The use of understanding Common Law

tridean

tridean

Jedi Master
Hi All,
I did a search for common law on here and the results suggested it is not much of a topic on it's own and was curious as to the general feelings towards the topic and specifically the following:

From my research into the matter and that of Thomas Anderson and Malcolm McClure (both from Australia), and Mary Croft (which some of you know of here) that we are locked into our lives in the Martrix through the corporate entity we become from the use of our NAME and all our dealings with corporations, the Law, the government etc are dealt with as entities vs entities.

We become bound by the statues created by these entities as long as we act as an entity, i.e. our NAME etc etc and that the statutes created by these entities have no legal power over us as long as we remain human beings of blood, flesh and bone and do not use our NAME when referring to ourselves.

My research into it is quite young and have stopped and started quite a few times, but I really wanted to see others views of common law and whether it is something others have pursued and their results. It seems it may be a very hot topic that the PTB don't want us to know about and one person by the name of Adam Davis (who used to own _TruthMovementAustralia.com.au and has also interviewed Thomas Anderson) lost two family members who he thinks were assassinated. He has since pulled down his web site and requested his interview also be pulled down for fear of his life.

For me, it is more about having less of a foot in the matrix and more of a foot in the natural world and the more I ask the question 'what do I need to do', the more this subject keeps re-appearing

Thanks
Dingo
 
I'm a little surprised by the lack of any response to this post, there is obviously a perfectly good reason.

My studies so far into it have not shown me any reason not to continue, so I am hoping I am not missing something totally fundamental here

At first I thought, seeing as it's getting so close, why bother anymore but that didn't answer the question of, why was it not a topic 5, 10 years ago.

No one sees any merit to pursuing this line of study?
 
Howdy Dingo. The only common law that pops into my mind is common law marriage. My understand is when a man and woman cohabitate for some "time" and the woman uses the man's last name as her own, this is is a basis for common law marriage. This popped into my mind in reference to you post usage of our NAMEs as a binding force.
fwiw
 
Al Today said:
Howdy Dingo. The only common law that pops into my mind is common law marriage. My understand is when a man and woman cohabitate for some "time" and the woman uses the man's last name as her own, this is is a basis for common law marriage. This popped into my mind in reference to you post usage of our NAMEs as a binding force.
fwiw
Click to expand...

What Dingo is referring to is the legal tradition of Anglo countries where law is determined by a mixture of statutes and precedent or previous court decisions. It's different from legal traditions that have descended from Roman law sometimes called the Civil Law tradition which is based more on legal codes and not precedents going back many centuries. As I understand it in Common Law countries you can appeal to precedents that predate the founding of the nation like the US or Australia. A real lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong.

As to your question Dingo, if you don't get a response it probably means no one objects to you pursuing this. For some reason I don't remember seeing the original post.
 
Thanks guys.
It's quite a big topic and a little hard to describe in summary form but the more I study it the more potential I think it has

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

It's not so much common law as a subject, but it's application in the real world for the sole purpose of becoming a sovereign and not being a slave.

In essence, most 'laws' as we see them, such as having to register our cars, paying fines for speeding, paying income tax etc are only enforcable upon us if we accept them by the use of our fictional entity, MR JOHN DOE.

For example, if a policemen pulls you over for not wearing your seat belt, first of all, he is not allowed to fine you because there is no injured party (common law), however, if he asks for your name and you give it to him, you have been 'enjoined', i.e. the corporation of MR JOHN DOE and the corporation, in my case, The SOUTH AUSTRALIAN POLICE CORP have now contracted and you are now bound by the laws such as road and traffic acts, which in reality are just policies of the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN POLICE CORP.

Although a lot of people who study this do it simply to be able to drive the roads of the land freely, and many here in Australia seem to in fact do this, and are exempt from road tolls, do not have licenses, do not register their vehicles, it is now becoming more apparent that understanding more about ones inalienable rights, common law etc is revealing the soft underbelly of the whole banking system...this is where my interest has become heightened.

Cheers
 
Personally, I wouldn't waste too much time on these things. The law is the tool of those with all the power not so much fir those without power. We have these types in the US who say the law doesn't require them to pay taxes or to do this or that, but if the judges and the police think they do, well then they probably do.

On the other hand if everyone at the same time decides to follow different rules, well then the old rules will be obsolete, but it will have to be a vast majority. So I don't think obsessing over points of law is going to be the thing that makes the difference. What could would be a change in awareness, i.e., waking up.
 
A simpler way of putting it is that the law never set anyone free. Or it won't be the law that set us fee. It will be our actions based on our awareness.
 
Mr. Premise said:
We have these types in the US who say the law doesn't require them to pay taxes or to do this or that, but if the judges and the police think they do, well then they probably do.
Click to expand...
This is definitely the case with individuals in the US claiming "sovereignty" and not paying taxes, proactively suing the government to be allowed to do so. Judges are now throwing those cases out as "frivolous lawsuits".
 
Yeah, I read through the Mary Croft, Avoiding income tax threads, too which were related to the individual sovereignty, common law etc themes. There was an awful lot to absorb just from those few threads.

The whole thing of avoiding income tax just puts you in the crosshairs was well put.. That's the thing I am seeing with studying this especially for those here in Australia.

There seems to be two lines of action, one is loud, argumentative, screaming to anyone that may hear which simply seems to put them in more trouble. One guy has been fighting one of our big banks citing that they onsold his mortgage to investors (securitized) and as such no longer have claim to his home or his repayments, and that the loan is not a legally binding contract because there wasn't full disclosure, i.e. the bank never disclosed that his mortgage would be sold to investors. And even though he hasn't made a payment for nearly two years, he has been evicted twice, (the second time only a few days ago), but was able to move back in a week later by simply changing the locks. But he is making a lot of noise, and each eviction he has contacted our local current affairs program, Today Tonight and making it mass news (entertainment). It just highlights some of the points Joda made that such a story would simply make the masses side with the banks simply because most will say, I pay my mortgage so should he...as an example.

The other line of action seems more honourable as they call it, and this 'seems' to be having more success. There is no arguing with the system, there is no dishonour, everything is based on respecting the law and politely declaring ones rights etc etc. It seems the idea is based on the fact that, everything i do as a person which is 'legal' and 'right' is also 'expected' from the other side be it the courts, the banks, government etc. and this group seemed to be showing in a polite way where this other side has failed in its duty to do what is 'legal' and 'right'...that's may take of it anyway. The whole idea of getting into an argument is exactly what the other side wants and this second group seemed to have learned this lesson well. Of course how long this lasts is another question...how long will the banks put up with people getting out of their contracts before something is done about it. The success rate of this 2nd group may be simply because the other group is offsetting it from their failures.

There is a lot to learn, but I am glad I read the other posts because it certainly has enabled me to remove a lot of the noise and confusion...i.e. why is it working for some and not others?

I don't plan on making noise about it anymore, I do have a personal issue which is forcing my hand and which has led me down this path and I feel I have no other option at this point, but in doing so, I did find myself becoming motivated to share this with others which I now know is not a good idea.

Thanks
 
Hi Dingo,

Fwiw, perhaps you are referring to Maritime law vs. Civil Law and the use of Capitis Minima = minimal loss of rights (John Doe), Capitis Media = partial loss of rights (John DOE), Capitis Maxima = full loss of rights (JOHN DOE).

These cases or persona who have argued these recognition points of law have been around the Web for many years, and many have focused on the ambiguities of law. As Mr. Premise discusses, "...law is a tool...", a powerful one at that, and one can consume much energy in thought, with little answers except to say that surfs have never fared particularly well arguing law when things are stacked against them. However, sometimes one must do research if required to spar in law; some old Tort laws are interesting as sometimes they protected surfs against lords.

Anyway, think Mr. Premise captured well my thoughts on this too.

[quote author=Mr. Premise]
Personally, I wouldn't waste too much time on these things. The law is the tool of those with all the power not so much fir those without power. We have these types in the US who say the law doesn't require them to pay taxes or to do this or that, but if the judges and the police think they do, well then they probably do.

On the other hand if everyone at the same time decides to follow different rules, well then the old rules will be obsolete, but it will have to be a vast majority. So I don't think obsessing over points of law is going to be the thing that makes the difference. What could would be a change in awareness, i.e., waking up.
[/quote]
 
[quote author=Dingo]
[...]

There is a lot to learn, but I am glad I read the other posts because it certainly has enabled me to remove a lot of the noise and confusion...i.e. why is it working for some and not others?

I don't plan on making noise about it anymore, I do have a personal issue which is forcing my hand and which has led me down this path and I feel I have no other option at this point, but in doing so, I did find myself becoming motivated to share this with others which I now know is not a good idea.

Thanks
[/quote]

Hi Dingo, realized I posted just after you without recognizing what you wrote. There is indeed confusion here, but does one really know if it is "working for some" or are these just claims; dunno? Sorry about your personal issue and hope you can work it out. :)
 
Parallax said:
[quote author=Dingo]
[...]

There is a lot to learn, but I am glad I read the other posts because it certainly has enabled me to remove a lot of the noise and confusion...i.e. why is it working for some and not others?

I don't plan on making noise about it anymore, I do have a personal issue which is forcing my hand and which has led me down this path and I feel I have no other option at this point, but in doing so, I did find myself becoming motivated to share this with others which I now know is not a good idea.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Dingo, realized I posted just after you without recognizing what you wrote. There is indeed confusion here, but does one really know if it is "working for some" or are these just claims; dunno? Sorry about your personal issue and hope you can work it out. :)
[/quote]

Exactly, that is where a lot of my frustration came from, I wanted evidence. One man did say to me (and this is related to having debts removed) that you'll never find direct, documented evidence because if there was there would be an avalanche of claims against banks fraudulently creating loans. The only evidence I have found is a case in the US, The Mahoney Credit River Case, and the banks lost, but the judge was murdered six months later when me put the case into public records.

So far the most I have at this point is a conversation with a lady who claims they have helped 180 people have their debts go into stalemate. All I can do is become a member and then talk directly with those that have 'apparently' succeeded to see if they have. Everywhere else people seem to be still 'in the process'

Thanks for your concern :)

Cheers
Dingo
 
Hi, Dingo! I didn't see your original post, either, or else I would have responded sooner. I understand the basics of common law, which is civil law in the U.S. I don't remember all the particulars, but to research this go back to King John signing the Magna Carte. U.S. common law is based in English common law. And, yes, as I have explained to people ad nauseum, you can read all the statutes/laws you want; what matters to the court is precedence. Different people can look at the same law and each one will have a different interpretation. Therefore, the courts rely on case law, decisions of higher courts (appeals, state and federal supreme courts), which is where the attorneys start arguing. Next, at your birth, you are a "natural person". A "legal entity" is needed in order for you to sue and be sued. That "legal entity" is your name in ALL CAPS which you will see on your birth certificate, Social Security card, loans, credit cards, legal documents, etc. Notice that all corporate documents have the name of the company in ALL CAPS as well. The "natural person" takes on the responsibility of ensuring the "legal entity" will pay all debts, etc. Did you ever see a little fence ("the bar") in a courtroom separating the court officials from the gallery? Go past the bar and you place yourself under the court's jurisdiction as the "natural person" who is taking on the responsibilities of the "legal entity". Notice that that is where your attorney pleads your case, with or without you being past the bar; he is your representative so he has to be there and places himself as well as you under the court's jurisdiction. Notice also the gold-fringed flag in the courtroom. The U.S. has been under martial law since the Civil War; the gold-fringed flag is an indication that admiralty or maritime law is being practiced. After 150+ years, we have been so conditioned we don't notice--or have forgotten--that during that time the Constitution is suspended. Everyone at the higher levels knows this; the little guy does not. Regarding repayment of debt, the reason why some are succeeding in non-repayment is because many companies cannot produce the original promissory note (or promissory note and deed of trust in the case of real estate) because the loans have been sold and resold and the original paperwork has been lost. If you're being sued for non-payment, especially if the original creditor is not the plaintiff, any savvy attorney can have the case dismissed if the plaintiff cannot produce the original note with the original signature; facsimiles don't count. Finally, you've heard of lawyers belonging to the "bar". This "bar" is different and is actually BAR, an abbreviation of British Accreditation Registry. The U.S. did not disengage itself from Britain at the time of the Revolutionary War. We still owe them money and the money owed goes to Britain in the form of our taxes, which in these days is garnered through income taxes, which are unconstitutional. Our founding fathers allowed for nothing more than taxes on goods. This is one of the reasons why so many people are fighting the IRS these days. See the web? If our Constitution is suspended, then income taxes can be imposed. I hope this helps a little, or at least gives you some direction in your own research. It is absolutely fascinating to see how the intent of the founding fathers has degenerated into the abysmal system we have today.
 
Hi Slow Motion Mary,
Thanks for the reply. You gave a pretty good summary of it there, and yes I have pretty much found out the same things.

For me now, it's all about the debt. I have no interest in fighting income tax or even becoming an individual sovereign able to drive the roads freely (at least not at this point). I admittedly got caught up in it because until now I still don't know what my purpose in life is and this was one of those things that got me riled up, but I don't want to become a noise machine for this sort of movement now.

On the other hand, if it helps me to get rid of my debt and enable me to feed my children again, then it is obviously going to remain in my mind and makeup as being something of some importance.

As I see it there seems to be a fine line one must do this with as little noise as possible

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom