Court of Record:
Here is a site put together by Mr. M.R. Hamilton and this link below takes you right to his explanation of a Court of Record:
http://afreecountry.com/?q=
See text below.
Hamilton also strongly endorses Bill Thornton’s case study of a Court of Record being established by the Plaintiff before the judge, with the judge having no idea what is about to hit him (see below link to Thornton’s website). You will note a dramatic change in the attitude of the judge after the Plaintiff’s filing of Judicial Notice, and then again after the Plaintiff’s filing of Contempt against the judge/magistrate. This presented a real learning experience for both me and my wife. I think you’ll find it most informative too.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/
I think you’ll find both sites worth the time to walk through as there’s a plethora of information (newer for me than for you, I’m sure) to digest.
>>
Court of Record or Common Law Court M. R. Hamilton’s picture Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on Mon, 08/18/2014 – 09:42 The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] Our court system is based on a centuries old system. There are some misconceptions about what is a court. There are actually several jurisdictions over which a court can preside. There is admiralty or commercial court. There is equity court or fair play court and there is common law court or a court of record. There is also a nisi prius court. A nisi prius court is a court that exist because you failed to object. The vast majority of the time that one is pulled into court, he is pulled into admiralty court. If you hire an attorney, you are typically ceding jurisdiction to this court. That means you are consenting to the court jurisdiction, a voluntary act you must not do. The consent occurs even if done so inadvertently. Equity courts are presided over by chancellors. The chancellor was appointed by the king to oversee simple complaints. (Remember, common law is based on old English law.) The chancellor was permitted to make law as he saw fit to settle a claim fairly. An example of an equity court is the one in which Irwin Schiff was convicted on October 24th, 2005. He was convicted for filing “false tax returns” for the years 1997 through 2002. According to transcripts, during the trial, Schiff’s defense attorney made numerous attempts at quoting United States Code and previous cases regarding income tax that would have resulted in an acquittal had the jury heard the testimony. However, the trial judge, Kent Dawson, actually stated, “In my court I am the law.” He has been criticized for this statement, but he was correct. Of course, since American people are not required to pay income tax or file income tax returns, why would he file a return to begin with? Some people think there are no longer common law courts in the united states of America, because they think that the court is the building that court is held in. That is just a building. The papers filed to start an action is what determines the type of court. People are the sovereigns in the united states of America or any other republic for that matter. As such, no law passed by any legislative branch of government has any lawful force of authority over the sovereign. The appropriate course of action when pulled into any court is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. When you do this, you must make yourself a plaintiff by filing a counterclaim in a court of record. A court of record is a common law court wherein the court is “the person and suit of the plaintiff”. In a court of record, the judge is merely a magistrate and does not have the authority to make decisions, offer opinions or issue orders. So, although Irwin Schiff had this information since Bill Thornton had provided it to him, he could have done so and the judge would not have been able to claim that he is the law, because in that court, the decisions would have been made by Irwin Schiff, because it was his court. As a matter of fact, the sovereign decrees the law, so the law would have been whatever Irwin Schiff decreed it to be which would have been in his papers when he filed suit for his damages for being imprisoned. So let’s take a look at the definitions of a court. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 INTERNATIONAL LAW The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. …. CLASSIFICATION Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual: COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231. A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. Since, the common law is based on international laws that have been in place for centuries, this definition would apply. It is recognized in the Constitution for the United States of America. All mentions of law in the Constitution refer to the common law, which was the predominate practice at the time. Common law is rarely used now , because it is harder for judges to take advantage of people in favor of government. After all, they are government employees. They know that they are merely magistrates in a common law court and do not have the authority to make decisions or orders. So let’s see what a judge actually is according to Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103. MAGISTRATE Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630. A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W. 32, 34. …. The word “magistrate” does not necessarily imply an officer exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds. Schultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336. As we can see, this would not allow the judge to perform the duties of a tribunal. The best way to get a firm grasp on common law is to listen to the four hour seminar given by Bill Thornton. It is a four hour seminar broken into three segments. It will give you a very good comprehension of common law. It is a must if you are to take responsibility for your lawful wellbeing.
>>>
CASE LOG [music] 10-07-98 Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court. 02-18-99 Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite authoritative, tense, and quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted. Defendant’s demurrer was denied. Transcript #1 tells the story. One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely that of “judge,” his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a ministerial capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to “judge” something, or to exercise any discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of the court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as a writ of error coram nobus. 05-06-99 Plaintiff filed Judicial Notice, Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff’s status., and a Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part. Defined 05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and asked the plaintiff “What are we doing at this point?” The plaintiff simply said, “The only business before the Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday. As far as — barring that, there’s no business before the Court today.” The hearing was terminated. When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant’s attorney was heard to ask, “Okay. Am I correct in that the Court’s made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?” The magistrate replied, “I’ve made no rulings. I’ve made — what I’ve done — the record speaks for itself.” Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it. Transcript #2 reports the day’s proceeding. 06-07-99, Plaintiff filed First Amended Action Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a “First Amended Complaint.” Then the clerk’s supervisor refused to file it because there was no court order signed by a magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the filing of a first amended action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded the clerk that she could “file on demand.” She accepted the paper and marked it “FILED ON DEMAND”. 06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a “CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS.” The form lays out a simple procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon the facts. Here the clerk certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her certification, the court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly. 08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions. Transcript #3 is referenced in the plaintiff’s affidavit used in the contempt proceeding. 09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion was accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the papers to protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows: Order: Sealing of Papers and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers: Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Affidavit of Witness in support of motion Affidavit of Plaintiff and exhibits in support of motion An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the plaintiff, or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two supporting affidavits with exhibits. Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are prohibited from holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an employee’s performance is being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated the contempt accusation as if it were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job performance of the clerk and the magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public view. However, the court empowered the accused themselves to make the matter public any time they wished. 10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See Transcript #4. 02-02-00 Ruling in re contempt of court. This ruling brings together the complete picture of the relationship between the people and the government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty, whereas this paper is complete. 04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant’s attorney, and plaintiff were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge. Transcript #5 Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word, and be certain that you personally check every cite–don’t trust anybody or anything; not even what you find at this web site.
>>>>
