The Jurisdictional Paradox - the Presumption of Legal Personhood - Kindle

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 20 янв 2025

Комментарии • 53

  • @CommonLawRightSociety
    @CommonLawRightSociety  Месяц назад +1

    ***Not legal advice. a.co/d/7b6fcO5 Amazon paperback

  • @hollynorris4220
    @hollynorris4220 Месяц назад

    Love your voice. Love your voice. Love your voice. Thank you

  • @GALACTICS7
    @GALACTICS7 Месяц назад +9

    We are reaching out to Americans to reinhabit the only lawful, de jure, interim Constitutional Republic using common law effectively.

    • @harisdiz.5817
      @harisdiz.5817 Месяц назад

      where did the public go when you need to republic?

  • @GarrettYoung-y4s
    @GarrettYoung-y4s Месяц назад +6

    Demand everything be on the record!

  • @JARRETT7121
    @JARRETT7121 Месяц назад +4

    Presumption stands in law until it's rebutted

  • @azurebapiaries6730
    @azurebapiaries6730 Месяц назад +2

    Nice easily understood presentation of such complex info. So much to learn around all these matters,unknown by most id argue...

    • @naturallivingwoman
      @naturallivingwoman Месяц назад +1

      Yep, its also so important for us to know that all roads lead to Rome/Romans!

  • @ljsmooth69
    @ljsmooth69 Месяц назад +12

    our judicial system it's not one of our own but of foreign influence in the aspect that the pole bar association that they have to graduate from to become a lawyer or a judge and at the beginning with is not under our constitutional law that's under maritime law as if we were pirates on the ocean look up the 14th amendment under birthright status! and then look up the meaning of a national foreign citizen! once you get the answer for that. are you questioning whether you're free here or not?

    • @davidgleeson9225
      @davidgleeson9225 Месяц назад

      Well make it your own
      Or drop it
      Rastaman time
      Get UPON it
      Stand UPON it
      Riiiiiggghhhhhhttt

    • @Hosea3_1992
      @Hosea3_1992 Месяц назад +1

      Funny part is you don't have to go to law school to take the bar in many states

  • @SJ-lm7xz
    @SJ-lm7xz Месяц назад +3

    In Texas the many of the STATE District courts are administrative courts working for the U.S Corporation. They work with the J.P.s that are also working for corporate. Many of the jails are contracted to private businesses. Paid by federal grants.

  • @tomrogers4828
    @tomrogers4828 Месяц назад +1

    The presumption of personhood comes from the Trading with the Enemy Act. 48 Stat 1 proclaimed all Americans who are not actually naturalized to be alien enemies. 50 USC 23 (Alien Enemy Act pf 1798) is where this jurisdiction comes from and all licenses come from the Trading with the Enemy Act by order of the President.

  • @warrenlesueur5862
    @warrenlesueur5862 Месяц назад +2

    Educate the people!👍

  • @jarjar3143
    @jarjar3143 Месяц назад +12

    We don't have constitutional rights .
    That document is not the grantor of our rights .
    We have rights .
    The constitution is notice to governmental bodies aka trustees of thier limitations not ours .
    You may correctly say constitutionally protected rights .

    • @CommonLawRightSociety
      @CommonLawRightSociety  Месяц назад

      agreed...100%

    • @freewillchoice8052
      @freewillchoice8052 Месяц назад +2

      How will anyone’s rights be protected if the person who claims they do have rights don’t know how to protect them through the courts?

  • @judsonsdiscretionarymetalw5866
    @judsonsdiscretionarymetalw5866 Месяц назад

    Good info. Solutions???

  • @rochellecaffee1417
    @rochellecaffee1417 Месяц назад

    What about the issue called: KIDNAPPING??

  • @bluesky6985
    @bluesky6985 Месяц назад +4

    Without standing they never have jurisdiction

  • @rochellecaffee1417
    @rochellecaffee1417 Месяц назад

    How is this pertinent to our Declaration of Independence?? Especially regarding the “Spirit” of the Law?

  • @Steve_the_lion1075
    @Steve_the_lion1075 Месяц назад +2

    A good remedy to use in these statute law courts is to declare yourself as an idiot. An idiot in the legal system is an outsider. Idiots have no accountability. That's why they always ask you if you understand the charges. So you would answer, "I do not understand the charges. I'm not part of the legal society. I'm a complete idiot." And just keep repeating that. Act as though you have no idea what they're talking about. I've even known a few cases where people have been let off drug charges when using this method.

    • @daveizms01
      @daveizms01 Месяц назад

      They need you to "stand under" Their authority, not "understand" the words they speak.
      The only thing you say to cops is NO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
      Watch how mad they get when you don't place yourself below them.

    • @Steve_the_lion1075
      @Steve_the_lion1075 Месяц назад

      @@daveizms01 Yes but they will still arrest you and take you to court. You have to act as though you don't understand their language.

  • @marcushinschberger5717
    @marcushinschberger5717 Месяц назад +3

    Where do we get the book?

    • @richardrowland7044
      @richardrowland7044 Месяц назад +3

      Google the twelve presumptions of Court PDF and rebut all 12

    • @richardrowland7044
      @richardrowland7044 Месяц назад +2

      Google the Clearfield doctrine 2008 PDF

    • @CommonLawRightSociety
      @CommonLawRightSociety  Месяц назад +1

      Stay tuned for links to the book. Hopefully be ready in time for the holidays..

  • @DavyDoo69
    @DavyDoo69 Месяц назад +4

    JUST WHY WOULD YOU EVEN DEAL WITH THESE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS?
    The United States Constitution guaranties your "Right" to a, "Common Law Court of Record Trial by Jury (peers)". CRIMINAL OR CIVIL..... [Trial by Jury, and not an Administrative Jury Trial]
    For Crimes = any jail time that can be imposed.
    U. S. Con. Article III, Section 2:
    This section establishes the "judicial power" of the United States and states that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. It ensures that criminal trials are conducted fairly and impartially by a jury of peers.
    Every Court today that are using Statutes and Codes and not the Common Law are acting Administratively and not Judicially. [Legislative = Administrative law = Statutes/Codes/ Policy]
    THE JUDGE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A "CLERK" FOR THAT AGENCY. [No Judicial Authority]
    Proof....
    Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction” as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428.
    And;
    “It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762.
    And;
    ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“ A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.
    For Civil = Twenty Dollars or more...
    U.S. Con. Seventh Amendment.....
    "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    These Legislative, Administrative, Limited Jurisdictional Courts, Non-Judicial courts, Non- Judicial Judges (Clerks), "NOT" a Court of Record, must have your consent in order to proceed in any case.
    Washington State... Where I am at...
    Proof CONSENT by both parties is required and right to Trial by Jury...
    Washington State Supreme Court Makes the Rules for All Lower Courts.
    Washington State Court Rules: Superior Court Criminal, Civil Rules
    CR 2A STIPULATIONS
    No agreement or "consent" between parties or attorneys in respect to the proceedings in a cause, the purport of which is disputed, will be regarded by the court unless the same shall have been made and assented to in open court on the record, or entered in the minutes, or unless the evidence thereof shall be in writing and subscribed by the attorneys denying the same.
    CR 38 JURY TRIAL OF RIGHT
    (-) Defined. A trial is the judicial examination of the issues between the parties, whether they are issues of law or of fact.
    (a) Right of Jury Trial Preserved. The right of "trial by jury" as declared by article 1, section 21 of the constitution or as given by a statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
    (b) Demand for Jury. At or prior to the time the case is called to be set for trial, any party may demand a "trial by jury" of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing, by filing the demand with the clerk, and by paying the jury fee required by law. If before the case is called to be set for trial no party serves or files a demand that the case be tried by a jury of 12, it shall be tried by a jury of 6 members with the concurrence of five being required to reach a verdict.
    (c) Specification of Issues. A party may specify the issues which the party wishes so tried in a demand; otherwise the party shall be deemed to have demanded trial by jury for all the issues so triable. If a party has demanded trial by jury for only some of the issues, any other party within 10 days after service of the demand or such lesser time as the court may order, may serve a demand for trial by jury of any other or all of the issues of fact in the action. (d) Waiver of Jury. The failure of a party to serve a demand as required by this rule, to file it as required by this rule, and to pay the jury fee required by law in accordance with this rule, constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury. A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.
    ALWAYS DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY = COMMON LAW COURT OF RECORD TRIAL BY YOUR PEERS FOR CIVIL OR CRIMINAL....
    AM I BEING ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME? WHERE IS THE INDICTMENT?
    The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses the right to indictment by a grand jury. It states:
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
    “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”. Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. Jan. 17 1963
    This case, Washington State Supreme Court Ruling has never been overturned.

  • @GALACTICS7
    @GALACTICS7 Месяц назад

    28 USC 3002 Pargarpah 15. Real action. Real results

  • @wcbbsd
    @wcbbsd Месяц назад

    As long as the process is the revenue generator regardless of outcome it will never stop.
    Try not to live in the master nor slave morality for both celebrate cruelty.
    Do not join their corporations or fight their wars.
    Your humanity and goodwill has been hijacked for centuries.
    Try to cause no harm, commit no fraud, and do not steal.

  • @SG-ys4tk
    @SG-ys4tk Месяц назад +2

    Always hire a court reporter. They behave better, though not perfectly, when they know you can have a transcript produced for an appeal. You’ll need an official transcript for appeal and you need an official record to get that. A recorded court is not the same as a court of record!

  • @freewillchoice8052
    @freewillchoice8052 Месяц назад +2

    Here is how I’d obtain record in a court of non record: I’d personally hire a court reporter and show up with that court reporter to create a record. Problem solved.
    I believe there is another way to enforce rights: learn how the courts work and use them

    • @freewillchoice8052
      @freewillchoice8052 Месяц назад

      @ Jerome 🤣 you think I’m going to read past the word “false” when opening with that word? You wrote a novel. What you could have done instead is to supply evidence for us all by listing names of jurisdictions and case numbers of cases you won with your theories. So please provide at minimum one case for me to look up. Thanks.

  • @TheTruthPlease100
    @TheTruthPlease100 Месяц назад

    NESARA will do most of that!

    • @Roylamx
      @Roylamx Месяц назад

      No such thing.

  • @derekwashington4727
    @derekwashington4727 Месяц назад

    What is the name of the book

    • @CommonLawRightSociety
      @CommonLawRightSociety  Месяц назад

      The Jurisdictional Paradox: Courts Not of Record, Constitutional Rights, and the Presumption of Legal Personhood

  • @user-ot5mk1lb8b
    @user-ot5mk1lb8b Месяц назад

    Where can i get a copy of this book. I have made several attempts to find it and nothing comes up in the search engine.

    • @CommonLawRightSociety
      @CommonLawRightSociety  Месяц назад

      The Jurisdictional Paradox: Courts Not of Record, Constitutional Rights, and the Presumption of Legal Personhood a.co/d/05AHqxo
      Kindle available now. Paperback next week.

  • @bluesky6985
    @bluesky6985 Месяц назад

    Article 3 clause 2 😊

    • @jeromegarcia5396
      @jeromegarcia5396 Месяц назад

      US district court, what do you mean? This is about administrative courts, has nothing to do with federal courts...

  • @GigiConstant
    @GigiConstant Месяц назад

    Don't l get my money

  • @davidgleeson9225
    @davidgleeson9225 Месяц назад

    Qedemawi Haile Selassie the First and last king of Israel to rule in Jerusalem 1936
    Good video as well
    Give us a like
    I have a bundle i am about to post today
    And not yesterday or tomorrow
    Why 7 / 12
    Yesterday would have been to nast- it-up
    Listen to
    His Imperial Majesty
    Rod Taylor
    Errmm do you mind saying that again
    Shaka style