simply trying their best to help out us poor ignorant people (while taxing us by force to pay for their salaries and programs, we might add).

 

This line of thought subscribes to the ideology that the Constitution endorses the doctrine of public policy. However, this is completely false. To promote the general welfare is known to mean that the powers delegated to government are designed to promote the well- being of each citizen; or rather, the law shall harm no man who visits no evil upon his fellows. It is outright fraud or ignorance to miscon- struct this clause to mean that the government may do as it pleases, as long as the elected believe what they do is in the best interest of the Nation (public policy).

     To believe this construction is to give a green light to Socialism; it is to believe that the government is not limited in any way. "It is not true, that there must reside in all governments an absolute, uncontrollable, irresistible, and despotic power; nor is such power in any manner essential to sovereignty. Uncontrollable power exists in no government on earth. The sternest despotisms in any region and in every age are and have been under perpetual control. Unlimited power belongs not to man; and rotten will be the foun dation of every government, leaning upon such a maxim for its support. Least of all can it be predi-cated of a government, professing to be founded up- on an original compact. The pretence of an abso-lute, irresistible, despotic power, existing in every government somewhere, is incompa- tible with the first principles of natural right." [John Quincy Adams, Sixth President of the United States]

 

We hear many people claiming that they have a right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rent controls, price controls, welfare pay- ments, guaranteed minimum wage laws, free public education, free school lunch programs, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. They demand that the government must pass "laws" to protect their "rights" to these things. Since government itself produces nothing, the only questions that needs to be answered is: Who can be required by (force) law to supply these things? You? Me? Your next door neighbor? Does any- one have the right to force you or me to reduce our rents, lower our prices, pay someone more than he is worth or that we can afford to pay, render our services without compensation? This is Socialism which is that " ... way which seemeth right to a man, but is the way of death." [Ted Pedemonti]

    It only seems right that we take care of the homeless. Yet is it right to force a man at gunpoint to pay his taxes for this social program? That may sound absurd, but take just a moment to follow out the natural course of the American current system. If you decide you're not going to pay taxes, don't you think the IRS will come knocking at your door? If you still refuse to pay taxes, won't the IRS get a court or- der to sell some of your property? If you refuse to let the IRS take your property, won't they come back with guns?

 

We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money. [David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35]. I think the terror most people are concerned with is the IRS. [Malcolm Forbes, when asked if he was afraid of terrorism]

This is the length to which our system will go to ensure their social programs are "funded": Charity at gunpoint! But Mr. IRS Agent is not Robin Hood; whereas Robin returned the money to the folks to whom it belonged, Mr. IRS Agent gives the money to whom it does not belong. So while every-one will agree that charity is a virtue, I must part company with those that insist on charity at gun-point. Socia- lism uses force to carry out its doctrine, liberty uses morality to carry out its doctrine. I leave it to the reader to determine his own course.

At any rate, the well-intentioned reasons above expose why so many folks and officials were and are willing to have a legal system that has been turned inside out and upside down. We have to un-derstand that if everyone in government and law enforcement thought they were doing something sinister, the system would collapse. So one of the keystones upon which all else relies is that the masses mean well.

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice to- ward others and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the per- son or property of another - is wanting.

It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice towards others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as indi- vidual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the correspon- ding and co-equal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property. [Lysander Spooner]

* * *

… the jurisdiction of the courts of law and of equity have been amalgamated, and an entire system has been substituted, administered more according to the principles and modes and forms of equity than the principles and forms of the common law. [Bouvier's Dictionary]

 

Once you figure the system out, you can beat it at its own game. However, the risk is great and the price for failure is high, but it would be irresponsible not to point out that it can be defeated. However, this is the subject of another part of this book. The important thing that I have hoped to accomplish herein is to point out what is a real crime, and what is a "violation" based on public policy.

If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. [James 2:8]

 

The most insidious aspect of our whole legal system is that a violation of public policy is made to look like an actual crime. The malodo- rous decay of the judicial system centers around the proceedings of equity. This is more vile than a Chinese tribunal where you know go-  ing in that there is no pretense or disguise that you have unalienable rights, for we now know that in equity proceedings, the magistrate holds the prerogative to determine what is right and wrong. In equity, the court can and does make outlandish presumptions.

 

To those of us who have been in the courts on constitutional issues, it is obvious that the courts do not consider themselves bound by the Constitution. They have very little or no respect for the laws that secure our rights. When those to whom we have entrusted the ad- ministration of "our" laws have no respect for it, and, as a matter of daily routine, overrule it in favor of upholding public policy; just how honorable and trustworthy are they? When lawyers, judges and politicians place themselves "above the law," they place themselves "outside the law" and they become "outlaws" (crimi-nals) - the very ones they have been commissioned to protect us against. The ques- tion becomes, "Who is to protect us from our protectors?" [Ted Pedemonti]

 

That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mo-ral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightly be compelled to do or forbear because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstra- ting with him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he does otherwise. [John Stuart Mill, Knowing and Willing Consent]

 

The law, we have learned, has really not been changed. What has been changed is the venue and procedures that the justice system ope- rates by.  The U.S. justice system follows the rules of equity, rather than the rules of law. In truth, this has turned the justice system into a forum which is totally inappropriate for the majority of American cases.  Despite the fact that no bona fide state of emergency exists the court always presumes that there is one.  As it is now, it is not easy for the general public to unravel what has happened. Thus, they cling to rights that have no meaning in the equity side of the court. For most of them at this time it is too late, and the judge will trample right over their rights.  The time to solve the justice problem is BEFORE you are ever charged with a violation of public policy.  Everyone knows the justice system is fouled up, but how many of us are willing to do something about it?

 

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. [Frank Herbert]

 

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand... It never did... and it never will... Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." [Frederick Douglas (1857)]

 

This is a matter addressed later on, but it is important to point out here that the last and ultimate blame resides in the People. We will travel half way around the world to fight for countries that we couldn't even pronounce the week before, but we will not fight for our own nation. The land bleeds and the People have lost their way. We idly watch as the soul of the Nation dies. Woe unto us, for the last several generations we as a people have proven ourselves to be unworthy.

 

As we continue through this work it will be important to remember :

·  At-law and in-equity proceedings were properly instituted to address different sorts of actions before the courts. ·   The proceedings were unlawfully combined so as to usurp our authority over the courts. ·  Under the in-equity proceedings God-given rights and consti-tutional prohibitions are recognized at the pleasure of the court.

    The "success" of this shameful system is reliant upon the good intentions of the masses, under the guise of public policy (socialism).

-  If you understand this system it can be beat, however the risk is great. One mistake and your property is at forfeit; or you'll end up incarcerated.

-  Finally, we have ourselves to blame. The courts are here amongst us, they are ours to control, but in this we have failed, and so the ty- ranny continues.

                                             COMMON LAW

Common law requires that we use truth, reason, conscience, right and wrong to decide acquittal, or conviction and punishment. It also requires that for there to be a crime, there must be a real person who has been wronged. And, foremost of all, it requires that Justice be served.

Subtopic : Law of the Sovereign - Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law. [Declaration And Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774]

 

    At this point, you've crossed the phrase "common law" several times in this work. Also, we have mentioned the golden rule as the basis for common law. This is too general a definition for this work, let us then explore what is the common law.

 

COMMON LAW is a misleading term. The common law is not entirely the same whenever or whenever it is found. For instance, there is An- glo-Saxon Common law, the Common Law of England, and American Common Law. Yet wherever it is in use, the principles upon which it was founded remain inviolate forever. Though it may take on added principles as times may require, the founding principles are not a- bandoned and remain supreme. In this way, the common law provides a stable form of justice that can adapt to new questions of law.

 

American Common Law, in general, dispenses justice according to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures; it follows the procedures of the Common Law of England; it holds that every freeman is the king of his own person and property. The American brand of common law can be said to be the law in a nation of kings for the kings themselves. American common law is a body of general rules prescribing social conduct, enforced by courts of the body sovereign, and characterized by the procedure of a trial by jury, and by the doctrine of the supremacy of law. The common law is not a written code. It is not for special groups or interests and is not to be identi- fied with what is called equity.

 

In America, common law is based under the principle of Royal Law; which is known to many of us as the "Golden Rule". Royal Law or the Golden Rule is found in the Bible.  Even if we do not profess ouselves to be any sort of authority on religion, in the Bible we shall find Ro- yal Law, eloquently defined no less than in 3 instances:

 

If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. [James 2:8]

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them: This is the law... [Matthew 7:12]

"Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law... [Matthew 22:36-40]

 

It is teachings such as this that convinced the sons of liberty to declare and assume the powers of Earth to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitled them. And we all are no less entitled.

 

Now, it really doesn't matter whether or not we believe in the Bible. What we are saying is that the colonists believed in it, and estab-lished this law upon themselves. If you think we are wrong we challenge you to crack open the books and see the truth for yourself.

 

Royal Law, Nature's Law, and common law, these are the Laws to which we as sovereigns are bound. These are higher laws, above and beyond the scope of the Constitution.

 

Our way of life is by the laws of nature, of Nature's God ... the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government. [John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the U. S.]

Common law is not codified like the United States Code, or the Uniform Commercial Code; those are laws for government and corpora- tions, respectively. The common law has no great volumes of books to wade through. It does not consist of inflexible statutes, it is rather derived from natural principles that are self-evident. American common law – having for it's foundation Royal Law – is based upon the comprehensive principles of right and wrong, morality, justice, truth, equality, reason, conscience, empathy, and common sense. That is why Jefferson wrote: "State a moral case to a ploughman & a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

 

Artificial rules are for artificial entities,` i.e. governments and corporations. In this country artificial rules do not apply to natural sovereign persons, only Natural Law, or common law, so applies. As a sovereign, as a people, and as a jury it is up to us to judge what is fair, equita- ble, and logical. That power is not delegated to the Supreme Court or any government entity. That is our duty and our sacred obligatory. This is what is meant by the term "self-government"; our right and duty to effect justice for ourselves.

 

A distinction between American common law and all other forms of law is that common law makes justice and morality mandatory. No other law, that I am aware of, has this mandate.

 

Our government's only legitimate purpose is to serve the people; to act in their stead in a capacity that they themselves cannot well ser- ve. Such as"...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." This is Constitutional Law – that which applies to the government. Royal Law is that law which applies to Man.

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. [Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [Ninth Amendment ]

The Government can and does establish courts, but it is restricted to establish Justice as set forth by the Constitution, not as the Legisla- ture or Courts please. Our rights as sovereigns are not given up, nor limited by the Constitution. Nay indeed, the Constitution explicitly sets forth that the government is bound to observe those rights.

 

In modern times, we are horrified to witness our illegitimate justice system in action. Take the following hypothetical case:  A city govern- ment establishes a quiet time ordinance. This ordinance states that no one shall yell or cause a disturbance as to awake their neighbors between the hours of 10:00 pm to 6:00 am. This is a reasonable regulation since the liberty of others is compromised if not observed. However, Mr. Smith sees a boy in the street as a car speeds onward at the youngster. Mr. Smith screams to the boy, "GET OUT OF THE ROAD!" Mr. Jones, his neighbor, does not like Mr. Smith, so Mr. Jones files a complaint. The District attorney's office is operated by a bunch of dunderheads, and they feel that they have to prosecute to the letter of the law. Since this is not an infamous crime, the D.A. has the court summon Mr. Smith as a violator of civil code. At this point, Mr. Smith is given the opportunity to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, entrusting that the judge will see that this is a travesty of Justice. However, the system of law that we have been duped into is not just. The statute is that no one shall yell, and the fact is he did, therefore, Mr. Smith is guilty.

Now, my questions to the reader are: What is Justice? What is the Law? And who is the Criminal?

 

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. [John Jay, 1789, 1st Chief Justice, of the Federalist Papers]
The jury has the right to determine both the law and facts. [Samuel Chase, 1796, Signer of the Declaration of Independence]
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. [Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1902]
The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided. [Harlan F. Stone, 1941, 12th Chief Justice]
There is the existence of an unreviewable and irreversible power in the jury, to acquit, in disregard of the instructions on the law. [U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113, pg.1132 (1972)] [emphasis added]
The juries have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the law and the fact. [Sparf vs. U.S., 156 US 51, pg 80, 15 Sup. Ct. 273, pg 285]

 

These quotes talk about the juries right to determine the law.  Royal Law, the highest of American laws says: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them: This is the law..." All lower law must comply with this rule to be ap- plicable. Obviously, the city regulation is not applicable in this case, regardless of all else. Yet, in Mr. Smith's case he was not afforded a trial by jury. How do you suppose that came to be?

The answer is two-fold, First, Mr. Smith, like most of us, does not understand the court system, thus he allowed himself to be tried in an "administrative procedures court" that has no lawful jurisdiction over him. Secondly, Mr. Smith did not realize his rights even within this improper venue: he still retained the privilege of a trial by jury, if he would have so insisted.

 

Our current "unlawful" justice system (see The de facto Judicial System) is barbaric in comparison to what this country had in the 19th Century.  We've regressed.  What law I ask is better than "do unto thy neighbor as you would have him do unto you?"  What could be more open, honest, and fair? The answer is, in my humble opinion (as well as most theologians and the colonists) that nothing can pro- vide for a better society than a society that treats each other with respect. If you would have your say in court, then you must allow your neighbor to have his say. If you would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, then you must allow the same for your neighbor. If you would have freedom, then you must allow the freedom of your neighbor.  This is the law of the sovereign. Federal, state, and municipal statutes are of no effect if we the People decide that a statute does not comply with our law.

 

The powers to act as the sovereign, in our behalf, were delegated by the American People to the U.S. Government by the Constitution. Those powers are expressly limited in the Constitution.  That is why the U.S. Government cannot lawfully abridge our rights (including sovereignty). You should realize, that for the U.S. Government to claim that the People are not sovereign, would be for the U.S. Govern- ment to claim that, the Constitution is invalid. If the Constitution is invalid, the government thereby, is also invalidated. They can risk hi- ding away our rights, but they cannot risk attacking our sovereignty in the courts. It is the foundation on which they stand in the world community.

We have established that Constitutional Law applies to the government, and that common law applies to the People. The chart on the next page demonstrates the realms and functions of the different jurisdictions and bodies.

The jurisdiction(s) that the government will try to get you in will be on the bottom somewhere. The only jurisdiction that you can be tried in if you learn how NOT to waive your rights, and how to challenge a court's jurisdiction, is in the middle common law jurisdiction. In the common law court/jurisdiction the jury can judge the law, the fact, and deliver a verdict that is just; despite all else.  Only from this type of court is true american justice served.

 

Our laws are layered and our institutions are balanced with extreme care. The only thing that resembles anarchy is when the federal and state governments under "color of law", and with "words of art", grasp for more power and authority than they have been lawfully gran- ted by the People through their binding constitutions.

 

Realms and Functions Chart:     (to be added)

 

What you must realize is the law for the People is at a separate level than the law for what a city government would be. The government (an artificial body) determines the law for artificial bodies, like government and corporations. The People determine what are the Laws of Nature's God, as best they can, and apply those laws unto themselves.

That is the system the sons of liberty instituted, common law for the People, Constitutional Law (in the form of statutes and promulga-tions) for the government and corporations.  In general, federal and state regulation only applies to corporations and to government em- ployees.  Statutory laws only apply to us if we consent, as individuals and juries.  They do not apply to us if we do not consent. Our con- sent, ignorance, and dependence is the means by which laws are improperly applied.

 

As you look at the common law jurisdiction, you begin to understand just how the Government was to be held in check. The full power of the sovereign begins to be realized. This is one of the greatest revelations that you will ever have: The government has no lawful power over the individual, only the People's juries do.  This alone is what is meant by the coined phrase "self-government." Can you imagine a life of true liberty?  The Founders gave us such a Nation, but while we slept, others have labored diligently.

 

It needs to be set firmly in the reader's mind, before we close this introduction to the common law, the reason that the common law is so vital to Liberty.  As stated before, it is unwritten.  One can easily go back into the old law books and discover how it was administered. You can read the tenets upon which it was based, judicial commentaries upon it, etc. But you will not find it categorized and catalogued by a legislature.  This is its saving grace : Being unwritten, lawyers and legislators cannot amend it ; they cannot twist it ; they cannot pervert it ; nor change it in anyway whatsoever.  All they can do is try to bury it from our minds, but at any time it is there for us to dig up again. Once uncovered the jig is up for statute makers. The resurrection of the common law is the resurrection of our authority over those we place in office. Now you can see why they have labored so hard to bury the common law. Fortunately for us, they couldn't bury it deep enough.

* * *

We have seen, heretofore, that this Nation was founded on principles.  From these we are able to correctly see the Chain of Authority where the People – the body sovereign – are above both the Constitution, as well as the government. We see that the sovereign is not to be restrained in his rights by his own government, unless he is violating the rights of another sovereign. The final arbitrator of the sovereign is two seperate juries of twelve sovereigns each who have the authority and duty to know all the facts of a case, and then render a verdict according to Royal Law.  When the sovereign will not submit to the will of the jury (Grand or petit) he places himself outside the benefit of the law ; viz, he becomes an outlaw.

 

Consider the coined phrase, "We are a nation of law, not of men." What is our perception of this phrase and what does it really mean? It depends whom you ask.

 

Aristocrat: Everyone must obey the government authority, it's the law. Unless you're one of us.

 

Patriot: No man is above the Royal Law, Nature's Law, or common law, not the President, the Supreme Court, nor anyone else. To disobey any so called "lesser law" contrary to these higher laws is our Sacred Obligatory.  We will not be slaves, and we will not be masters.  We will be brothers, or we will be enemies ; for us there is nothing else.

 

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a moral crisis, maintain neutrality. [Dante Aleghieri]