i use common law in a sense, but really all i stick to is the bible. this
country (us of A) and its laws are judeo-christian as is all common law,
but as many know thats not what the kangaroo courts follow. yet they are
bound to it by the US supreme court, stare decisis, as well as the
constitution which guarantees a republic form of government. also in
steward mach. co v davis it outlines how the confederated states in union
(i.e republican form of government) are under the protection of both
constitutions.
my main point always will be though we the people are "the ultimate
sovereign of which all legitimate authority flows" and "when the peace and
dignity of the sovereign is violated. that sovereign is the people." gamble
v us (2019). the judges in that case lay out how the "dual sovereign" and a
lot of important facts and point out important cases, not limited to
seminole tribe of florida v florida which in part states "no one is bound
to civil law as one who can bind themself can release therefore they are
not bound at all"
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 6:39 AM noble savage <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*Hey! Here's a definition I didn't come across before as I was doing my
previous research on the subject...*
*Oxford Dictionary - "sounding": Information or evidence ascertained as a
preliminary step before deciding on a course of action.*
On Saturday, February 27, 2021, 5:43:06 AM PST, Charley Dan <
charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Miranda warning is there case but it is under the common law of equality.
Treating one equal. One can not hide their knowledge your not their subject
or make reasonable sure to know you are or are not. One can not simply ask
a question, you a United States citizen without some explanation of what
one is and call it fair and equal. In all honesty they need to explain to
you what a state national and United States citizen is or irs fraud
On Feb 27, 2021, 6:09 AM -0700, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
what do you mean by "miranda warning is wrong"?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 2:37 PM Paul M <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One should claim to be Sui Juris - over the age of 21 and responsible for
one's own actions.
BAR BRITISH ARISTOCRACY REGISTRATION - THEY PLEDGE an oath TO BE A
SERVANT TO THE CROWN, basically gave up their citizenship
Miranda Warning is wrong, Constitution does not does not say ATTORNEY it
says a counselor. An Attorney, Lawyer are not Licensed by the State, they
are members of a court, to do business . They are given a license by the
client to represent them
On Friday, February 26, 2021, 8:36:05 AM CST, Fred Wind <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems that the BAR is a private club with its members paying dues to be
in 'good standing'
Attorn, a transference of property
Attorney, facilitator of the transference of property
Hiring an Attorney, makes you a ward of the state, someone incapable of
handling your own affairs, CJS, Vol 7 section4
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 Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 6:12 AM, clint kessler
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think you misinterpreted this... I believe it basically says these are
the only officials allowed to take someone else's Oath or sworn affidavit.
All attorneys are required to members of the BAR. I would expect lawyers
also.. What I did find interesting though and thanks for posting this...
Counselor at Law... last time I told a judge I was a helping friend or
counselor and the judge told me I could not do this..I asked why and he
said it was not allowed. I told him I have not taken any money or trade for
my services and he was a friend. No go... Hmm need to look into this a lil
closer. My comprehension is counselors in law are not required to be BAR.
Thanks again,
all rights reserved, all benefits waived,
Daryl-Arthur House of Kessler
On Friday, February 19, 2021, 6:57:11 PM CST, NELSON DICE <
nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
