If you ever flub in court in America, here is a cute little court precident to throw at the Judge to regain your rights. I have not tried this yet, but it is an ACE UP YOUR SLEEVE. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148.“
If you ever flub in court in America, here is a cute little court precident to throw at the Judge to regain your rights. I have not tried this yet, but it is an ACE UP YOUR SLEEVE. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148.“
It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its’ powers unless it expressly reserves its right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”
@tonyfreire702 "The rights of the Indians to occupy those lands "do not depend on . . . any . . . statutes of the State, but upon treaties, which are the supreme law of the land; it is to these treaties we must look to ascertain the nature of these rights, and the extent of them." From what I can see it looks like the King of England with the authority through the Papal Bulls decided to conquer the heathens
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 US 661 - Supreme Court 1974
@TheoryIsSpeculation LOL, the ten commandments are in the old testament. The only true law to get inti heaven is belif in him. (After you have accepted him)
When they "CONCURE"!! If they differ, statutes and written law wins. And a legal maxim is just that, a maxim, not binding on anyone, it is not a rule of law, it's used to fill in any blanks in a law, it does not create law.
Really? Besides one old coot in a cafe (who had to search everywhere for the law..LOL) what proof do you have? The only way common law wins over a statute is when it conflicts with the Constitution..which is written law. IF the written law (statute) is constitutional, it overrides any common law. Why do you think Congress writes laws to counter various Court (common law) decisions?
Or like this: Virginia Code section 1-200: "The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, ***except as altered by the General Assembly [by statutes].****"
You REALLY don't know what "Common Law" is, do you? Common Law IS those precedents that you say they don't want to publish! So what you are saying is that they don't want to publish common law because that would set a common law. See how stupid that sounds?
So it's only a God that you claim, not someone else's God? And "Common Law" covers all traditions, even those not in Mosaic law. Besides, when was the last time you offered a blood sacrifice, properly performed in the Temple by a Levite priest?
Also total bs, he's selling his services as a scam artist. That county may have had problems, but that has nothing to do with any licencing or registration laws...those are State laws, not county.
Yes, where there is no statute, you have to go with the common law. Courts get theior jursdiction from either the subject matter, i.e. criminal courts, tax courts, etc., or geographically, i.e. your location and the court's location. Claiming to be a sovereign has no effect on either of these, neither does anything about being an"UNENFRANCHISED INDIVIDUAL".
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law...the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
I think you're nuts. Common Law comes from legal traditions and judges decisions, not God's law. Besides, if you say that, you also have to say which God you are talking about, maybe you worship Vishnu...
Meaning they both say the same thing, if they say something different, the statute take precedent. Every case in court is common law, that is the definition of Common Law.
That somehow Common Law and Statute Law are in opposition, or that you can claim some special common law privilege that does not exist. We do not live under Admiralty Law, that is only for cases that original on the open sea or in a Nation's navigatable waters. Pleading does not establish jurisdiction, in you are in court they most likely have it already....you ARE there, so they have physical jurisdiction.
@RetSquid I can guarantee you that is not my views. Factually any "law" is just someone's opinion that is enforced with threats and/or use of violence. I dont believe anyone was born with a saddle on their back. I dont believe anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to do.
@RetSquid Then you are statist. Statism is an addiction to aggression. There is syndrome called battered wife syndrome or stockholm syndrome that is about people who justify and defend the use of violence against others and themselves. It is a sickness of the mind.
No, I am a Conservative, you sound like you are just a anarchist. All laws and any rules carry with them an implicit threat of some kind. Same thing as if you put up a 'No Trespassing" sign on your property, you are threatening trespassers with some kind of retribution.
BTW, the "State" (Statism) and "society" are two different things.
If they do play that trick w you. If you are doubtful of what your answering will do, ask the judge, "Does me answering you make a contract with you?" OR anything to that effect.
He has to answer,and he/she may answer by throwing you out :) yay! OR trying to keep establishing jurisdiction over you with more questions YOU SIMPLY RESTATE YOUR QUESTION. If you're asked to go past the bar, ask him if it makes a contract if you cross the bar!
he did a TERRIBLE JOB explaining it to her. He needs to let someone else talk to people to teach them about this thing
BigDaddyEvents 1 week ago
This interviewer needs some education it would seem...
Barnes466 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you ever flub in court in America, here is a cute little court precident to throw at the Judge to regain your rights. I have not tried this yet, but it is an ACE UP YOUR SLEEVE. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148.“
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
If you ever flub in court in America, here is a cute little court precident to throw at the Judge to regain your rights. I have not tried this yet, but it is an ACE UP YOUR SLEEVE. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148.“
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its’ powers unless it expressly reserves its right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
@tonyfreire702 "The rights of the Indians to occupy those lands "do not depend on . . . any . . . statutes of the State, but upon treaties, which are the supreme law of the land; it is to these treaties we must look to ascertain the nature of these rights, and the extent of them." From what I can see it looks like the King of England with the authority through the Papal Bulls decided to conquer the heathens
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 US 661 - Supreme Court 1974
jpnovation 3 weeks ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation LOL, the ten commandments are in the old testament. The only true law to get inti heaven is belif in him. (After you have accepted him)
gaums 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
Where in the Constitution does it state that the United States is a Theocracy?
Nice cover for your blatant error of the Heller case, thinking a brief is the decision.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
So we should start sacrifices and stoning prostitutes? Because that is God's law also.
Your "table of authorities" come from a legal brief, not the Court. The Court never refered to either of those.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
If this is true, you should be able to post an independant source for the information.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
When they "CONCURE"!! If they differ, statutes and written law wins. And a legal maxim is just that, a maxim, not binding on anyone, it is not a rule of law, it's used to fill in any blanks in a law, it does not create law.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
Really? Besides one old coot in a cafe (who had to search everywhere for the law..LOL) what proof do you have? The only way common law wins over a statute is when it conflicts with the Constitution..which is written law. IF the written law (statute) is constitutional, it overrides any common law. Why do you think Congress writes laws to counter various Court (common law) decisions?
RetSquid 4 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation Thanks for the 'George Gordon' and other links.
FYI, Squids aren't very astute at understanding Law, Acts, Statutes, Policies et al.
So don't burn yourself out on a lost cause. Ha,ha!
Good drama though, admiring your 'lern-U-somthin' angle.
Cheers!
GnosticNinja 4 months ago
Great book mentioned in last comment
gg6394 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
Or like this: Virginia Code section 1-200: "The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, ***except as altered by the General Assembly [by statutes].****"
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
You REALLY don't know what "Common Law" is, do you? Common Law IS those precedents that you say they don't want to publish! So what you are saying is that they don't want to publish common law because that would set a common law. See how stupid that sounds?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
You just cited it yourself, but then had to remove the comment because you found out it proved you wrong.
Would you like me to repost your comment for you?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
So it's only a God that you claim, not someone else's God? And "Common Law" covers all traditions, even those not in Mosaic law. Besides, when was the last time you offered a blood sacrifice, properly performed in the Temple by a Levite priest?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
Also total bs, he's selling his services as a scam artist. That county may have had problems, but that has nothing to do with any licencing or registration laws...those are State laws, not county.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
That is a totla bullshit story, there was no contract, as there was no consideration or offer for anything.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
Yes, where there is no statute, you have to go with the common law. Courts get theior jursdiction from either the subject matter, i.e. criminal courts, tax courts, etc., or geographically, i.e. your location and the court's location. Claiming to be a sovereign has no effect on either of these, neither does anything about being an"UNENFRANCHISED INDIVIDUAL".
RetSquid 6 months ago
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law...the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
I think you're nuts. Common Law comes from legal traditions and judges decisions, not God's law. Besides, if you say that, you also have to say which God you are talking about, maybe you worship Vishnu...
RetSquid 6 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
"When the common law and statute law concur"
Meaning they both say the same thing, if they say something different, the statute take precedent. Every case in court is common law, that is the definition of Common Law.
RetSquid 6 months ago
HOW DOPEY IS THIS CHICK SHE NEEDS SOME MORE WEED MANNN !!!
THEDANEO86 6 months ago
@RetSquid Go to marc stevens dot net
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611
Yep, been there, done that...still no cases supporting your views.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid What views do I have?
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611
That somehow Common Law and Statute Law are in opposition, or that you can claim some special common law privilege that does not exist. We do not live under Admiralty Law, that is only for cases that original on the open sea or in a Nation's navigatable waters. Pleading does not establish jurisdiction, in you are in court they most likely have it already....you ARE there, so they have physical jurisdiction.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid I can guarantee you that is not my views. Factually any "law" is just someone's opinion that is enforced with threats and/or use of violence. I dont believe anyone was born with a saddle on their back. I dont believe anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to do.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611
"any "law" is just someone's opinion that is enforced with threats and/or use of violence. "
Yes, that is what it is. I believe that if you continue to live in a society then you have to obey the rules of that society or pay the consequences.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Then you are statist. Statism is an addiction to aggression. There is syndrome called battered wife syndrome or stockholm syndrome that is about people who justify and defend the use of violence against others and themselves. It is a sickness of the mind.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611
No, I am a Conservative, you sound like you are just a anarchist. All laws and any rules carry with them an implicit threat of some kind. Same thing as if you put up a 'No Trespassing" sign on your property, you are threatening trespassers with some kind of retribution.
BTW, the "State" (Statism) and "society" are two different things.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 Do you really believe anyone has a right to initiate violence against someone else?
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
If they do play that trick w you. If you are doubtful of what your answering will do, ask the judge, "Does me answering you make a contract with you?" OR anything to that effect.
He has to answer,and he/she may answer by throwing you out :) yay! OR trying to keep establishing jurisdiction over you with more questions YOU SIMPLY RESTATE YOUR QUESTION. If you're asked to go past the bar, ask him if it makes a contract if you cross the bar!
KEEP YOUR COOL!
Era1014 6 months ago
You can save money by using Common Law. They could use a New Age Gecko = ]
Casey4765 1 year ago