“Ignorance of the law excuses no man from practicing it.

”
Addison Mizner

JURISDICTION. The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as
existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon
a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject
of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or
who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. (Black’s 2nd)

Territorial jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take

cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6
Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has
jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory. Every act of
jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying
it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated.
1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et
seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.

Jurisdiction is original when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is
called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the
judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of
a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates
have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is also concurrent, exclusive, or assistant.
Concurrent jurisdiction is that which may be entertained by several courts. It is a rule that in
cases of concurrent jurisdictions, that which is first seized of the case shall try it to the exclusion
of the other. Exclusive jurisdiction is that which has alone the power to try or determine the Suit,
action, or matter in dispute. assistant jurisdiction is that which is afforded by a court of chancery,
in aid of a court of law; as, for example, by a bill of discovery, by the examination of witnesses de
bene esse, or out of the jurisdiction of the court; by the perpetuation of the testimony of
witnesses, and the like.

It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of parties, cannot, therefore, confer it,
in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M'Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1
Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1
Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some
privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may wave the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1
Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M'Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448;
2 Wash. 213.

Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear
upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86;
11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355;
Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may,
by a general or special law, provide otherwise. Pet. C. C. R. 36. Vide 1 Salk. 414; Bac. Ab. Courts,
&c., C. D; Id. Prerogative, E 6; Merlin, Rep. h. t.; Ayl. Pat. 317, and the art. Competency. As to the
force of municipal law beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state, see Wheat. Intern. Law,
part a, c. 2, §7, et seq.; Story, Confl. of Laws, c. 2; Huberus, lib. 1, t. 3; 13 Mass. R. 4 Pard. Dr.
Com. part. 6, t. 7, c. 2, §1; and the articles Conflict of Laws; Courts of the United States. See
generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
 There are various aspects of jurisdiction that must be acquired by the court in every court case. These
aspects of jurisdiction are also required elements of due process of law. Specifically, before an individual can be
charged and convicted of a crime, the government official, or agency, court and plaintiff must prove that they have
jurisdiction over the accused. The requirements of obtaining jurisdiction can never be waved, if a court did obtain
proper jurisdiction over the defendant in the beginning of the process of a law suit they cannot have in the end just
because they say that they do. Jurisdiction is something that must be proved on the record of the court. Properly
acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant is a critical part of the due process of law and only by the record of the
court can it be proved that the court had established jurisdiction at the onset of the suit and did not lose
jurisdiction over the defendant during the suit. Anyone, not just the government, who files suit must establish
jurisdiction over the other party before the court can enter a valid verdict and judgement.

In fact, jurisdiction is almost never even addressed by most people in law suits because of the lack of
knowledge of what the different jurisdictions are and what is required as proper due process to acquire jurisdiction
over the parties. Jurisdiction was challenged successfully by myself in this case, and since it was unanswered by
Judge Hadwiger, who instead pushed forward with the matter as though without establishing authority over the
matter he could still lawfully hear it, the case MUST be dismissed. That having been said, by choosing to act in
violation of his oath of office and statutory and ministerial duties, Mickey Hadwiger the man and the judge have
chosen to willfully become a tort feasor and a criminal trespasser.

There are seven elements of jurisdiction, all of which must be proved by the prosecution if challenged. If
not challenged, it will ALWAYS be assumed by the court that competent jurisdiction is proved and accepted by all
parties. If any element of the seven is not proven on the record, the case must be dismissed.

If jurisdiction is to be successfully challenged, it must be at the commencement of proceedings, but it can

be challenged at any time. To allow the trial to continue at all is in some ways to admit that the court has properly
established jurisdiction over the defendant. However if there are critical elements of jurisdiction that are lacking
these are never waved. Subject matter jurisdiction is one of these that can never be waved. Below are the seven
issues of jurisdiction in every court case. Remember, if any one of these seven are not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, the case cannot continue, and, if you are a defendant, motions to dismiss the case with prejudice should be
filed as soon as possible.

1. The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken
identity. For stop and identify issues (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461
US 352.

Almost every time the state brings “charges” against something, that something is an estate or a trust, a
corporation, or as a penal code administering an infant. The proper filing to challenge the jurisdiction of the court
when they have charged the wrong man is called a plea in abatement. A plea in abatement must be done before
any other filing is done in court, it should be the first thing you file.

A definition of the term abatement shall now be given from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition. Only
the first 4 terms are included here, there are thirty two listed in Bouvier’s.

ABATEMENT, pleading, is the overthrow of an action in consequence of some error

committed in bringing or conducting it when the plaintiff is not forever barred from bringing
another action. 1 Chit. Pl. 434. Abatement is by plea. There can be no demurrer in abatement.
Willes' Rep. 479; Salk. 220.

2. Pleas in abatement will be considered as relating, 1, to the jurisdiction of the court; 2,

to the person of the plaintiff; 3, to that of the defendant; 4, to the writ; 5, to the qualities of such
pleas ; 6, to the form of such pleas; 7, to the affidavit of the truth of pleas in abatement.

3. – 1. As to pleas relating to the jurisdiction of the court, see article Jurisdiction, and
Arch. Civ. Pl. 290; 1 Chit. PI. Index. tit, Jurisdiction. There is only one case in which the jurisdiction
of the court may be inquired of under the general issue, and that is where no court of the
country has jurisdiction of the cause, for in that case no action can be maintained by the law of
 the land. 3 Mass. Rep. Rea v. Hayden, 1 Dougl. 450; 3 Johns. Rep. 113; 2 Penn. Law Journal 64,
Meredith v. Pierie.

4. – 2. Relating to the person of the plaintiff. 1. The defendant may plead to the person
of the plaintiff that there never was any such person in rerum natura. Bro. Brief, 25 ; 19 Johns.
308 Com. Dig. Abatement, E 16. And if one of several plaintiffs be a fictitious person, it abates the
writ. Com. Dig. Abatement, E 16; 1 Chit. Pl. 435; Arch. Civ. Pl. 304. But a nominal plaintiff in
ejectment may sustain an action. 5 Verm. 93; 19 John. 308. As to the rule in Pennsylvania, see 5
Watts, 423. (End passage)

Notice that when the corporate STATE brings a charge it is always done by a fictitious person.

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. In
other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law. Indictment or information is
defective unless every fact, which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt, is stated. The assumption of an
element is not lawful. Otherwise, the accused will not be thoroughly informed. It is the judge's job to assure that
justice is accomplished.

It is clear in most cases regarding the STATE that every time that statutes are used they are being used
incorrectly. Furthermore it is clear in 1 USC 8 under the definition of the word “person” the federal government or
any instrumentality or agency thereof is administering an infant in any federal court.

When you are bringing charges (actions) under the common law (at law), (a list of common law actions is
included in this handbook in chapter 48d.) you should include the definition of the charge in the body of the action,
because many attorneys are clueless as to the true definition of many of these actions.

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detailed so as to enable a
people of average intelligence to understand the nature of the charge (to enable preparation of defense), and the
cause of the accusation against him; the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must
not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense
describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must
be stated and sworn to under penalty of perjury. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of
probable cause.

4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some positively identifiable people
(human being) must accuse. Everyone has the right to face their accuser. Some man or woman must take
responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by
which a man or a woman may begin to face their accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the
accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was
injured does not qualify as direct evidence.

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no
accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is, for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be
accorded due process. The accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This
includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in
placing one of the people in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man or woman of their
freedom. Defective due process, when proven, is an issue that renders the verdict and judgement void.

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature
of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (Article III judge, or a court of record, or a valid court of
chancery). Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all people would be in jeopardy of a loss
of their freedom being imposed upon them at any time by a bureaucrat's whim. It is conceivable that the
procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and
the same.
 The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue of personal jurisdiction. The seventh element
(also element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by
acts controlled by law; territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court and to any
trans-jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by
controversial long-arm statutes)

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all
designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of facts alleged for
determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained, is an absolute requirement of any
court of law. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and any charges must be dismissed for failure to state an
offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction, also known as inpersonam jurisdiction, and all
proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is
always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge
and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers
beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today,
information is being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's
first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client
conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former
must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship
with their attorneys.

After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of "regarding Lawyer
Discipline & other rules"; Also Canons 1 through 9.

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused
makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain
questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and
addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel
appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, shall be proven, not by the court, but by the party
attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The
court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See: McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178.
The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

The five different jurisdictions of law in the united States of America are Common law, Equity, Admiralty,
Ecclesiastical, and Military. Let us consider each on their own and how they differ from each other. It should be
noted that as above mentioned there are many ways in which law is divided. This division listed below is to
jurisdiction not to systems of law or origin of law. This division of the different jurisdictions described below is
important to remember when dealing with different issues and suits in court. Know what court you are in, and
know what the court’s jurisdiction is in regards to the matters before it. For many times, as a defendant, you will
find yourself in the wrong court that lacks any jurisdiction to hear the matter but if you do not object to this lack of
jurisdiction then you agree to the jurisdiction by your silence. For, in court, one who does not object agrees

The different kinds of law above mentioned are administered in five classes of courts, namely:

(1) Courts of law, which mean common law, and are referred to as “at law” in the constitutions; These courts deal
in reality not fiction, the litigants are men and women of a particular status, and there is no Judge there is only a
magistrate, and the tribunal, the entity that dose the “judging”, is separate from the magistrate. The tribunal is
ether the jury of twelve members of the peerage, or the sovereign plaintiff. These courts are called courts of
record and are always superior to any other court, even the supreme court of the United States. An opening
paragraph for a suit in such a court could be as follows: COMES NOW Eric Jonas, a man, one of the People of
Illinois, having come of full age, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and in this court of record calls upon Dan Lee, a man, who
is one of the People of Wisconsin, who has come of full age (hereinafter “Defendant”) to answer Plaintiff in an
action of trespass and trespass on the case to wit:

(2) Courts of equity also called chancery, these courts require a trust relationship or contract to be placed before
them in order that they be given jurisdiction over a matter; These courts deal in fiction of law, use and usufruct
issues, the administration of infants and their estates, contract issues, trusts, corporate matters, and matters that
are exclusive to Equity courts, the litigants are men and woman or fictions of law, there is a judge, also called a
chancellor, and the litigants “pray” to his conscience for him to rule for the parties for what is “equitable” for all
parties. In an equity court the judge shall, as per judicial cannon, see evidence and rule accordingly, statements not
supported by fact should be objected to and are inadmissible if they come from a party that has no first had
knowledge of the facts. If a judge operates outside of judicial canon the court may be condemned as nonexistent,
for he would cease to be a judge/chancellor and therefor there would cease to be a court of “equity”. An opening
paragraph for a suit in such a court could be as follows: COMES NOW JAMES C. SMITH, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and
complains of CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter “Defendant”) and summons Defendant to
answer Plaintiff for violation of Florida statue 345.45 and alleges:

(3) Courts of admiralty, are courts which administer banking and merchant affaires and maritime law. All insurance
contracts are considered to be maritime admiralty contracts, regardless of they have anything to do with the sea
or not. They are so called because anciently the Admiral was the judge. These courts deal in fiction of law, the
litigants are men and woman or fictions of law, the judge being the captain of the ship, has total control of the
proceedings and can create law from the bench. An opening paragraph for a suit in such a court could be as
follows: COMES NOW THE EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and brings MARY LUE, a vessel
owned by the VIRGINA COMPANY, before this court of admiralty, and places a bottomry bond upon said vessel for
an outstanding unfulfilled bill of lading, and alleges the following:

(4) Courts of Military are courts which deal in courts martial, these courts require that the litigants be members of
the military and deal with disciplinary actions of those who are. This author never having seen an original filing for
a court martial cannot give example here.

(5) And ecclesiastical courts, which still to this day, for reasons still unknown to this author, deal with probate
matters and the distribution of property, land, and possessions of People who have passed on.

We will now look over the law of each of these courts and the origin of the law that governs each of them.
We shall begin with the Common law of the People.

i. Common law
The substantive definition of common law is that set of rules which a People are governed by on the land
from usage and customs. As the definition of Common law was already sited from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856
Edition. Let us now look at the definitions of common law from Black’s law dictionary second edition.

From Black’s Law second edition:

COMMON LAW: 1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the
cannon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which
was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained
among most of the states and Peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. 2. As distinguished from law created
by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principals and
rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive
their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, (Authors Note: This
would include the Magna Carta) or from the judgements and decrees of the courts recognizing,
affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient
unwritten law of England. (Authors Note: This would include allodial title to land.). 3. As
 distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are
of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in
their entirety, and can not be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by
any judicial discretion,… 4. As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of
jurisprudence administered by purely secular tribunals. 6. In a wider sense than any of the
foregoing, the “common-law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and
ancient custom of any state of nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking
off special of local rules or customs. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as
contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equitable” or to “criminal.”
(End of passage from Blacks law second edition with this author’s notes.)

Your rights at common-law are separate from and superior to statutory enactments and penal codes that
govern persons “infants”. A common law action of trespass with arms is indeed a criminal prosecution, however
“criminal” here refers to the general actions of a State to prosecute those in the State for crimes in the name of all
the People in the State. IE. A Grand Jury.

When the sovereign decrees the law in a court of record the only ones who can void that decreed law of
the case is a petite jury of twelve, or a Grand Jury on retrial by a writ of attaint. The common law cannot be
modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion unlike equity, admiralty,
military, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction where the judge/chancellor can use discretion.

A writ of attaint is a most powerful and useful writ under the common law which this author strongly
suggests the readers study and use to their full advantage. For unlike a writ of Habeas Corpus which simply brings
the accused before a judge/magistrate/chancellor to inquire into if his detainment be lawful, a writ of attaint
allows the Grand Jury to retry the entire case on the merits until they find, to their satisfaction, that the accused is
indeed guilty and that he indeed was subject to the law in the first instance and that no due process violations
occurred during the entire time from arrest to judgement.

Common law in application in different forms of government differs. In the form of a monarchy is the
decree of the king, former kings, and the customs of the People as a whole. This expressed in the form of a
democracy is the decision of 51% of the People who agree on a law that governs in that land over the other 49%
whether the minority want it to govern them or not. This in the form of a constitutional republic is what the People
decree the law to be in the different jurisdictions of what is called venue or area of jurisdiction that the law has
been decreed. It is said that one man with the law in a republic is more powerful than all of the other People in
that republic combined. This is true in respect to one’s property, things, effects, houses, lands, and rights. This is
understood in the phrase “the law of the domicile”.

If I come to your house I am under your law, the same goes for your land. If I exceed my own jurisdiction,
of my land, by coming onto yours without your permission I have committed a trespass upon your land, and your
rights. This is a violation of your law. It is referred to also as castle doctrine. Every sovereign governs his or her own
land as they see fit and no other higher law exists as long as the sovereign holds such land in allodial title, this
doctrine also applies to their property, effects, possessions, rights, and things. For a description and better
understanding of what allodial title is and how it differs from feudal tenure see chapter 40-41 of this handbook.

Remember that the People gave up nothing when they established the constitutional republics of the
states, and the federal constitution. They only vested a portion of their own power into an organizational structure
which they have the full power to revoke at any time. We may do this in the same manner as we did when we left
the king by creating a new form of government or we can remove one or two servants at a time who abuse that
vestige of power thereby protecting the form of government that we have now. We may also exercise our own
power at any time directly in the form of a Grand Jury or a court of record, or by direct removal of a trespasser
from our lands without the need of, nor the help of, any other authority which is called self-defense or war.

In the larger sense, when it comes to a county, state, or across the entire united States of America, the
common law is in the form of constitutions decreed by the People in order that part of our sovereign power is
delegated to others who are the trustees of the People as public servants. The general misconception is that any
statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The constitution for
the united States of America is the supreme law of the land, regarding federal issues, and the first state
constitutions that formed a republican form of government are the supreme law of the land within the states, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the federal or state
constitutions to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs.
Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803),

And,

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.,

And,

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442,

And,

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name
of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the
decision so branding it.”,

And,

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.

We inherited the common law of England when we started off on this great experiment of Self-
governance, the basis of our Self-government is natural law liberalism and the common law of England. The basis,
and foundational document, of the common law of England is the Magna Carta.

Now this is not to say that England did not have common law before the year 1215, however England had
lost much of its self-rule of the People and the clans when William the conqueror came over from Normandy in the
year 1066 and destroyed much of the customs of the English People in regards to self-rule of the clans and to land
rights held in Allodium. The most egregious of the trespasses upon the rights of the People was the order that all
lands must be recorded into what became known as the doomsday book, a system of land registration which came
from the lazy and greedy Romans. This to facilitate the taxing of the land that before was held in Allodial title and
passed from man to his sons. Along with this William also separated the spiritual and temporal courts, removing all
matters from the hundred court of pleas pertaining to the episcopal laws, giving the cult of Rome jurisdiction over
matters of the spirit, mostly so that the priest class could get their cut as well by paying the episcopal fine. From
this stupidity and usurpation of the Peoples’ power to govern themselves we eventually get probate courts, and
immediately get the establishment of Ecclesiastical law in England. A hyperlink to this is now given from the Avalon
Project, source: Henderson, Ernest F.
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages
London : George Bell and Sons, 1896.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ordwill.asp

The court of the hundred was akin to a grand jury that met in what later became known as counties and
carried out justice for the People, in short it was the basis of self-rule and justice of the People. So after about 150
years of this oppression from William and his seed the land owning Englishmen called Barons cornered the
offspring of that line William the conqueror at Runningmead, whose name was John, and told him in no uncertain
terms that he will sign this Magna Carta, which means “big charter” in Latin, to return to the land owning men of
this island certain rights which king John and his serpent seed line had denied them for so long, or they were going
to cut his head off. So the establishment in righting of laws that protected the rights of all the barons became the
law of the land, or the common law.

Notice: ...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to
guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their points, that is to wit, the Great
Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, in “Sources of Our Liberties”]

This is important to understand that it is from the Magna Carta that we get the form of the Grand Jury
that we now use today. The gathering of twenty five members of the peerage, which means members of the
sovereignty, NOT one’s equals, and the ability to bring to the king, by four of those twenty five, their grievances so
that the king can fix what is wrong, was the method that the Barons devised to protect their rights and to be the
security of their realm. If the king did not redress the grievance to the satisfaction of the Barons they could take
from the king all of his possessions, his lands, his castles, but were limited to not go after him personally nor after
his wife or children. These were the means that the Barons came up with to control the king. These were but some
of the powers of the Grand Jury established by the Magna Carta.

Anyone who is a member of our government does not have that protection. For not only can the People
prosecute members of the government and put them in prison for all manner of common law crimes the
legislators themselves create civil law statutes which apply just to them for various crimes that they may commit in
office. On a side note if you do not have twenty five or more members of the peerage you do not have a Grand
Jury. Ever wonder why there are no Grand Juries with twenty five or more People on them in any STATE in the
UNITED STATES? Because if there are less than twenty five members of the peerage on a grand jury the corporate
government agents do not have to listen to what they have to say, which sometimes happens. This also allows the
prosecuting attorney for THE STATE to control and manipulate the grand jury, which is something that is never
supposed to happen, but regularly dose, particularly when confronted with corruption that would lead to the
arrest and punishment of those the attorney works with.

Let us now look more deeply at what a court of record, that proceeds according to the course of the
common law, is, and how it works.

Under the ancient practice, the Proceedings in a litigated case were entered upon the Parchment Roll, and
when this was completed, the end product became known as the Common-Law Record.

It consisted of four parts, of which each will now be described in brief detail.

The process, which included the original writ and the Return of the Sheriff, by which the Court acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant; The original writ is the instrument in which all common law matters are started.
The writ is created by the sovereign plaintiff and describes in brief why the defendant is being sued and served
process, and to answer the plaintiff on a date certain, in a place certain, in whatever action or cause he brings
against him. This writ is then signed by the clerk, which currently is what we now call a file stamp showing that the
writ is indeed filed into the court record and was done so at a certain date and place. The writ is then endorsed on
the back by the plaintiff stating in very short terms what the plaintiff is calling the defendant to court for. The writ
is then placed onto the desk, or given by hand to the person of the sheriff by the plaintiff or his special master for
service on the defendant. There are many reasons to endorse the writ on the back, first it tells the sheriff, whilst he
holds the writ out in front of him and reads from the back of the writ, just what the plaintiff wants from the
defendant. Second the defendant can inspect the signature of the plaintiff, and see that the clerk, and the plaintiff
did indeed sign the writ, and that the seal of the court is upon the writ as well.

The return on a writ consists of the sheriff writing down on the back of the writ or attaching to the writ a
statement of what he did at the time of the service and placing his seal upon the writ. This comes to us in the
modern form of what most People call a process service affidavit. The sheriff is then to take the writ with the
statement of his doings back to the clerk of the court for the filing into the record, or to the plaintiff, as instructed
in the endorsement. This is called the return. The plaintiff then has in his hand a document in which the minister of
the law of the county has placed his seal and signature upon with a statement that he did what he was charged
with doing. This is then placed into the record to show all the world that due process has been done upon the
defendant. For due process exists for both parties so that one may not take undo advantage over the other. Due
process is more fully covered in chapter 10 of this handbook.

Next come the pleadings or what is also called the reply, presented by the parties in the prescribed order
to develop an issue of law or of fact, and which included the declaration and all subsequent pleadings/filings,
together with the demurrers, if any; Now a declaration at law is still referred to as a pleading because our common
law courts come out of the kings bench in which one would plead to the king for justice. In our realm think of it
more in the terms of you pleading to your own court, and the will of your fellow sovereigns of your realm, to make
you whole.

An issue is when the two parties cannot agree with one another on a fact or a law. When at law the
parties go back and forth with each other as to what they agree upon and what they do not, both in terms of law
and the facts. When the parties to a suit disagree this is called “come to issue” or “the parties are at issue”. Now a
demurrer is a pleading in which the defendant says “yes I did it (agrees to all the facts) but the law does not apply
to me” The definition of the word Issue, and Demurrer are given in chapter 48a of this handbook.

The Verdict; and the Judgment are two different things. The verdict is on the issue. Who was right and
who was wrong in fact and law. The judgement is what the one side owes the other and the manner in which one
side is ordered to make the other whole.

Another important difference in the words of court are injury and damages. The injury is what another
dose to you and the damages are what you ask for from the court to make you whole because of the injury that
the other party caused you.

All actions at law are begun with the filing of an original writ. The pleadings are the response by the
defendant and the plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s pleadings. The declaration is the document wherein the
plaintiff states his case, the applicable law, what he demands for relief from the defendant, and a clause which
shows that the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the matter pending before it. There are seven parts of a
declaration at law and there are nine parts to a bill in equity.

These four elements, the original writ, the pleadings, the verdict, and the Judgment formed the Common-
Law Record, but it should be observed that at the point where the retrospective motions come into play, the
record has not been developed beyond the stage of entering the verdict upon the roll. At this point it should also
be recalled that between the time when the pleadings terminated in an Issue, which is called “joinder in issue” was
duly recorded on the parchment roll, and the time when an entry of the verdict was made, nothing was recorded
on the parchment roll. The reason for this was that between the joinder of issue and the rendition of the verdict
for or against the defendant, the trial takes place, and what occurs during this trial does not appear upon the face
of the common-law record.

The following is case law that has been compiled by Bill Thornton and is available from 1215.org. It
describes what the five attributes of a court of record are and how a court of record is to proceed.

COURT OF RECORD. This Court is a "court of record" and it is a judicial tribunal having the following
attributes “a-e” defined below with authorities cited:

a) A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it [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] [Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

b) Proceeding according to the course of common law [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]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

c) Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [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] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th
Ed., 425, 426]

d) Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [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.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

e) Generally possesses a seal. [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.] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of
one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact
regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to
exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v.
Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

To constitute a court as a superior court as to any class of actions, within the common-law meaning of
that term, its jurisdiction of such actions must be unconditional, so that the only thing requisite to enable the court
to take cognizance of them is the acquisition of jurisdiction of the persons of the parties. Simmons v. De Bare, 4
Bosw., N.Y., 547

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. Shultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336.

Every court has exclusive control of its process, and no other tribunal can properly interfere with it.
Nelson v. Brown, 23 Mo, 13; Boyle v. Bloom.

…no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the
judgment of a court of record. “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 BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not
according to the courts of the common law. Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652.

Proceedings in courts of chancery are said not to be, strictly speaking, records; but they are so considered.
Gresley, Ev. 101. And see 8 Mart. La. N. S. 303; 1 Rawle, Penn. 381; 8 Yorg. Tenn. 142; 1 Pet. C. C. 352.

The terms "equity" and "chancery," "court of equity" and "court of chancery," are constantly used as
synonymous in the United States. It is presumed that this custom arises from the circumstance that the equity
jurisdiction which is exercised by the courts of the various states is assimilated to that possessed by the English
courts of chancery. Indeed, in some of the states it is made identical therewith by statute, so far as conformable to
our institutions. Wagner v. Armstrong, 93 Ohio St. 443, 113 N.E. 397, 401.

As you can see the courts of record are the highest courts in the land for they are the courts of the
sovereign and are convened to adjudicate issues arising from a damage harm loss or injury done to the sovereign
Plaintiff, and as you can see they are also above courts of Equity which we shall now consider.

ii. Equity
The jurisdiction of Equity was developed out of the kings bench in England (which is a court of record) and
was a way for the king to keep litigants coming to his courts so he could collect fees, and to adjudicate issues which
a suit at common law may not fully be able to bring justice. This, so called, “failure to bring justice” was mostly
from the idea and introduction of “uses” which was a concept foreign to the common law and which has its roots
in Roman civil law and was growing in applicability in England, by of course, the attorney.

Passage shall now be given detailing the description of the creation of the jurisdiction known as Equity
from “An elementary Treatise on the common law, by Henry T. Terry 1906.” In which notes shall be added for
explanation.

“But the most important outgrowth of the King’s extraordinary judicial authority was the equitable
jurisdiction of Chancery.

At a very early period the forms of procedure in the common law courts became fixed and rigid, and at in
the course of the development of society the relations between men grew more complicated and a more exact
adjustment of the legal remedies to these was called for, those courts found themselves unable to supply it. A
great many cases arose in which the common law courts were unable to do complete justice. In such cases
recourse was had to the still wide and undefined royal prerogative.

(Author’s Note: This is one of the main reasons attorneys hate the common law, for we can use our “royal
prerogative” to change what we wish in our own courts)

Petitions to the King were called a bill and then handed over to the Chancellor, praying for his help, the
keeper of his conscience, who after such investigation as seemed to him necessary, made a proper order or decree
in the King’s name.

(Author’s Note: This is where get the idea of “Praying” to another man or a court for remedy. No protection of a
jury in these matters, just one man in a black robe who you just “Prayed” to.)

In the reign of Edward III an order was made that all matters which were “of grace,” should be referred to
the Chancellor; and in time the practice naturally grew up of presenting petitions of bills directly to the Chancellor
in his court of Chancery instead of the King.

(Author’s Note: This then created the first black robed attorney on a bench, all from, in my humble opinion, a
usurpation of power from the King to the attorney by attorney work product doctrine.)

The introduction in the reign of Edward III of uses, which the courts of law would not enforce at all,
greatly extended this equitable jurisdiction of the Chancellor.

(Author’s Note: perhaps because the idea of “uses” is fictional and leads to a form of legal prostitution of things,
which all stems from the lazy and greedy Romans.)

A writ known as a subpoena was invented, according to some accounts by John Waltham, bishop of
Salisbury, Chancellor under Richard II, by which the defendant was summoned to appear before the Chancellor
and make answer to the bill, and a regular course of procedure in equitable actions was gradually evolved. The
former decisions of the court were followed as precedents, fixed principals and rules were established, and
gradually an entire new system of law was developed which was and is still known by the name of equity.” (End
passage)

(Author’s Note: So a bishop from the cult of Rome created the writ that “summoned” another? )

These same “more complicated relations” came from the attorney, and in my humble opinion were then
used to create a jurisdiction of law in which the attorney was given even more power, thus diminishing the power
of the king and the People.

So as we see above equity is where you go before one man, usually an attorney in a black robe, “pray” to
him, submit yourself to “his conscience”, with no protection from a jury of People from the area you live in, and
who could, if you were the defendant “summon” you as if you were a dead entity. Rather creepy when
summarized in that way, but as stated above completely accurate. It is no wonder why the People of the colonies
wished to create a system of justice based on the common law, and natural law rights, and not equity also known
as chancery stemming from and created by the overreaching power of the attorney.

The modern statutory system is an even more distorted version of equity. This is an even more
bastardized version of equity where the court being a for profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet credibility
corporation, is a for-profit business that by judicial “process” administers your Estate by presumption of death
(probate) and treats you as a trustee of your own body. No more corrupt and evil a system of “uses” could ever
have been devised. It literally turns every man and woman into a prostitute for the STATE whilst deriving a profit
off of your head (cap) for a system which we call capitalism.

iii. Admiralty
The courts of admiralty stem from matters on the sea regarding the administration of maritime law and
banking and merchant affairs.

A description of the creation of the jurisdiction known as Admiralty from “An elementary Treatise on the
common law, by Henry T. Terry 1906.” Page 112, with the author’s notes for explanation shall now be given.

“The court of Admiralty is said to have been originally instated by king Edward III. It was held before the
Lord High Admiral of England or a judge who was his deputy.

(Authors Note: Both admiralty and equity were established in his reign.)

There are really two separate courts included under the common name of the court of Admiralty, the
Instance Court and the Prize Court. The former is the ordinary court, which administers the maritime law. The
latter is a special tribunal only existing, or at least only acting, in time of war, whose function it is to adjudicate
upon questions of prize, that is, of the lawfulness of captures made from the enemy and the disposition of the
captured property. There are also Vice-Admiralty courts in the colonies.

(Author’s Note: Because the “state of emergency” has never been removed from the executive order of
Lincoln the courts you enter into in what you think are criminal matters are actually “prize courts” under Admiralty
jurisdiction and your body “the vessel” is being taken before these courts for condemnation and sale by land pirates
who work for a corporation, or “corp”.)

The appeal from the court of Admiralty was formerly to the King in Chancery, the appeal being heard by a
Court of Delegates commissioned by the King for that purpose. But by a statute of William IV all appeals from the
Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty courts were to be taken to the King in Council, i.e. to the Privy Council.

(Author’s Note: An “appeal” is to appeal to the conscience of a man, not your peers, also note that this
appeal from this court ends up again in front of a black robed attorney, so this again is a continuation of the
usurpation of power from the sovereignty of the nation to the attorney.)

The Privy Council is also the ultimate court of appeal from the courts of the English colonies. The powers
of the Privy Council as a court are exercised by what is known as the Judicial Committee of the Council, composed
of lawyers appointed members of the Council for that purpose.” (End passage)

(Author’s Note: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. I rest my case.)

iv. Ecclesiastical
Without attempting to describe what this jurisdiction is, why it exists at all, or what it does, for in truth it
escapes this author, passage will simply be given again. A description of the creation of the jurisdiction known as
Ecclesiastical from “An elementary Treatise on the common law, by Henry T. Terry 1906.” Page 114, with author’s
notes for explanation.
 “Before the Norman conquest there were no separate church courts. The bishops sat in the popular
courts, and ecclesiastical causes were tried there. But William I forbade this; from which resulted the
establishment of the ecclesiastical courts.

The Archdeacon’s Court is held in each archdeaconry before a judge appointed by the archdeacon and
called his official, and is the lowest in rank of all the ecclesiastical courts. The ecclesiastical courts were the
ordinary courts for the probate of wills and the granting of administration on the estates of deceased persons.

(Author’s Note: This is where you have the bishops interfering in the common law rights of blood and
kinship so that they can control the distribution of wealth and land title to who they see fit.)

But if the deceased left bona notabilia, that is goods of the value of 200 shillings or more, in two or more
different dioceses, the probate belonged to the archbishop, and was granted in his Prerogative Court, which was
held before a judge appointed by him.

(Author’s Note: So now the bishops have been given the same kind of “prerogative” power that the king
has.)

From the archbishop’s courts the appeal was originally to the Pope, but after the reformation to the King
as the head of the church.

(Authors Note: I hope the reader can see where this was going from the start, giving power back to the
cult of Rome, which is something that Rome could never get over the People of the island by force. Learn about the
Hadrian wall.)

This jurisdiction the King exercised by commissioners called the Court of Delegates, as in case of appeals
from Admiralty, but it has now been transferred to the Privy Council.” (End passage)

Again all the power goes back to the attorney. It warrants mentioning that the history of England to be
razed by the attorney in all the aforementioned passages is the same thing that we are facing in our American
lands, what evil cannot take by force of arms by miles in a matter of months, they steal by the deception of the
attorney by inches over years and decades.

CANON, eccl. law. This word is taken from the Greek, and signifies a rule or law. In ecelesiastical law, it is also used
to designate an order of religious persons. Francis Duaren says, the reason why the ecclesiastics called the rules
they established canons or rules, (canones id est regulas) and not laws, was modesty. They did not dare to call
them (leges) laws, lest they should seem to arrogate to themselves the authority of princes and magistrates. De
Sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis, p. 2, in pref. See Law, Canon. (From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition.)

v. Military
A description of the jurisdiction known as Military from “An elementary Treatise on the common law, by
Henry T. Terry 1906.”

Military law is the law which governs the army and navy or the militia when in active service. It existed in
time of peace as well as of war. It is mainly statutory. It must be distinguished from martial law, which latter is
indeed hardly to be called law at all. Martial law exists when for military reasons, for instance in case of the
military occupation of an enemy’s territory, the ordinary law is to a greater of less extent put into abeyance and
the arbitrary authority of the military commander is substituted for it. In many countries the government has
power even in time of peace to suspend the ordinary law and proclaim martial law or, as it is often called, a state
of siege, in the country at large or in particular places, putting them temporarily under military rule, when in its
opinion special dangers threatening the state or the public safety, such as insurrection, require it. But this is not
allowed in the United States or England. (End passage)
 Notice that it is not allowed in the United States. Remember this passage is from a treatise on law it is not
just this author’s opinion, and notice the date of the treatise; 1906. Why then are we continuing to allow these
unlawful courts to trespass upon our substantive rights?

CHAPTER 8.

A brief introduction to maxims of law

“Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” St. Jerome

A maxim of law is a universal principal of law that is consistent with reason. Maxims are the principals of
law so well established that they are universal across jurisdictions Maxims are also considered general customs or
common law of the land. So when an attorney or a judge, or magistrate tries to tell you that there is no common
law simply read to him the following definitions as your authority. The following are from Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition.

MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and
consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Blackstone’s. Commentaries. 68. They are principles and
authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of
parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury.
Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be
applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of
making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied
is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210. The following are some of
the more important maxims.

There are hundreds of maxims of law. To even begin to place them all into this handbook would be
imposable so a few of them shall be given here in the hope that they shall be of some use to the reader and the
Grand Jury. The first list here is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition, with the Latin removed, for this author
sees not the point to add useless verbiage from a stolen language which is nothing but mirror reversed Etruscan.

No one ought to accuse himself, unless before God. Hard. 139.

An action is not given to him who has received no damages.

When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. 2 Blacks. Com. 122. See Act of
God.

A legal fiction does not properly work loss or injury.

Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to anyone.

An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.

A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge. Hob. 343.

Chattels justly possessed cannot be lost. Jenk. Cent. 28.

Caveat emptor. Let the purchaser beware.

No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong. Jenk. Cent. 161.

A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract. Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.

Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing;
is presumed to give. (Property tax fits this Maxim.)

He who owns the soil, owns up to the sky. Co. Litt. 4 a; Broom's Max. 172; Shep. To. 90; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 15, 70.

Let the punishment be proportioned to the crime.

A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.

Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.

When the death of a human being may be the consequence, no delay is long. Col Litt. 134. When the question is on
the life or death of a man, no delay is too long to admit of inquiring into facts.

Every one ought to be subject to the law of the place where he offends. 3 Co. Inst. 34.

A delegated authority cannot be again delegated. 2 Co. Inst. 597; 5 Bing. N. C. 310; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1300.

Every man's house is his castle. 5 Rep. 92.

The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1
Greenl. Ev. §74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.

No actions arises on a naked contract without a consideration. See Nudum Pactum. (This is important to remember
in a country with no lawful money backed by no consideration)

An act of a judge which does not relate to his office, is of no force. 10 Co. 76.

It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11.

In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must when established, by witnesses, be under oath or
affirmation. Cro. Car. 64.

In the presence of the superior power, the minor power ceases. Jenk. Cent. 214.

It is against equity for any one to be judge in his own cause. 12 Co. 13. (Authors Note: But not in a court of record.)

It is in the interest of the republic that the People be preserved. 12 Co. 62.

No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. (Authors Note: Do you know that it is
considered a benefit to go to jail.)

To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due. Jenk. Cent. 139.

A right cannot arise from a wrong. 4 Bing. 639.

Justice knows neither father nor mother, justice looks to truth alone. 1 Buls. 199.

Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.

Long possession produces the right of possession, and takes away from the true owner his action. Co. Litt. 110.
A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court. 2 Co. Inst. 219.

Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is unlawful. 10 Co. 61.

No one is considered as committing damages, unless he is doing what he has no right to do. Dig. 50, 17, 151.

No one can verify by the country against a record. The issue upon a record cannot be tried by a jury.

No man can be at the same time tenant and landlord of the same tenement.

No man is bound to accuse himself.

The court has nothing to do with what is not before it.

We can do nothing against truth. Doct. & Stu. Dial. 2, c. 6.

There is no stronger link among men than an oath. Jenk. Cent. 126.

It is prohibited to do on one's own property that which may injure another's. 9 co. 59.

Laws which derogate from the common law ought to be strictly construed. Jenk. Cent. 231. (Authors Note: Any
statute act ordinance or code must follow exactly as they are written, any deviation or lack makes them void upon
whom they are charged. IE: “No person may park a motor vehicle on the right hand side of the street on Sunday.”
Now go look up “person” in 1 USC 8, and look up motor vehicle in USC, and you will find that you, as one of the
People can park your private possession on the any side of the road on any day you wish to.)

He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it. Jenk. Cent. 271.

He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

What is not good in the beginning cannot be rendered good by time. Merl. Rep. verbo Regle de Droit.

Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17, 29.

What appears to the court needs not the help of witnesses. 2 Inst. 662.

A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally
approved by all. Co. Litt. 11.

Reason is a ray of divine light. Co. Litt. 232.

Rights never die.

Where there is a right, there is a remedy. 1 T. R. 512; Co. Litt. 197, b; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2411; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3726.

The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327. See Laches.

When the common law and statute law concur, the common law is to be preferred. 4 Co. 71.

The following are some of this authors favorites from Blacks 10th edition, again with the Latin removed but
with pages sited.

“An action is not given to one who is not injured” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1898.

“A court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things that are determined by common law.” Maxim of Law.
See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1899.

“An ecclesiastical court has no jurisdiction over matters of common law.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th
page 1907

“Power that is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict.
10th page 1908. (Author’s Note. So how can a government ever come to control the sovereignty which created it?
By consent, by contract, by force, by fraud, and by fictional presumption. Solution, stop agreeing, stop contracting,
and rebut any presumptions from or with the corporate state. How does one do this in court? “Your honor, I do not
consent to these proceedings, I do not consent to be surety for these charges and this case, I do not consent to be
bound by any unrevealed contracts, and I demand that the bond be brought forward to see who will indemnify me
if I am damaged.” Judge: “Next case.”)

“A deception practiced on one person does not give a cause of action to another.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law.
Dict. 10th page 1900.

“The body of a human can have no price put on it.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th

“An agreement induced by fraud will not stand.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1909.

“The mind of the sovereign is presumed to be the same as that of the law, and the same as what ought to be,
especially in ambiguous matters.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1910. (This is one of the main
reasons why the Grand Jury is above the law, they are the law.)

“No action arises out of a wrongful consideration.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1913.

“Fiction yields to truth; where the truth appears, there is no fiction of law.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict.
10th page 1914

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1914.

“It is fraud to conceal a fraud.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1915.

“Inheritance is the succession to every right possessed by the late possessor.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict.
10th page 1916

“A man shall not be punished for suing out writs in the king’s court, whether the person is right or wrong.” Maxim
of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1917.

“'man’ (homo) is a term of nature; ‘person’ (persona) is a term of civil law.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict.
10th page 1917.

“In the presence of the superior, the power of the inferior ceases.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page
1921.

“It is in the interest of the republic that People should be protected.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10 Th
1922. (self-explanatory but a very powerful maxim if understood.)

“The rights of blood (or kinship) cannot be destroyed by any civil law.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th
page 1924.

“It is safe not to obey a person who has no right.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1925.

“The law favors a man’s inheritance.” See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1925.

“Necessity makes lawful what otherwise is unlawful.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1932.

“Necessity has no law.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1932

“Where blood has been spilled, the case is unpardonable.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1932.

“A man who exercises his own rights injures no one.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1933.

“No one can be dragged (taken by force) from his own house.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1933.

“What is void in the beginning does not become valid by passage of time.” Maxim of Law. See Black, Law. Dict. 10 th
page 1953.
“Persons taken by pirates or robbers remain free.” See Black, Law. Dict. 10th page 1953. Maxim of Law. (Everyone
in the corporate jails have been taken by land pirates, this is not a joke and needs to be understood fully.)

“Things taken or captured by pirates and robbers do not change their ownership.” See Maxim of Law. Black, Law.
Dict. 10th page 1953.

“Ignorance of one's right does not prejudice the right. See Black's Law Dictionary, page: 873, 5th, Ed. (1979) Maxim
of Law. (Just because I did not know that I could do it yesterday does not mean that I cannot do it today.)