READ the constitution and you will see that our Founding Fathers intended for the people to be “Sovereign”.
They must “Demonize” people who LEARN THE TRUTH about the constitution, because they can’t have people learning that they can actually tell the Federal Government to go phock themselves...
http://www.libertyforlife.com/law/law-understanding_law.htm
THE LAW OF THE LAND
1. The highest law of the land is theU.S. Constitution which incorporates the Bill of Rights;
2. Underlying the U.S. Constitution are the State Constitutions / Statutes;
3. Underlying the Constitutions is English Common Law.
Higher law overrules lower law. Lower laws may not infringe or contradict or be in conflict with higher laws. Laws must be ratified by “we the people”. (See § 22 of California Civil Procedure for a definition):
The Constitution is pretty straight forward. Most people when they read it (or if they read it!), can understand what it says. For example, taking the 1st Amendment which reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” -[I.e. Congress cannot make a law specific to a denomination or religion],
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” -[however, they also cannot prevent the practice of religion -so the Court’s telling you that you cannot pray in school or put a cross or the 10 Commandments anywhere is total bullshit, to put it politely]
“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” -[most people know this one, they can’t stop you criticizing the government, if someone wants to burn a flag (which does no harm other than send a message) then they can express themselves. The government cannot tell the press that they can’t show pictures of our soldiers coffins returning from Iraq, the press can print whatever they want. Recognize that this freedom of speech is still subject to libel law - you can’t tell lies]
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -[The government can also not stop people marching or gathering peacefully to protest, they certainly cannot prevent someone who is wearing an anti-war or anti-president tee-shirt from going anywhere! You are allowed to say what you want when you want and you can do it with as many people as you like - you can give the government and cops the ‘up-yours sign’ any time you want]
That’s no so hard. The law is pretty straight forward. You do not need a lawyer of judge to understand the law, in fact if you do, then it is not law! See the section on Common-Law must be understood by the common man.
There are so many tremendous rights our Founding Fathers embedded within the constitution to prevent the government from messing with us. Like the right to bear arms - The government cannot tell us we can’t have pistol grips on our rifles! The right to bear arms was established so that we the people had just as powerful weapons as the government (See 2nd Amendment). Rights can’t diminish either, see opposite:
Common Law
Common Law dictates that there are three mandatory elements for every criminal charge:
1. MENS REA - willful intent,
(menz ray-ah) n. Latin for a “guilty or evil mind,” or criminal intent in committing the act.
In order to determine intent, it is necessary for those judging to understand the mind of the person charged. We need to ask if intent can be tried by anyone but a jury of peers? i.e. if you form a jury of people who think completely differently to the person charged, the jury will not be able to judge whether the person really intended to commit the crime.
2. actus reus - the act or crime,
3. CORPUS DELICTI - the body of the crime, the actual damage.
The fact of a crime having been actually committed as reflected in the body of damage caused by the offence. I.e. to charge someone with murder you need to show that a person has been murdered, there needs to be a dead body.
The core construct to English Common Law, verses other legal constructs such as Roman Dutch Las is the construct of “innocent until proven guilty”. Under Roman Dutch Law, which has typically been employed by tyrannical regimes, you are “guilty until proven innocent”.
Criminal vs. Civil Law
The Constitution distinguishes between Criminal and Civil law and identifies Common Law as the underlying law for both. However the Constitutions, both Federal and State overrule Common Law.
Civil Law: provides remedy for wrongs
Criminal Law: provides punishment for wrongs
Public Law and Private Law:
Lawyers and Courts tend to differentiate between Public and Private Law. Public Law is the Law of the Land Private Law deals with contracts between persons. A person can either be an human or a corporation. Contracts under Private Law can effectively enforce almost anything. All law is however under Public Law.
Contracts
A contract is an agreement that involves the exchange of legal rights (to money, property, one’s labor, etc.). Anything can be put in a contract, however, contracts cannot undermine the Law of the land, you can still be criminally liable/responsible. Failure to perform one’s part of an agreement can lead to a charge of breach of contract. It is suggested that much of our government’s actions against us are conducted under the guise of Contract Law - that is they get us to agree to be subject to contractual obligations, such as in signing a ticket they get us to agree to appear in “Their Court” under “Their Code” - see Infractions.
Law of Torts
Tort law is concerned with breaches of legal duty that result in some kind of injury that merits compensation. Torts are used to categorize allegations. There are three major Tort categories: Intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability:
• Intentional Torts: Trespass, defamation (libel/slander), assault and battery, and false imprisonment.
• Negligence: A breach of the duty of “due care”. Everyone in society has a duty to refrain from taking unreasonable risks associated with certain kinds of actions and omissions.
• Strict Liability: Strict liability torts involve narrow classes of action where the person performing the action is liable for harms he produces even if the harms are unintentional and could not have been prevented by exercising reasonable care.
Liability
Strict Liability: (No ‘Mens Rea’/’willful intent’ requirement):
Criminal Liability: Liable only if actually aware of the harmful or wrongful nature of his/her conduct.
Objective Liability: Liable if a reasonable person in relevantly similar circumstance.
Rights Shall Not Diminish
Remember your rights cannot diminish - any right you are granted cannot later be taken away by the government U.S. Const. Amend IX:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 9th is critical law which wipes out most of what the government has passed, including the right to be free of property taxes, including the Patriot Act, including all the Presidential Executive Orders like Roosevelt’s theft of gold, the draft, bench warrants, traffic tickets, the governments claim to sovereign immunity etc. etc.
Again, there is no ambiguity here. The 9th Amendment is blatantly clear and literal. So what is going on? What on earth are lawyers, judges, the president and Congress up to? Hello, anybody got a brain? Perhaps we have lost our mouth (1st amendment) and our arms (2nd amendment) and that is the only reason why we have become slaves to another tyrannical Police State.
For example in England, the Queen claimed that because God put her on the throne, she could commit no wrong and she therefore claimed “sovereign immunity”. However, Art. I Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution dictates:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
It is impossible for government employees to claim ‘sovereign immunity’ for crimes they commit.
Trial By Jury or Judge
The U.S. Constitution guarantees any person accused of a crime the right to choose a Trial by Judge or a Trial By Jury (U.S. Const. Art III, Sec 2; U.S. Const. Amend VI) and any party to a civil matter entailing damages of more than $20 also has the right to choose between a Trial By Judge or a Trial By Jury (U.S. Const. Amend VII). And that such trials shall be speedy and follow due process.
The elements of a Trial By Jury are so critically important we have placed them on a separate page. The most critically important element is to realize that you the Jury members decide on both the Law and the Fact - The Courts are treasonously denying this well established right.
THE UCC CONNECTION / Howard freeman
http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html
FOREWORD
This is slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and like most fear, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money, and then tell us as the ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that - I’m an officer of the court.”
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a “snowball’s chance …” is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp - are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as much, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that “THE BUCK STOPS HERE!” It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.
To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives in peace, freedom and praise.
Read the whole thing at the link above...
Also for those who think this is crap, then ask yourself why Ron Paul endorses everyone to learn about “Reserving your Rights”
UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207
More here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/general-discussion/2504-common-law-ucc-1-308-a.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/78775/does-anyone-sign-their-name-without-prejudice-ucc-1-308
Does anyone sign their name “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308”?
Submitted by juliusbragg on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:41
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:mv1pVTb0QdwJ:www.consti...
note: in 2004 U.C.C. 1-207 was changed to U.C.C. 1-308.
I have a stamp that I ordered that says “without prejudice U.C.C 1-308”.
I carry it everywhere, and anything I sign has the stamp. They say a stamp is better than just writing it, because it shows premeditation of your concern.