I was once told by a cop in New England that there was no common law except in Massachussetts because they were a common wealth. This is not true. Common law is the Constitution. It is the law of the land. It is what governs this whole country. Statutory law is the law for children of the state, also known as employees of the federal gov. They have EINs, SSNs, etc. to try and make you believe you are the number. They also call it 'color of law' not actual 'law'. Once you see that there are 2 different worlds going on at the same time you can not un-see it. The statutory law is what is being used right now to take the rights of us all. ⭐Never Seen Anybody Ask for THIS on a Traffic Stop
This s is why we have a SCOTUS! So that when the "Rules" of men conflict with our natural rights, or conflict with the "Corporation" that is the States United and You, there is a legal means to redress it! Now ask for a Common Law Judge to hear your case, Go on, I dare ya!
Ummm… not sure how to gently say this but … umm the definitions presented for the law types are not correct. Common law is derived from the decisions of courts and their judges. English common law was derived from court decisions going back to the middle ages when there was no written laws or rules and folks relied upon how the judges ruled and effectively defined the law. While there are aspects of English common law the founders considered and embodied in the US constitution they are not one in the same. Statutory law are those laws pasted by Congress and signed by POTUS or by a state legislature and signed by the governor. Those laws can very much apply to everyone, not just gov employees. Next there is regulatory law where the statutory law delegates details of how things are to be regulated and administrated to gov agencies. Lastly is case law which is sometimes called common law. Sometimes case law is considered more specifically as being comprised of judicial rulings of appellate courts and supreme courts having specific authority over the jurisdiction in which the law is being applied. Case law is actually quite important to monitor as it changes based on court decisions. Then in cases where gov officials have potentially violated one’s constitutional rights if you try to sue them they may be granted qualified immunity unless there is clearly established precedent in the case law that they can’t do what they did to you.
Let me put this gently, What is the difference between a statute and a law? You get back to me when you figure it out. Are you saying that the Supreme court doesn't matter? It sounds like you are saying that Supreme Court rulings have nothing to do with the people. Lastly? The Constitution is lastly? What are you a cop or a 2nd rate lawyer? "Then in cases where gov officials have potentially violated one’s constitutional rights"... there are no Constitutional rights. The Constitution protects god given rights. Did you even watch the video link I posted? We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Supreme Court has ruled that these can not be taken away by statutory law, only by our consent. The right to travel is guaranteed by the right to liberty. The right to life is the right to not be taxed on eating, breathing, or working and earning an income needed to live. These are basic fundamental rights that every man on earth should enjoy. In America we had the good sense to put it in writing. THAT was the reason we were a beacon of light to the rest of the world. It had nothing to do with cowboys or patriotism or the military. It was because of god given freedom outlined in the law. Under your argument we would still have slavery. Just because salves couldn't read doesn't mean the laws don't exist or apply to them. It took a while but we figured that out as well. Saying that statutory law can over ride the Constitution is the reason we have so many problems today. Statutory law is color of law that governs a specific society given the force of law by that society. What is the difference between color of law and actual law? One is an impostor. It looks like law but its not. They had to create it to deceive the people. To say that statute applies to general society is gross negligence equivalent to fraud and the Supreme Court agrees. Maybe you should figure out why you're wrong and why the Supreme court is right? In 1966 they said "The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Arrow Transportation Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Com'n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963); State v. Kouni, 58 Idaho 493, 76 P.2d 917 (1938); Packard v. O'Neil, 45 Idaho 427, 262 P. 881, 56 A.L.R. 317 (1927); Abrams v. Jones, 35 Idaho 532, 207 P. 724 (1922); Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136 (1963); People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210, 363 P.2d 180 (1960); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1 (1950); Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003 (1952); Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 46 N.W.2d 52 (1951); Ballow v. Reeves, 238 S.W.2d 141 (Ky. 1951); Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d 869 (1958); Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878 (1st Cir. 1953)." Adams v. City of Pocatello, 91 Idaho 99 | Casetext Search + Citator. In 1972 they said “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads It is pretty obvious that they make a distinction between a person and a natural person. A person being a fictitious corporation and a natural person being men and women. Which are you? Use your brain. Why are there 2 different persons? Because there are 2 different laws and they have to figure out which one you are under.
Try driving in any State without a driver's license and see what happens! Same for insurance! The cops love it when some" roadside lawyer" (aka jackass) starts this bullsh*t, it makes for some funny mug shots!
Did you not watch the video I linked? That IS a cop reviewing someone doing exactly that. I mean really, most cops are morons who actually think they are Judge Dredd. Their only concern is filling a quota. They could care less about the law and do their best to make sure they win to satisfy their god complex.
Since people seem determined to turn this into a cop sucking contest, here's your sign UTTERLY INSANE Militarized Traffic Stop in Harrisburg PA!!
The point I am making is that the Supreme Court has ruled that we all have rights and they can not be infringed and yet it is done every day. The people you see trying to stand up for those same rights that their god has given them are also fighting for yours and my freedom to do the same. They are laughed at all the time. They are threatened and imprisoned and tortured, beaten, and killed all the time, but you know what, they are also going to win.
There is a house in the next town over that was built in the early 1900s. It has been abandoned for about 70 years so a local real estate developer moved in to renovate and upgrade. He got the wiring and heating and plumbing done and tried to list it for rent when a family of the original land owners walked in with the original land patents and kicked him out. He thought he could fight it using adverse possession laws or squatters rights. He had done this with a bunch of other houses in the area and won in court. The owner, who belonged to a local wealthy family pulled out the patents with full chain of title and the real estate developer had his quit/claim torn up by the court. Why did he win in all the other cases and lose in this one? Because common law ALWAYS trumps statutory law. The foundation of this nation was real property ownership. That’s why the settlers came here. To insure private ownership of land, the nation’s founding fathers made it unlawful for government to own land except for the ten square miles of Washington D.C., and such as may be needed for erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. (The Constitution) When an American fulfills the requirements to obtain a “Land Grant” the grant is assigned by, and made patent under, the hand and seal of the President of the United States of America, in accord with an Act of Congress. Fictitious entities, like trusts, corporations, etc. cannot obtain land patents except by express act of Congress. An example of Congress granting land through patents to fictitious entities is the railroad grants made to compensate the railroad companies for building railroads across America. The Land Patent is the only form of perfect title to land available in the United States. Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 US 498; 10 L.Ed. 264 In America today people think they own their land, but unless they have the Land Patent on the land they may not own it. Most people today obtain "Real Estate" by contract and then on fulfillment of the contract they transfer control of land by "Warranty Deed". However, a "Warranty Deed" is merely a "color of title"; and, color of title can mean: “that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title”. Howth v. Farrar, C.C.A. Tex.; 94 F.2d 654, 658; McCoy v. Lowrie, 42 Wash. 2d 24, Black's Law Sixth Ed. It is important to note that when in contest a Warranty Deed cannot stand against a Land Patent. A grant of land, made Patent, is a public law standing on the books of the State and is notice to every subsequent purchaser under any conflicting sale made afterward. Wineman v. Gastrell, 53 FED 697, 2 US App. 581 The Land Patent is permanent and cannot be changed by the government after its issuance. "Where the United States has parted with title by a patent legally issued and upon surveys made by itself and approved by the proper department, the title so granted cannot be impaired by any subsequent survey made by the government for its own purposes." Cage v. Danks, 13 La.Ann 128 . In the history of this county no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. As a matter of fact in Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 198 the Supreme Court ruled forever that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case the land in question was tidewater land and California's claim was based on California's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California's Constitution. Land cannot be taken for debt or taxes, but Real Estate can be. What is Land? By definition: “‘Land’ is not restricted to the earth's surface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is it confined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds such things as gases and liquids. A definition of ‘land’ along the lines of ‘a mass of physical matter occupying a space’ also is not sufficient, for an owner of land may remove part or all of that physical matter, as by digging it up and carrying away the soil, but would nevertheless retain as part of his ‘land’ the space that remains. Ultimately … ‘land’ is simply an area of three dimensional space, its position being defined by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth's surface. ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space, although, as we shall see, the owner of that space may well own those fixed contents. Land is immovable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable; it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible. The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.” Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2nd ed. 1988) Reprinted in Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition What is Real Estate? It’s a document that lays over the land in color of title; though it is not the Land itself, it may include with it the right to real property that sits upon the Land. Banks and corporations like Real Estate because they can own it without an Act of Congress. They and others can use the fiction of title to it to seize property under the color of law. They've taken their colors of title into the courts for so long that the people (under three generations of deception and ignorance) simply allow them to go ahead. Generally, people seem to have forgotten about land patents. For that cause when you go into a court today with a real land title case (a Land Patent case) chances are the judge and any attorneys involved won't know what a Land Patent is. The first court you run into that understands the power of a Land Patent may be a U.S. Circuit court of Appeals, and in the history of this nation there has never been an appellate case where a properly set Land Patent has ever lost its title to the Land. If you ever have the occasion to have to defend your deeded right to your land in court and someone else presents their proof of right to that land secured by the land patent, you'll lose your land unless you have similar proof. If you haven't secured your right to your land by its land patent, you may be abandoning your right to your land and any prior owner with lawful right to the land patent could secure it to themselves and evict you off from the land you thought was yours, and you'll have to leave. So contact us and get your land patent secured. It's important. Now, let's suppose you have your Land Patent properly secured and for some reason you have to defend your right to the land. What do you do? If you understand the patent and how it works you'll defend it successfully. So again, here's how it works: The Land came to the nation by treaty or war prize. The government only had limited ability to own land, as before mentioned, and all of the remainder of the land was held in the sole disposition of the United States until it was granted under act of Congress by the hand and seal of the President to some person. Then in that same act the President makes the Grant Patent. Which means that the Land came to the nation by treaty and the patent assigns a specific part of that treaty to you and your heirs and assigns forever. So, your land comes to you from the treaty through your Land Patent. This is critical, the Land Patent secures the treaty to you. The court is bound by the supremacy clause of the Constitution to uphold the treaty making your Patent a statutory limitation throughout the land. Wineman v. Gastrell, 53 FED 697, 2 US App. 581. If you ever have to defend your right to the Patent here's how. Get a full abstract on your land. The Abstract will show the assignment on the land and patent from the patent to you. Each record of the Abstract is a matter of public record, well established over time. If your right to the land was well secured (with a properly secured Warranty Deed) and you have properly accepted and secured the Land Patent to that Land (Team Law's documentation has worked over 60 years), you'll win, if you're prepared. Land Patents: Understanding how they work.
What about money? The Constitution says: Clause 1 Treaties, Coining Money, Impairing Contracts, etc. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility That hasn't been changed by Constitutional Amendment. Why are people using paper fiat? Because they are ignorant of the law. The banks counted on this when they made debt the monetary standard. Why did we need a Constitutional Amendment for prohibition but not to change the money? Because FDR issued Executive Order 6102 essentially converting the US into a banana republic we haven't been able to buy and sell with gold and silver since. The thing with Executive Orders is that they only apply to the Federal Government. How did they get the people to voluntarily follow those rules that don't apply to them? The Social Security card. By having and using it, you are technically an employee of the FedGov. Courts call it an employee identification number. This is how they were able to regulate things that they were forbidden from them touching. It is high treason and they did it anyway. Constitutional scholar and presidential candidate Michael Badnarik explains it like this: Banks are defined as government bodies thus: 26 U.S.C. §561 For purposes of sections 582 and 584, the term “bank” means a bank or trust company incorporated and doing business under the laws of the United States (including laws relating to the District of Columbia) or of any State, a substantial part of the business of which consists of receiving deposits and making loans and discounts, or of exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under authority of the Comptroller of the Currency, and which is subject by law to supervision and examination by State or Federal authority having supervision over banking institutions. Such term also means a domestic building and loan association. Notes are defined as debt. The terms “bonds and notes of the United States”, “bonds and notes of the Government of the United States”, and “bonds or notes of the United States” used in this chapter shall be held to include certificates of indebtedness and Treasury bills issued under section USC 3104 of title 31. Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia
Nice, but I prefer to share the roads with people that know how to drive and have insurance. Also, I prefer to spend my time at work making money or at home....not in jail or court.
That is a very common misconception. Having a license does nothing to make sure you drive properly. Most of the tens of thousands of common law drivers have never been in an accident and are some of the safest people on the roads. Insurance laws have only been around for a few years. I remember when they changed. People had insurance before them and those that didn't paid for their damages out of their pockets. It worked exactly the same as it does now only we were freer and insurance lizards were poorer. Insurance companies have also made it so that you get less money for damages when someone does have an accident. They fight it tooth and nail and people get screwed all the time. They use legal loopholes and spend tons of money on lawyers to get them out of paying.
When I was in high school, I had a teacher called Miss Mac, who had gotten her first driver's license at Woolworth's Five and Dime! There was no written test, no road test! Like a hunting or fishing license doesn't mean that you know how to hunt or fish, this piece of paper didn't mean that she knew how to drive! I fact she told us that she didn't know how to drive at the time! That was a hundred years ago, and we don't want people going to the Five and Dime or Walmart for their driver's licenses! We can't have people making up their own rules of the road as they go along! There have to be some standards! What we have is a right to travel, not necessarily a right to drive! Like many of our other rights they can be restricted if someone in unable or unwilling to follow the rules that are set in place for the safety of society. Those who are blind can't drive! Drunks can have their right to drive revoked! No right is so sacred that it cannot be revoked, under certain circumstances! These include, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, voting, gun ownership, property, etc.!
While this is a response to your post, when I say you, I am speaking generally. I don't mean you specifically but people with this type of opinion. The only law that really matters to the people in the situations that you listed is property rights. If someone violates another's property they have to pay. That is how it was setup and it eliminated all of those BS taxes/statutes. For example, before the 1980s when you crashed your car and didn't have insurance, the relevant law was property. Did you damage another's property? If so, then you had to pay for it. Your blurring of the distinction between rights and privileges is common place today. It is also the reason the country will fall. People can be convinced to give up rights for privileges all day long. All you have to do is give them a 'what if' and they throw their god given sacred duty in the trash. For every right you have you also have a duty. If you don't know what that duty is the state will put you in the child of the state category. When I went to get a drivers license I signed it "UCC1-308 all rights reserved". The lady at the counter erased that part and told me "a drivers license is you giving up certain rights" and she was right. Rights can only be given up voluntarily. You are trading a right for a privilege any time you SUBMIT to a form. If the people care even a little bit about this country it is their duty to know the difference. Making decisions in ignorance leads to oblivion. What is driving? Do you know? If you watched ANY of the videos I posted you would see that it is "conducting business". Look it up yourself in Blacks Law dictionary. I have. It says "conducting business from a cart, carriage, buggy, or motorized automobile, like a taxi or bus or delivery driver". Are you transporting passengers on a daily basis? No. You have to agree that you are when pulled over. That is the legal definition and yet if you ask any cop out there, they don't know that, and yet they try to enforce it. So how do we win? By lifting those up around us. Show the cop the law and ask him about it. Don't fight him on it. Just try to educate him as to the law. Some cops will write you a ticket 100% of the time if you record the stop. They look at you as being combative and because their jobs are dangerous they don't put up with that. If you are friendly and simply show them the proof you have a better chance of winning. I know, I have seen all of these situations first hand. What are the conditions for people to lose their right to life as you stated and Chello liked? What are the conditions for you to lose your right to pursue happiness? What makes you able to overwrite the Constitution? It says that they are unalienable. Do you know the difference between a right and a privilege? I know you keep proving you don't but I am encouraging everyone to go find out what it is. Your argument is a slave mentality. Some call it Stockholm syndrome. You are defending your oppressors with irrational arguments and unwilling to even consider the option that you might be wrong.
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” ― Mark Twain
