JB
Address post to Nelson but "hey charley". Is that talking behind my back?
Humor I'll tell you less you miss it.
I'll give my opinion and if you want to debate it, do. If not your allowed
to ignore it without my permission, sir king JB. I sir Charles just
happens to disagree with your concepts and others here. Nothing personal
but you and others concepts are misleading in my opinion and trying to
redirect to a more true understanding. Or one can be critical and say,
"just charleys opinion". To JB and others who take it personal is denying
themselves and me free discussion in relation to our man made courts and
hopefully learn from an understanding of how money and prevous contracts
destroy ones court.
KJV, well, enlighten the group with your interpretation of what it says
about money. Thereby educating, at least me. I've read it many times and
apparently disagree with you on the interpreting of the words. I'm sure
it's the final word but the interpreting is not.
Now for common law and who ever stated it was based on English law does not
realize the Supreme Court has stated that in America "common law is English
law without the rules". If you take away the Magna Carta rules, and many of
the other rules on that list, etc. what does one have?
That is why I state the common law=contract law. Nothing more. It is only
the contracts I'm involved in and my interpretation and opponents
interpreting thereof. One's court really comes down to simple understanding
of being fair or meeting of the minds.
If one goes to court with the concept that their court is tied to previous
rules or really contracts as the Magna Carta is a contract. Then who
decides which contracts I'm involved in? Or who decides which rules apply
to Sir Charles kingly court? At that point is it my kings court anymore? My
lost of court only happens when another and I disagree or have no meeting
of the minds and require a jury to decide. Then the jury is the court I'm
required to submit to. That is American law by the northwest ordinance
agreement I've decided to use and amazingly United States agrees as United
states judicial honors the organic law contracts or documents. Meeting of
the minds between this sovereign king and the limited granted sovereignty
surrendered to the United States is based on organic law. It could be the
Magna Carta but our forefathers said no. United States is involved with
Magna Carta but not man.
So how this relate to my personal court experiences is: Simply when
government creates their statutory court I know my approach with the
constitution gets results. If it did not, I would go to the MagnaCarter
which is more United States rules with Great Britain then with me. Why?
Because United States has no standing in man court. United States can not
create rules between United States and man. JB and I can create rules or
contracts between us but not the United States. If the United States
creates rules between us? It can rule over us. Where is Sir JB and charley
then?
That is also why the money issue is miss understood. The United States
controlling money is unlawful because it allows United States to over rule
free citizens. United States claimed bankruptcy for one purpose. To rob it
from you and I to rule over American's. It is still fairly sound money if
one can take the authority out of money. The authority of the United States
money/currency robbed man of authority. Unconstitutional, unlawful,
uncontractual and reason why suits are very high and beyond just immediate
harm done. It is why one must deny taxation.
JB, I've got nothing against you or anyone personally. I do have strong
views that I'll debate to the end. If you win me over? I'll be your friend.
Proverbs. I just have a different view of how goverment and law works then
most. Reason is because I find what works and when it does not. I'll change
my view. Presently I've got nine or ten cases going. That does not count
those that come by for advice and I assist with which is that many again.
That grants me lots of experience to what works or not. It gives me vision
how the United States views our charter or contracts interpretation. The
Constitution contract says that the Supreme Court has final say in equity
and law. That means one has to allow that Supreme judge committee as final
rule maker.
I'm far beyond knowledgeable as I've got so much more I want answers to
questions never posed on forums.
Sir JB it is not personal and do not take it that way. It is just that Sir
Charles views it different and will defend it strongly as I've seen it in
court experience and not books. Am I right? Like I said, till it does not
work it is truth.
Charleydan
On Nov 9, 2021, 6:59 AM -0700, Rey Police <reypolice1@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
JB
Firstly I commented your posting of list. Thank you.
May I add Blackstone's comments on English law.
A theses on common law 1765-1766.
Our Constitution is based on it.
To answer your question how to best post afv?
Answer Sue the wrong doers.
Charley on remedy to your first question.
Good day.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021, 1:29 AM nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx <nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
JB,Life in one word--LOVE
Job Well donefor us to memorize and use it before they replace with all
UCC as supreme law of their / the land.
The main reason we should not use UCC since it bring us back to commerce.
Whats the most comprehensive way to establish our status, standing,
jurisdiction effectively?
How do we do redemptions a4v to discharge debts?
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 19:12, Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Remember the most important is the constitutional limitations put on the
United States. Without jurisdiction the United States has no authority.
On Nov 6, 2021, 7:33 PM -0600, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
For those who need a listing for court reasons or personal :-)
These, and all others, are universally known as supreme law of the land:
• The Holy Bible, KJV 1611 GOD’s Law’s are Superior Law
• 1215 Magna Carta
• 1606 The First Charter of Virginia
• 1620 Mayflower Compact
• 1628 Petition of Rights
• 1641 Grand Remonstrance
• 1689 English bill of rights
• 1765 The Declaration of rights in congress at New York
• 1774 The Declaration of rights in congress at Philadelphia
• 1775 The Declaration of Arms
• 1776 The Virginia Declaration of rights
• 1776 Declaration of Independence
• 1777 the Articles of Confederation
• 1783 Treaty of Peace
• 1787 Northwest Ordinance
• 1789 The Constitution for the united States of America
• 1791 The Bill of Rights
• 1868 The Constitution of The United States of America
• 1864, 1929 and 1949 The Geneva Conventions
• 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• 23 March 1976 The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
Articles 1-27*
--
