The Purpose Of And How To Use The Common Law Remedy Website Part Two

This project was begun with the idea in mind to share information about, what in the present public mind, must be viewed as an antiquated structure for law.  The claim that the common law has been abolished, like a clever serpent seeking to misdirect your thinking, is attempting to guard the Tree of Knowledge The United States government—over the decades and in coordination with the states which have become corporate franchise units of the federal government rather than independent sovereign countries in Union with one another—has long since usurped the seat of government from the people and the people’s law (the foundational principles of the common law in our country which was founded on Natural Law), and has turned it into a monstrocity and abomination upon the land

Many states have even gone to the extreme notion of attempting to place in the public mind the untrue idea that the common law has been abolished and is not recognized in their corporate lairs, formulating the impression that its assertion in court is basically useless.  In other words, they want the people to believe that the common law is dead and buried.  And while that may be true from the current statutory viewpoint, it is certainly not true in reality.  The common law can never ever be totally eliminated for obvious reasons, for it is the foundational basis for all earthly relations in law currently extant on the planet.  If you understand the maxims of law, which by the way make up the essence of the common law, then you understand why it can never be totally eliminated.  To actually go to the point of formally eliminating it would be to admit to a fraud on the public.  Therefore, instead, the govnerment lies and assumes you will not know what to do about it.

The origin of law, based in Natural Law, came about as people began living together in a society of people as a way to handle the inevitable unjust situations that develop between any group of individual people living together.  In the beginning there were no courts of law, no countries as we know them today, only principles of law regarding how we should live together in a tribe without controversy, which were ideas—principles—universally agreed upon by the people living under them. Without those principles guiding the relationships of people, life becomes chaotic and meaningless.  Principles have to come first before you can even build a relationship with another human being.

A group of contemporary people, when asked what they thought was the most important thing in their life, most responded by saying that other people or the family was the foremoost priority in their life.  The familial connection was more important to them than universally accepted principles of living together.  And yet, whether between a mother and a son, a mother and a daughter, a father and son, a father and daughter, a husband and wife, it doesn’t matter as much as principles.  That is not to say that the familial connection doesn’t matter at all.  It does.  But not as much as first principles designed to maintain the peace through a discovery of the objective truth. 

The principles upon which a familial unit is built have to come first, otherwise those relationships are just empty and meaningless.  They don’t have any real value unless they’re based upon correct principles first.  This is why so many relationships are disfunctional.  Without a mutual respect for each other’s individuality, a solid relationship cannot be built.

Before we continue, we need to define the word “principles.”  The word principle comes from the Latin word principia.  Principia, according to Mark Passio, means “first, foremost, leading, chief, most necessary.”  It is that which matters most.  It is the first thing that must be understood before anything else can be understood.  Principles have to come first in any human relationship before any integrity can be claimed by one person over another.  In today’s world, our society does not put principles first.  It puts trivialities first.  And we are no longer a society that cares about principles, the truth or first things defining how we live together harmoniously. 

So when the phrase “the principles of law” is brought up in association with original Natural Law, it has a very specific and purposeful meaning.  Before continuing, let’s look at the meaning and significance of the term “natural law.”  In it’s most naked form, natural law refers to the difference between Right and Wrong as it relates to the relations between individual people.  In this sense, it suggests a deep understanding and adherence to moral principles concerning the distinction between Right and Wrong behavior between people.  All people are equal under the law, which means we must respect each other’s property and rights

So how do we define what is right for one person and what is wrong for another? According to the principles of Natural Law, Right means “correct, based in truth, moral, in harmony with Natural Law.  Actions based in it do not result in harm to either individual person.”  Wrong, on the other hand, is that which is “incorrect, immoral, in opposition to Natural Law.  Actions based in it result in harm to other individual persons.”  Some obvious examples of Natural Law transgressions which are harmful actions are: murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, and coercion.  

A contemporary example of a natural law transgression is coercion.  For example, when a law enforement officer (LEO) in a traffic stop insists that you exit your automobile, he is using intimidation (gun on the hip) and coersion (under threat of force and harm) to get his way. Because he has been mentally conditioned by his law enforcement training, the officer is unaware that he has just committed wrong, a trespass on your personal freedom.  Despite his error in judgment, it is best to do as the LEO requests rather than to resist his orders and risk physical harm.  If you’re looking for a violation of a principle of law, using intimidation and coercion to obtain obedient compliance is a prime example that can be brought up in court

Be very careful, though, if you intend to bring up such a violation in court.  Courts in general are suppose to know and acknowledge the law when a party brings up such a violation of rights.  However, inferior corporate courts do not recognize the common law, for the most part, and are liable to deny your objection if it is not defined beforehand.  If at all possible, it is best to get the judge’s ascent on the record regarding the definition you are using before making such an objection.  One way to do this is to ask an innocent question of the court to get the judge to agree to your definition.  Once he or she agrees with that definition on the record, they are bound by that oral contract.

You might say, “Your honor, does this court recognize the principles of law in its adjudications?”  The judge, sensing that something may be up, may say:  “And what might that be?"  And you answer, “Well, isn’t it true that the basis of all law, no matter what the jurisdiction, is based on the premise that any violation of an original principle of law, that which is most necessary to be adhered to, is grounds for disqualification of the matter?” 

(Note: The mention of “no matter what jurisdiction” is meant to include the common law jurisdiction without stating it outright in order to prevent the judge from denying the statement and disagreeing with it.  Be careful how you word things so as not to tip off the effect that you are aiming to achieve.  Once the judge agrees to the statement no matter what jurisdiction, you have just gotten him into an oral contract to agree that the principles of law matter in a legal action, and if violated are grounds to disqualify the action.  If he denies the disqualification, you state, “For the record, your honor, I reserve my objection on appeal.”  If you should need to appeal it, the judge is now bound by contract to uphold the statement.  Anything less is fraud! Not too many judges, if any, will be willing to go that far.)

All of this questioning must takes place before an arraignment has happened.  This is very important to realize.  Arraignment doesn’t happen until you enter a plea to the judge’s asking how you wish to plead.  You would ask the question above about jurisdiction not being established if there were a violation of an original principle of law before entering your objection to the officer’s actions and after you have had the officer testify to those actions, if he shows up at all at the preliminary hearing before arraignment.  If the officer does not show up at that hearing,  you would simply move for a dismissal for lack of prosecution, as the prosecutor cannot testify to facts not yet established by a witness, facts of which the prosecutor has no first hand knowledge. 

If the officer does sh9w up, which rarely if ever happens, you would be setting up the officer by getting him to agree with your characterization of what happened.  “Officer Petty, isn’t it true that you walked up to my car with a gun on your hip?  And that you refused to identify yourself when I asked, and as a result insisted that I exit my car?”  (All of this has to be consistent with the facts; don’t just make things up in order to trap the officer.)  And in order to indicate that it is my idea to comply with his instruction to exit my auto rather than to imply I was blindly submitting myself to his order, I would say, ‘Well, you’re the one with the gun, so I suppose I have no choice.  Do I?’”  If the officer does not respond to this statement, he has just agreed that he used intimidation and the threat of force to compel your action.  It is a principle of law that you cannot coerce people into taking actions they otherwise would not take.

You will want to choose your words carefully because you do not want to spill the beans before they realize what is happening.  Only focus on speaking about the plain unadorned facts and nothing else.  If you have a witness who can corroborate your version, that’s even better.  Make your statement something innocent sounding that the officer has to agree to.  Do not attempt this prior to having obtained a solid knowledge of the law and how these courts work.  I cannot stress that last sentence enough.  Give yourself time to study, learn, and grow confident about the law and the various reactions of courts before attempting any rebuttal actions in court that you cannot back up.  Attend one or two traffic court sessions to get a sense of the reality of what you’re walking into.  This is presented only as an example of how you have to think about bringing in the concept of the principles of law.  The specifics mentioned here are not a suggestion or advice, only an example

Ask yourself what rights of yours did the officer violate, and work from there.  If you have established on the record that it doesn’t matter what jurisdiction is being referenced in your question, then you can ask seemingly innocent questions without stirring up a hornet’s nest of suspicion and opposition.

A few examples of questions to ask after you have gotten the judge to agree that observing the principles of law is of paramount importance. 

“Isn’t it a principle of law that when being summoned to court, whether civil or criminal, service of process must be served by a disinterested third party and not by a complainant in the matter?”  (This is self-explanatory.)

“Isn’t it a principle of law that according to a maxim of law that says: ‘What is first is truest; and what comes first in time is best in law.’”  (This is stated in order to establish that your choice of law–the common law–is other than the statutes,  The common law having been extant and used for time immorial before there were statutes.  If the prosecutor wants to use statutes, evidence of contractual agreement must be offered the court in order to approve binding a person to  compelled performance  through contract law.)

“Isn’t it a principle of law that ‘What is proved by the record, ought not to be denied.’”  (If you have a recorded [at the county redcorder's office] Notice on Non-Decedent in place with the U.S Commerce or other federsl Departments or a recorded Notice of Citizenhip Evidence in place with the United States Secretary of State, those notices constitute being part of the public record, and therefore are controlling in terms of jurisdictional questions.)

“Isn’t it true that before there were statutes and codes being proposed by artificial entities, that Natural Law prevailed in court as a matter of course.  And that Natural Law is the superior form of Law?”  (Your choice of Natural Law in the matter settles jurisdictional questions.)

“Isn’t it true that a person’s identity must be proven by actual evidense of identity and not just presumed by the court based on a document purporting to be an adhesion contract?”  (Who gets to choose your identity or the capacity that you are acting under? Aren’t these based upon the actions one takes?  Since when is an accuser allowed to make these choices without evidence or input from a person?)

“Isn’t it true that adhesion contracts are non-binding due to the fact that only one party is allowed to define the terms.?  Providing one party with an unjust advantage?”  (This is self explanatory with regard to meeting the “meeting of the minds” stipulation of any valid contract.  There is no meeting of the minds when one party dominates over the other in this respect.)

“Isn’t it true that for impartiality to be present in a court, the magistrate is not to be employed by the plaintiff State or County bringing the charge as this would create the appearance of prejudice?”   (This is self-explanatory.)

“Isn’t it true that to conceal a material fact by one party against another, that this prejudices the subject matter and disqualifies the action immediately once discovered?”  (Material facts are of paramount importance when attempting to determine the truth about a matter.  If one party is denied access to a material fact to a matter, it could influence that person to take actions he would not otherwise have considered taking, thus creating an unfair advantage of one party over the other.)

“Isn’t it true that when an accused demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation that the plaintiff is charged with the duty to bring a bill of particulars?  The State’s uniform traffic citation does not indicate who the parties are with their respective designations as plaintiff and defendant, nor does it state the nature and cause of the violation in plain English rather than a code.”  (This is self-ecplanitory.  Inferior courts want you to accept that the code(s) mentioned in the citation is enough information to inform the accused person, when the person could object to that fact if the code was not applicable to him in the flesh and blood.)

Along this line of reasoning, former attorney Mel Stamper, author of the book Fruit From A Poisonous Tree, a book that everyone needs to read and understand, made the following suggestion regarding how to approach the State’s refusal to disclose the nature and cause of the action:


And if you don’t remember anything else from this article, burn the following concept into your brain.  The administrative court does not gain personal jurisdiction until you voluntarily enter a plea to a matter.  Stop and realize what was just stated.  All the paperwork and rhetoric up until that point may show the presumption that you are agreeing to act in the capacity of an artificial person (legal fiction), but until you open your mouth to enter a plea, the court has not gained jurisdiction over your matter.  Even if you identify your name as the same of the alleged defendant, that still doesn’t gain the court personal jurisdiction.  But it is meant to intimidate you into thinking so.  Hence do not let them intimidate you with their paperwork or their oral discussion

Simply say: "Your honor, I do not have enough information indicating my involvement in this matter or to enter a plea until the nature and the cause of the action are alleged on the record.  If I’m not provided this crucial information, I intend to appeal that denial of information.  This is a clear violation of a principle of law which would disquality this matter, and the court needs to honor it.”

Do not be afraid of speaking the truth to such courts.  The truth shines a light on the fraudulent behavior that the prosecutor, the judge, and the attorneys are using to justify their criminal actions.  Never be afraid of standing in the light of the truth when facing your adversary.  It is the strongest position you can take.  And hopefully, somewhere along the line, someone within the system will recognize it and take the appropriate action.

Always be aware that to enter any inferior court is fraught with unknowns.  There are no magic words known that will influence the court to maintain its honor and integrity.  You have to be willing to stand up for your rights, to be prepared to assert them no matter what the consequences, and in some intances to accept those conseqences whatever they turn out to be.  In today’s chaotic world, the truth and authenticity are found only at a premium.  So prepare well ahead of time before you intend to do battle with one of these courts, and be confident and steadfast in your preparation and execution!

The Purpose Of And How To Use The Common Law Remedy Website Part One

 
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.


If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.

Home | About | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map

Copyright  © 2013-2025  BeatTrafficTickets.org   All Rights Reserved. | Designed by TaoLogic