“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
Information on this page is shared for educational purposes with thanks to the original publishers 1215.org (Bill Thornton) and Mises Institute both of which have done amazing work to unlearn and re-educate the American people. The purpose of presenting these documents is to show you how the STATE has barstardized common law in to a another foreign system for revenue generation via Roman Civil Law. This latter system as can be seen below was invented for the CROWN STATE to generate revenue!
One of the most important things to consider here is how the De facto Couped STATE has destroyed the common law system to turn common law crimes - a crime of a wo/man v another wo/man in to a CHARGING opportunity for the state! If you stop to think about the fact that the State is just a piece of paper and cannot actually be harmed then the absurdity of what we let the state get away with should be absolutely apparent - especially when we consider that the American common law system is the law of the land to this day yet the FOREIGN UNITED STATES Corp. and its FIFTY SUB Corps. is foisting 329,000,000 under Roman civil law when doing so is an absolute violation of the principals on which our nation and nation states were founded upon! This is especially a crime when their is no injury or property violation!
Under common law
Corpus Delicti (The Body Of Evidence) The Smoking Gun
The fact here is that America is an occupied nation. The people have been dumbed down to believe up is down and down is up! That Roman Civil Law is the law of the land when of course it is NOT! To expand on the details of all of this here will make this document so long and unreadable. If you can grab a few of the distinctions made herein then you will be ahead of the game and ready to do further un-learning, re-education at another reading.
The document below from Misses exposes how this came about. We can see that the CROWN is at the center of this criminal RICO again which is of course the CROwn Corporation of London under Rothschilds management and the unholy Roman cult system which stands on the presumptions of the Vatican Trusts and and Cestui Quest Vie Acts of the Crown Corporation of London which especially includes the infamous Cestui Quest Vie Act of 1666 in which the STATE captured our Estates through an act of Monumental fraud.
Based on the above knowing the law and who you are makes the difference of being bound to Roman civil law or standing in your own Court of Record.
In the USA there are two systems of law: Roman Civil Law and Common Law. Roman civil law is the law of the legislature. Common law is the law of the people.
Attorneys are well trained in Roman civil law, but they have near-zero training in common law. However, the common law trumps Roman civil law. Even the Supreme Court of the USA may not second guess a decision of the common law.
A court is defined as "the person and suit of the sovereign." That means that the plaintiff is the sovereign and owner of the court. In any action at law, legally speaking, the plaintiff is the king and retains all powers for himself, including the power to make court judgments. A judge of a court only has those powers which are delegated to him by the plaintiff king.
"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law."
A court of record is the only fully empowered [superior] court in America. All other courts are inferior courts.
Ask any attorney and he will explain that a court of record is a court that keeps a record of the proceedings and has the power to fine or imprison for contempt. That's only half the story. The rest of the story is that it is a court that proceeds according to the common law (no statutes), and the tribunal (the one doing the judging) is independent of the magistrate (the judge). Notice that in a court of record the judge is not allowed to do any judging; judging is reserved to the tribunal. In a court of record there are only two entities that are true tribunals: the sovereign of the court (the plaintiff), and the jury (if present). Several times I have fined judges for contempt of court when they refused to obey the law of the court.
A court of record is a "superior court."
A court not of record is an "inferior court."
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.
The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.
It is binding on ALL other courts.
However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 193, 202-203 (1830). [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
A note from 1776R, I wanted to write an article on the fact that the state has created a monopoly over the legal system using private foreign rules and codes of a private corporation in absolute violation of anti Trust Law.
The system has been designed to limit legal remedy of the people and extort the people for the Banksters that stand behind the monopolized legal system!
The article falls short of many of the points that I would like to see made - especially on the slavery system hiding behind Roman Civil Law Courts which is covered here to some degree:
"The People vs..." — Why the State Claims To Be a Victim of Crime
Our criminal justice system offers an interesting paradox. If a criminal commits a violent action against a peaceful person — say, a mugging or a murder — then for justice to be done, the police have to arrest the criminal and try him in a court of law. If convicted, the criminal will be imprisoned where his livelihood is provided by tax dollars, and those taxes will be paid, in part, by the very person he committed the crime against in the first place.
In short, victims of crime — on the rare occasion that state justice is carried out — are victimized twice: once by the private criminal, and a second time by the tax-extracting government.
Most people never question this system. It’s just the way it is and has always been. But once this paradox is recognized, it is easy to see that the root of the problem rests in the fact that in our modern court system, the State itself plays the role of the victim. The criminal owes a “debt to society” – and society, of course, is always represented by society’s government. The State is the universal victim of all crime.
This was not always the case. In Anglo-Saxon law, prior to the Crown’s encroachment into the legal system — which was a gradual, centuries-long process — the private victims of crimes were the ones responsible for bringing suit, and any debt owed by a criminal was to be paid to the person whose rights were actually violated. In any system of customary or spontaneous law, this appears to be the model that develops.
In English law, there were various courts that served each of the several respective needs of a legal system. After the Norman Conquest, the English monarch began to insert itself into the legal system as a means of raising revenue. Bruce Benson traces this history. “Beginning with Henry I, authoritarian legislation became increasingly important.”1 Traditional common laws were codified, and the fines for statute offenses were formally stipulated with designation as to who gets paid what amount for any given offense.
Customary law was still maintained in the legal system, and the royal courts only applied where the Crown claimed jurisdiction. These were offenses that violated “the King’s Peace.” The problem was, with a monetary incentive for the Crown, what constituted “the King’s Peace” was open to interpretation. Bryce Lyon elaborates:
In the growth of this list [of violations of statute law] we may be certain that although the king’s concern for law and order was a cause, another interest was need of money; to increase his income the king only needed to use his prerogative and throw his jurisdiction over another offense.2
To expand jurisdiction, the king began allowing appeals to be made to the royal courts. To do this, the appellor had to claim that the appellee was not only violating his personal rights, but that the “King’s peace” was also being violated. Thus, the Crown shared victim status with the individual bringing suit.
Lyon offers more commentary: “By creating this fiction, practically any offense could be interpreted as a breach of the king’s peace and so brought before the royal court.”3
Following this, the notion of a “felony” was introduced to English law. Originally, this referred to any betrayal or crime by a vassal against a feudal lord. Now the feudal lord was the sole victim of felony offenses, and this concept was open to expansion as well. “Again,” Lyon tells us,
royal greed seems to be the best explanation for the expansion of the concept of felony. Any crime called a felony meant that if the appellee was found guilty his possessions escheated to the king. The more crimes called felonies, the greater the income, and so the list of felonies continued to grow throughout the twelfth century.4
In a previous article, I discussed how the evolution of royal law led to the creation of our modern prison system. The introduction of prisons and the expansion of felony claims occurred concomitantly as the crown sought more sources of revenue. Under Henry II, royal courts expanded through the introduction of itinerant judges who traveled from shire to shire to adjudicated disputes under the growing body of felony law, which required the holding of prisoners.
Additionally, the concept of a “frankpledge” was introduced, which obligated citizens to help enforce the royal law by carrying out police duties (not unlike the infamous obligation imposed on northern US citizens under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850). Citizens who were found in violation of their frankpledge could also face a fine for simply failing “to pursue criminals or report all crimes through inquest juries.”5 The frankpledges — which at times were levied against entire communities — demonstrate the growing view that the Crown was the victim; in this case, it was the victim of a violation of a “contract” imposed on the citizenry as part of a supposedly reciprocal agreement that the State will uphold justice as its end of the bargain.
Along with other legal innovations, such as the development of new kinds of writs — which compelled defendants to appear before a royal court — and juries — which were originally used to make accusations and provide information to the king’s judges (a different function than the modern jury), the king established the office of “Sheriff” to seek and arrest felons in order to create more disputes that could be brought to the royal courts. More disputes meant more revenue. But now, like our modern justice system, the writs, juries, and sheriffs were being used to find conflicts even in cases in which no victim cared to bring suit. Unlike the early appeals to the royal court, the State became the sole “victim” in a case, rather than merely sharing victim status in the case that a true criminal offense also violated the King’s Peace.
A significant development that grew out of this by the end of Henry II’s reign was the distinction between “criminal” and “civil” offenses. Civil offenses were those covered by traditional customary law, in which the victim of an offense brought a tort against the person accused and was due restitution. Criminal cases were those that generated revenue for the king. Instead of paying restitution to the victim, criminal violations made the Crown the victim of offenses that may or may not have a private victim.
As Anglo-Saxon law continued to involve, criminal offenses became more and more the norm. As Benson writes, “By the middle of the thirteenth century, the King’s high courts were moving toward the institutional structure that would last into the late nineteenth century. The Court of the King’s Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of the Exchequer became identifiable entities with identifiable jurisdictions.”6 As the law grew, the State officially established itself as the universal victim.