The Study And Use Of Common Law Is Not For Everyone
Date: August 03, 2025
Hello Friends,
As the saying goes, while all may stand equal before the law, not
everyone standing is each other’s equal in terms of their ability
to understand and use the lessons learned in studying the common law.
Rather than using the term “common law,” which, beause of
social conditioning, may pose a problem for some people to comprehend,
perhaps a better descriptor of this form of law is “Natural
Law,” as Natural Law forms the basis for what is commonly termed
to be the common law. Since this is true, then, what makes up the
definition of natural law?
To answer this question, we can begin by looking at the definition of
these two words. Natural
means “inherent, having a basis in nature, reality, and truth,
not made
or caused by mankind.” The term law describes “an existing
condition
which is binding and immutable (that which cannot be changed).”
When we
explore Natural Law we are exploring the integrity of the nature of
human consciousness and the problems of our reality. A working
definition for natural law might be: universsal, non-man-made, binding
and immutable conditions that govern the consequences of human
behavior. In other words, Natural Law is a body of universal spiritual
laws which act as the governing dynamics of consciousness in an effort
to maintain balance and stability in a society. It is grounded in the
inherent knowledge of right and wrong, trespass and non-trespass on the
rights of another.
In this
way, Natural Law differs from what is called “statutory
law,” which is
an artificial form of law created by mankind based on a kind of
quasi-contract law being used to compel perfor- mance. Of these two
forms
of law, Natural Law came first in time, and therefore was recognized
and practiced long before anyone created statutory law. So, as the
maxim goes, that which is first in time is best in law. It stands as
not only the original but the superior Law. Why is it superior? Because
no one has yet been able to disqualify it as a panacea which deals with
virtually every kind of controversy that can exist between two people.
This is because of its insistence on facts and the truth as being the
lodge pole bulwark determiner of what is right, equitable, and good.
If
you are a new subscriber (or even a long-standing subscriber) of the
Common Law Remedy website and you cannot seem to get your mind around
the concepts being exposed on the website, perhaps you need to cut
bait and run rather than wasting your time in a depreciating effort to
understand the basic importance of using the common law
vis-à-vis the
statutory jurisdiction. Please avail yourself of your ability to
determine the personal worthiness of things and unsubscribe from the
mailing list if you are no longer interested in its subject matter.
Your time would be much better spent pursuing other avenues of
self-education that you understand.
Each month we receive a
dozen or more of new subscription requests, and each month we dutifully
send out a link to each new subscriber to download the free report. And
for the vast majority of those recipients, we hear nary a word or
inquiry afterward. It makes us wonder whether or not our message is
getting through! We need feedback. If it is not getting through, we
will not be offended if you elect to unsubscribe. In fact, we encourage
it, and would much rather weed out the looky-loos and those who have
gotten in over their heads. This is not a business; it is an
educational endeavor for those willing to go the extra mile to learn
how to stand up for their rights. No one said this was going to be
easy, yet, on the other hand, it does not need to be hard either.
The
courts themselves can be a problem, especially if you are not aware of
the many tricks and traps that have been set in waiting to be sprung!
This fact alone can scare away many people, as well it should. A
dishonorable court has no duty to inform you of what rights of yours
are being abused as a result of the unpredictable and ever fluctuating
discretionary rules these courts use. You need to know when your rights
are being abused, and you need to object
immediatelly! Otherwise,
you’ve lost your opportunity to refute a fact with which you do not
agree and which has a material effect on the matter discussed. Such a
missed opportunity cannot be used in an appeal of the lower court’s
wrong decisions.
If you’re still reading this and you are
a new subscriber and haven’t yet been frightened away, in addition to
the ten past newsletter links that are sent to new subscribers, there
are seven additional past newslettters that we consider quite useful
for someone new to this study which contain bits and pieces of the
puzzle of information which may be edifying in one’s quest to
understand and use should they become involved in a courtroom
situation. The more one knows about how the courts work, the easier it is
to figure out how to approach certain subjects.
We assume
that most new subscribers—for whatever reason whether it be for lack of
time, simple distraction and forgetfuilness, or who are overwhelmed by
the amount of information available and in a quandry of where to
start—never really get around to reading past issues of the newsletter.
Newsletters that may have answered some of their questions or spawned
new inquiries. Therefore we have put together a list of a few suggested
reading past newsletters which contain valuable insights about how the
law works. This is in addition to the absolutely essential ten
newsletters whose links are sent to you following your initial
subscription.
The only way for you to learn is to engage
with the issues and concepts that have been discussed. To have skin in
the game, so to speak. And if that means doing a lot of reading and
thinking about what you are reading, then so be it. If you do not have
time for this, then we suggest that you unsubscribe immediately.
Rather
than linking to the specific newsletter archived on the website, we
will be linking to the archive page on which the newsletter edition exists, in
the hope that other newsletters may be looked at and read in addition
to the one specified. It should be said that there are four newsletters
to an archive page, and we will specify which story position (first,
second, third etc.) to look for in the newsletter that is being
highlighted. The reader will need to scroll down to the story
indicated to read it.
The first story is located on the following Archive page at the very bottom of the page (4th story).:
https://beattraffictickets.org/newsletters.html
. . . and is titled “The Willing vs. The Unwilling: Why The Private Mailing List”
At
the time (January 27th, 2016) the idea was to encourage more people who
were serious about this study to seek more nuanced information when it
became available. Since I had no idea with whom I was dealing, a
person’s seriousness was based upon whether or not the person ordered
one of the supplemental ebooks from the website. Ordering the ebook was
a one time gratuity which entitled the subscriber to ask as many
questions as they wanted while seeking a reply by email or phone call.
Many
of the answers to these questions took several hours to compose (two to
four or more hours of my time), and at the time I was in the midst of
changing my approach to what I was doing. Rather than asking a fee for
each time I spent answering questions, I made the gratuity the fee
which freed me up (mentally and attitudinally) to be more forthcoming
in my response. It removed the resentment that might possibly build up
as I spent time composing a reasonable response to a subscriber’s
inquiry. Receiving an email reply was far better than relying upon
one’s memory of what was said during a phone call because it
provided the recipient with a hard copy that they could return to time
and time again of what was said. It also gave me time
to think more precisely about the inquiry, and to be more complete in
my answer.
The next story is located on the following page and is the second story from the top:
https://beattraffictickets.org/newsletters-1.html
. . . it is titled “Why Is Understanding Consent So Important?”
The
last sentence of the first paragraph of this newsletter article
illustrates the importance of withdrawing consent. It states in the
original:
If you don’t thoroughly understand this concept,
you are putting yourself at risk of losing your position as a man or
woman up against an artificial jurisdiction which assumes the fact of
your consent based upon the proven existence of other facts.
If
I were writing this sentence today, I would amend the final passage
with the following: “assumes the fact of your consent based upon the
unproven existence of other so-called facts.” What is the “unproven
existence of other so-called facts?” I’m referring to the unproven fact
that the NAME you used to identify yourself in court is tied somehow to
a corporation or artificial entity, and that you knowingly incriminated
youself by identiying with that NAME. You see, they need to have your
apparent consent to jurisdiction coming out of your own mouth when they
ask you to state your name. However, there is never any evidence placed
in the record that you equated your name with the NAME on the driver
license.
This, of course, is based upon the fact that in
order to obtain the driver license you had to offer your certificate of
birth (B.C.) as proof of age. The certificate of birth, a document
created by the government in order to use your life’s energy as a
pledge to the creditors of the U.S. government in order for the
creditors to loan the government more funds to operate its [criminal]
business operations. All of this is done through the auspices of a tiny
word known as “assumption.” Actually, if you write “non-assumpsit” on a
document (like a driver license instead of or before signing your
name), the court is supposed to honor your knowledge of its
racketeering scheme and not prosecute you for having an identical NAME
to the one on the B.C.
The B.C., being the creation of the
government, is not your B.C. but rather is owned by the government. The
copy of the B.C. given to you is supposed to act as a token, a key of
sorts, so that
you, a man or woman, can interact with the fictiional government. It
represents a unique and separate entity from your capacity as a man or
woman. It is
the government’s document and not yours! So do not claim its
ownership!
However, it is difficult to say for sure, but it is unlikely that this
remedy would be effective these days in court. Nevertheless, it is good
to know how not to incriminate yourself—using the word
“non-assumpsit”
before signing or instead of signing your signature—when you are
asked for a
signature!
The third story is broken up into two parts. It
can be found here in the second and third stories from the top on this
Archive page:
https://beattraffictickets.org/newsletters-2.html
. . . and is titled “Developing Good Study Habits When Studying About Law” Parts 1 and 2
Part
One of this newsletter edition deals with the importance of maintaining
a good attitude toward the work at hand (extricating oneself from a
victimless “crime” or traffic violation) while making some suggestions
on the preferred use of a computer rather than a cell phone to keep
track of one’s documentation of the event and storage of vital
educational information. It can be easier to find and recall
information using the search feature on a computer than it may be on a
cell phone.
Part Two of this newsletter makes some
suggestions that I use to keep relevant information I’m coming across
and copying over into a file at the forefront of my mind. In the course
of explaining how to highlight text information that you wish to recall
at a moment’s notice, there is mentioned a principle of law that these
inferior courts often leave out of their process which would disqualify
their whole process if brought up on appeal, if not asserted in the
inferior court itself. It is a quotation from a case, Hagans v. Lavine,
415 U.S. 533 which states in part: “The law requires proof of
jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and
all administrative proceedings.”
This delicious little
plum of a Supreme Court holding, if it were true, could throw a monkey
wrench into the State’s happy little racketeering tea party. Why?
Because the State uses the officer’s citation as the original complaint
serving as a summons, and nowhere on it is there evidence of the
jurisdiction as being asserted. Jurisdiction is “assumed”by the court
and prosecutor by virtue of the NAME of the defendant equating with the
name on a birth certificate. However, the birth certificate that was
used to obtain the driver license is never entered into evidence as
proof of jurisdiction, and neither is anything else entered that
establishes personam jurisdiction. Nevermind that an assumption of fact made by the court
only holds up if it is not challenged! The State cannot be a witness in its
own legal process; because the State is a fiction can cannot be harmed
or injured. The State needs one of the people to enter a claim or
complaint, after which it then can witness that claim or complaint.
A
better quote to use would be: “A court has no jurisdiction to determine
its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal
is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that
question in the first instance.”
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los
Angeles,
171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. It is up
to the plaintiff to establish in its opening presentment
(summons) the two jurisdictions needed before a court may move forward
on a matter. Another fatal issue with using the citation itself as a
charging instrument is that it has no caption of who the parties are!
As in: State of California vs. Fredrico Rodriguez, for example.
Therefore, the plaintiff lacking that
information in its summons, the inferior court, if it proceeds without
that information, has errored in its assumption that jurisdiction has
been established ON THE RECORD of the matter! A court cannot simply
decide the matter of
personam jurisdiction on its own without a witness
to corroborate such jurisdiction. And the enforcement officer cannot be
that witness. When this does happen, it calls for an immediate dismissal of
the matter, if objected to, unless and until the prosecution can come up with said
evidence of jurisdiction. See what you can learn by reading the
newsletter? Every bit of information is important of which to be aware,
even if you never end up using it in a legal matter.
The
rest of this newletter article describes how I use color coding in my
research files to highlight information that I want brought to my
attention to use when reading it.
The fourth story follows
Part Two on the name newsletter page of the above Archive newsletter edition,
and is titled “A Pitfall To Avoid When Doing Legal Research.”
This
suggestion is very important to keep in mind if you are writing your
own paperwork. It refers to false quotations that can be found and
repeated on the Internet in several locations when searching for court
holdings to quote which might benefit your legal issue. ALWAYS look up
the quotation from a court holding website that is providing a copy of
the actual court holding document in order to confirm the quotation is
authentic. Too many times quotes found on various websites do not
accurately quote word for word the original holding that was published.
It’s like mis-information being spread on a variety of websites whose
creators do not take the time to look up the quotation to verify that
it is authentic. An example and explanation of this phenomenon is given
in this newsletter edition.
The fifth and sixth stories are found on Page 4 of the Newsletter Archive here:
https://beattraffictickets.org/newsletters-3.html
The
fifth story is the second story from the top of the page. Its title is:
“Victimless Crimes, Genies, and Accountability.” This newsletter
article outlines some interesting facts to keep in mind when deciding
how to defend against a victimless complaint or crime. The timely use
of the word “objection” comes into play here. These are important
issues that one needs to know. The question you should rightly ask
yourself after reading this is: Do I have the courage of my conviction
to use this remedy of objecting to the assumption that I am a member of
the
political entity bringing the law suit? Your position should be: I
am not a member of your legal society and fall outside of its
jurisdiction. Period!
The sixth story is the last (or
fourth) story on that same newsletter page. Its title is: “The
Importance Of The Timeliness Of Your Objections.” This newsletter
article explores the use of the word “objection” in a legal matter.
Each time your opponent attempts to assert something that you know is
false into a matter, you need to be ready to enter an objection to that
assertion. Such matters arise quite often when a false fact is being
assumed into existence. You must object immediately if you wish to
establish this issue as contrary to what your opponent is asserting.
Most
of the issues that the State asserts that a person has violated, and
therefore wishes to compel performance (control) of the actions of the
person, are related to politics. However, the Supreme Court has held
that “courts may not involve themselves in any strictly political
question . . . they may not compel participation in political parties
or interfere with membership in them.” (Citation case holding is in the
newsletter article.)
What is it, then, that they are doing
when they use the birth certificate (a quasi-political document the
State uses to pledge the labor of its citizens as collateral for a loan
from a private central banking consortium, to carry on the government’s
business) as nexus between the State and the man or woman being
accused? Is that not a politically motivated action? And yet, the
Supreme Court has stated that the government “may not compel
participation in political parties.” What is using the birth
certificate as an excuse to compel performance from people (men and
women) if not a political issue?
The inferior courts say
in their defense: “Well, this is a matter of contract law, not
politics.” They refuse to acknowledge the truth of the situation. In
doing that, they are commiting a fraud! And if you do not object to
this travesty, the matter stands as outlined in their court, and you
have consented to their “idea” (their private corporate by-law) of what
law is. Yet that doesn’t make this situation lawful!
As
the article questions further on down in this newsletter edition, “Who
is making the claim? What is the injury? [And:] How was my obligation
to your code created?” The State actors (agents, being the judges,
attorneys, law enforcement officers etc.) cannot with a straight face
answer those questions. At which point, their legal process deserves to
be dismissed! The only question is: will they dismiss the matter at
that point, or will they attempt to carry it forward? If they carry it
forward, you must immediately object and state for the record that you
intend to appeal this decision to a higher court.
Therefore
anyone who is sincere in their desire to learn more about how the
common law works as opposed to statutory law, the nuts and bolts of
answers to many of their questions are here for them to study and
ponder over. One of the keys to learning is to inquire into things
unknown. Feedback is very important when seeking to ferret out
truthful answers to questions regarding a corrupt institution. If you
are unwilling to provide feedback, we are unwilling to carry out your
education! Retroactive to the beginning of this year (2025) and
beginning today, if we have not heard from you after ten (10) weeks,
your subscription will be cancelled and you will not be allowed to
resubscribe.
This is how important feedback is to us. It
means more uncompensated work for us, but then we are able to get to
the bottom of questions much quicker when everyone is willing to share
their experiences. We have shared our experience with you; we expect
nothing less from you, our subscriber, in return. As we mentioned
above, either you have skin in this game or you do not. No matter the
reason, submitting an unsubscribe request is the only honorable way to
proceed for those who have lost interest. Those who do and who wish at some later date to re-subscribe
may do so under the same conditions as their original subscription. We
take your subscription to learn seriously, and we hope that you do
also.
You may think that we are being too stringent in our position on this,
but this is just how serious this legal game has become in recent
times. Unless you have the strength of your conviction to rely upon,
you will not succeed if you cannot push back on the legal system and
cram the Truth right back down their throats when it dishonors you. Our
strength is in our numbers; and we out number them! Additionally, our
collective opinion matters, even to them whether they say so or
not.
So to new subscribers today and previous subscribers going back to the
first of the year, take your time, you
have ten weeks to read over the website and decide whether or not this
study is for you. There is no dishonor in admitting that it goes over
your head and requesting to unsubscribe. By doing so, you can always
resubscribe at a later time (provided we’re still around; a real
concern as we are not getting any yonnger) and begin again.
Those subscribers, both new and old, who have not communicated
with us after ten weeks will have
their subscriptions cancelled. Reciprocity in feedback is now a
requirement if you wish to maintain your subscription. We will no
longer tolerate throwing pearls to the swine
and having the swine ignore it.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We hope to hear from you, one way or the other, in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org
_________________
A New Newsletter Article
Date: ??, 2019
Hello Friends,
The next article is in composition and has not been completed.
It has been a long time in coming, but I’m finally ready to
begin sharing with you more of what I have learned about the
law
through publishing a
semi-consistent subscription newsletter service. I
won’t commit to how often these newsletters will be sent,
whether on a weekly or a bi-weekly or a monthly basis or whatever as
they are free to people who subscribe to download the free
Common Law Remedy
report. The frequency of publication also depends upon my workload at
any given time.
_________________
A New Newsletter Article
Date: ??, 2019
Hello Friends,
The next article is in composition and has not been completed.
It has been a long time in coming, but I’m finally ready to
begin sharing with you more of what I have learned about the
law
through publishing a
semi-consistent subscription newsletter service. I
won’t commit to how often these newsletters will be sent,
whether on a weekly or a bi-weekly or a monthly basis or whatever as
they are free to people who subscribe to download the free
Common Law Remedy
report. The frequency of publication also depends upon my workload at
any given time.
_________________
A New Newsletter Article
Date: ??, 2019
Hello Friends,
The next article is in composition and has not been completed.
It has been a long time in coming, but I’m finally ready to
begin sharing with you more of what I have learned about the
law
through publishing a
semi-consistent subscription newsletter service. I
won’t commit to how often these newsletters will be sent,
whether on a weekly or a bi-weekly or a monthly basis or whatever as
they are free to people who subscribe to download the free
Common Law Remedy
report. The frequency of publication also depends upon my workload at
any given time.
_________________
If you would like to learn more about these concepts so you can avoid
the whole mess without having to “appear” in court
at all,
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.