Common Law, How to Implement this Court of Record.

“Custom and usage since time immemorial” is generally what is behind the definition of common law. There is no singular source of the common law as one would expect with statutes made by a legislature.

Having said that, consider also that law follows physical power.

Let’s pretend that you reset your brain almost to zero–you have no knowledge but your natural knowledge of good and evil, your natural intelligence, and a language with which to communicate with others. You are in your sovereign capacity, accountable to no higher authority, but acknowledging the sovereignty of others and that you may not diminish the sovereignty of others. You are at peace.

Along comes another being like you who causes you pain for which you want fair compensation.

At this point you have a choice: you can do immediate battle, or you can round up other like beings (we suggest 12 of them, a jury) and ask them to join you in battle. If you can get all of them to agree that you have a just cause, then it would be you and them against the accused (you+them=13 against 1).

They, not having been present at the time of the crime, being fair minded, demand that you justify your request (provide the rule and prove your facts).

You make your presentation, and the accused makes his counter-presentation. After the presentations (the trial) the jury retires to cogitate over two questions.

The first question: Is the rule valid? If, in the opinion of the jury your rule is not valid (jury nullification), then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree with your rule, then they move on to the second question.

The second question: Did the actions of the accused violate the rule. If, in the opinion of the jury he did not, then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree that your rule was violated, then they will join you (a guilty verdict).

If the jury’s decision is split, the issue remains unresolved, and a new trial may be needed with a new jury.

If the jury’s decision is unanimous, whether “guilty” or “not guilty”, the question is decided, and you now have 13 vs. 1. Depending on the verdict, the “1” would be either the accuser or the accused.

Whoever lost the case would be foolish to do physical battle against 13 opponents. Thus, through this process, we bring peace to the realm.

An accuser always has jurisdiction to accuse. The accused always has jurisdiction to defend. And, either one may grant jurisdiction to a jury to intervene.

That is the bare essence of the common law.

Anything more than that is an attempt to “improve” the process. However, so-called “improvements” often are imperfect.

Although there is no singular authoritative source of common law, much has been written over the past thousand years. Many have come to respect the thoughts and opinions of those who preceded them. Having respect does not mean to quit thinking. Education is the process of learning about prior conclusions. Those conclusions are a valuable guide to use to arrive at our own conclusions.

In true common law, there are no obligatory rules or precedents. A common law court (a court of record) has unlimited jurisdiction and is independent of government. All external factors are, at best, advisory, not obligatory.

The founding fathers understood all that. At his 1801 inaugural Thomas Jefferson said, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” And he wrote, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” [Letter, September 28, 1820.]

The self-correcting temporary imperfections of common law were preferable to the entrenched imperfections of legislated written laws. That is why they chose the common law as the law superior to statutes and all other forms law. They expressed that choice through the Constitution‘s 7th Amendment which essentially says that no court may second-guess (review) a decision of a jury.

Also, notice that, although the common law is outside of the Constitution, the Constitution authorizes the USA to support the common law with its judicial power. See Article III, Section 2-1.

A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may not second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges the common law as supreme:  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, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The purpose of this provision is to preserve the right to a jury trial as it existed at common law and under statutes in force when the Nebraska Constitution was adopted in 1875. The essential character of a cause of action and the remedy or relief it seeks as shown by the allegations of the petition determine whether a particular action is one at law to be tried to a jury or in equity to be tried to a court. State ex rel. Cherry v. Burns, 258 Neb. 216, 602 N.W.2d 477 (1999).

>>

The right of trial by jury is a right not extended by the Constitution but one preserved. In an equity case the court may, but is not bound to, give a jury trial. Omaha Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 50 Neb. 580, 70 N.W. 30 (1897).

>>

An action upon a contract for the payment of money only, unencumbered by any collateral agreements, contracts or securities whatever, is a legal action and the issue of fact is triable to a jury. Kuhl v. Pierce County, 44 Neb. 584, 62 N.W. 1066 (1895).

>>

Where a petition states a cause of action for equitable relief and prays for equitable relief, a jury cannot be demanded as a matter of right for the trial of any issue arising in the case. Sharmer v. McIntosh and Johnson, 43 Neb. 509, 61 N.W. 727 (1895).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

Rivera, Common Law:

 

>>

Section 61 set rules for establishing the Grand Jury. It states: Since we have granted all these things for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons (people), and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, forever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us.”

>>

Though the common law has been the subject of many books it is ultimately found written on every human heart.  This is where every common law juror finds the law to be applied to the case.

It may be politically incorrect, but it is true that only God can make the laws for a free people.

Ø      The United States Government personnel investigating the Governor know they must use “State of Illinois” grand jurors, but they  will try to use “state of Illinois” grand jurors to indict the governor.

Ø      The Common Law Jury members (acting as judges of the Law) were sworn to “Do equal law, and execution of Right, to all the King’s subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person”

In Federalist Papers #48, Alexander Hamilton wrote in part, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” “The Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as a fundamental law.”

The Sheriff is also a servant of the People, elected and paid by and for Them; upon taking office he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution (the People’s Law) and keep the peace.

The purpose of the English common law is to, also, govern behavior by making rules that are enforced by the people themselves sitting in grand and petit juries.  Questions of a common law marriage have to be determined by common law jurors, when the married partners can’t resolve them without resort to legal process.

Traditionally, the sheriff facilitated the operation of the common law by assembling the jurors for a common law trial.  Today, sheriffs operate the county jail and perform written law enforcement.   The people are not taught the law or its history, so they are doomed to repeat all the mistakes.  I am trying to teach them so they can qualify as common law jurors.

Ø      Common law marriage is not subject to licensing, recordation or registration.

Ø      The authority for the law comes from property rights not sovereignty.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

Common Law Court:

The failure or refusal of the President of the United States of America and all the members of Congress to subscribe a written oath “to support this Constitution” makes it impossible to ordain and establish an Article III judiciary.  The States can, however, implement Article IV and Article V, if limited to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

>>>

Proposed Rules:

1. Never serve summons, or attempt to collect a judgment on USA owned land without first getting written permission. Jurisdiction

(USA does this if they know they are being watched.)

2. Independent servers, using digital devises to record the service, with notarized Affidavit of Service / Notice.

3. We can do most of it just exactly like the Federals do, but better.

4. Digitally record both video and voice of all proceedings/hearings and give them to the leaving party each day.   Have minimum of one back up digital recorder for safety.

5. Have a large visual digital recorder time display so that one can mark time so that reference can be easily posted by any one in the court room.

6. Have screen(s) that displays what exactly is being recorded for all to see.

7. Elect / Appoint our own general / local sheriff.

8. Put the hearing on the internet immediately after the days hearing so that many people can aid in the outcome of the hearings.

9. Provide video depositions to be entered into the record.

10. Have voice recognition software that will convert the speech into text.

11. Only have non-criminal hearings to begin with.

12. Jury selected according to the organic laws of Articles of Confederation 1777.

13. Jury of 12, or 6.  Defendant can demand 12, or Plaintiff can demand 12, but both must agree to convene 6.

14. Jury can ask questions during the trial.   If a majority of the jury decides that one juror has exhausted his question opportunity that juror is bard from asking question provided his questions have taken min. of 30 minutes thus far.

15. Only common English shall be allowed.

16. Cost can be imposed on losing party if jury decided the action was thrivelouse.

17. Court cost and Jury shall be paid by losing party.   Each juror is given the opportunity on the record to be compensated for his time.  ($ per day not per hour.)  Every attempt shall be made to hold the cost down so that everyone can have access to remedy.

18. Anyone can speak as council for another, not as evidentiary, but as opening and closing statements.

19. Anyone can quietly aid any party in the suit.

20. Certified copies are required unless waived by opposing party.

21. All communication between the Plaintiff and Defendant shall be by internet so that a record can be maintained.

22. An overseer shall be available in aiding pretrial discovery.

23. All discovery not answered shall be presented to the Jury and the Jury shall decide if the unanswered discovery is for just cause or as attempt to hide evidence, and therefore have option to hold the unanswered portions against the un-answering party.

24. Jurors shall communicate by email prior to trial only to the needs of electing the time for trial.  The Overseer, Defendant, and Plaintiff shall have opportunities to communicate to the jury by the/through the Overseer on this one issue of “setting trial date”.  No Plaintiff or Defendant shall converse with any juror at anytime from the onset of the initial summons until after the trial is complete.

25. A facilitator shall be appointed for the day of trial.  Duty is to provide fairness, equal access to the jury, to all parties.

26. Complaints are to be presented point for point.

27. Points in complaint shall be presented individually.  Defendant has the opportunity to challenge each individual point one at a time.

28. Jurisdiction must be clearly stated on the record.  The Court shall present on its website the various known jurisdictions that the court holds.

29. All exhibit documents shall be held by the Court for six months, unless asked for by the offering party.  Opposing party can contest and give cause for no release for issues of pending fraud for up to the six month term.

30. All offered exhibits can only be viewed by any party under video recorded surveillance.

31. No evidence surprise shall be allowed.

29. Filling fee shall be. $________.___.  No exceptions allowed.

Fee shall include:

a. Audio and Video recording cost.

b. Court docket filing fee.

c. Court room lease cost.

30. Option of several trials shall scheduled if possible to utilize a jury pool for the day.

31. Jury pool shall be voluntary.

32. Counter suits are aloud.

Please add to this list as needed, and email it to me, I’ll then put it on my website pauljjhansen@hotmail.com for all to see that day.

Our goal is to set a national standard, that others can freely adopt.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

 Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

About Paul John Hansen

Paul John Hansen -Foremost I love the Lord, His written Word, and the Elect Family of God. -My income is primarily derived from rental properties, legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations. -I am a serious student of territorial specific law, and constitutional limitations of the US and STATE Governments. -I have been in court over 250 times. -I have received numerous death threats that appear as to come from NEBRASKA STATE agents. -I have been arrested an estimated 8 times. Always bogus false warrants, misdemeanor charges. (Mostly Municipal Housing Codes, or related acts.) -I file no Federal Income Taxes (1040 Form) since the year 2001. (No filings in any form.) -I pay no State income taxes. -I do not pay STATE sales tax on major purchases. -I pay no COUNTY property taxes with out a judicial challenge. ( I believe I have discovered a filing for record process that takes my land off the tax roles. ) -I currently use no State drivers license, carry no vehicle liability insurance, do not register my automobiles. -I do not register to vote for any representatives. -I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.) -I am subject to the Church jurisdiction, and a strong advocate of full ecclesiastical independence from the United States jurisdiction. -I believe in full support of the perpetual Union as found in the Articles of Confederation. -I believe that a free inhabitant has the lawful standing to choose to live independent of the constitutional corporate US governments, and its statutory courts in the vast majority of his daily life, and to be forced to do otherwise is slavery. -I believe that most all US written law is constitutional, but most all of that same law is misapplied upon jurisdictions where it has no force and effect of law and the bar association has perfected a system of keeping the people from knowing its true application. Order my 5$ presentation 'Free Inhabitant One A', for the truth in limited jurisdiction of all US written law.
This entry was posted in Common Law, Court. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Common Law, How to Implement this Court of Record.

  1. julio suriel says:

    Thank you, for service to us, “the people”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *