 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Example:
Common Law
Competitive meaning:
From 14th Century English usage following the formation of the Commons "the third estate of the English people as represented in Parliament" from 1377. Therefore, the popular (but incorrect) assumed meaning of Common Law as being "the LAW of the people". In a strict literal sense, the correct etymological meaning of common law is more accurately defined as "the laws to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation" -- completely opposite to the popular misinterpretation of the phrase. The main procedural foundations of Common Law since its inception remains the false Roman Law was VENETIAN LAW (more commonly known as MARITIME LAW and/or ADMIRALTY LAW) introduced in the 12th and early 13th Century during the creation of the highest legal PERSONALITY under Common Law--the HOLY SEE (Sea). Hence, under the corrupted Roman Law of the ROMAN CULT living men and women are considered VESSELS subject to JURISDICTION of the SEE (Sea) with the WATERMARK of all nations with diplomatic recognition (CONCORDATS) of the SEE (Sea) set at the highest mountain peaks--hence all land is therefore "Under the Sea" and PROPERTY of the SEE (Sea). However, in many JURISICTIONS, CUSTOM LAW is also accepted as part of Common Law thus providing some RELIEF. In the late 16th and early 17th Century, Common Law was further modified with the introduction of the LEGAL FICTIONS, LEGAL PROCEDURE and PRECEDENT embedded in Jesuit constructed works embedded in popular culture and plays. Today, Common Law is incorrectly and deliberately defined as "The law established, by precedent, from judicial decisions and established within a community".
I know that such a deluge of information may attack a person's common sense all at once, and then destroy said person's capacity to think clearly.
The point here is to point out that fact that one person may have the meaning of Common Law understood in their own mind, however, the meaning INTENDED in the mind of someone else may be contrary ON PURPOSE, so as to cause argument, and so as to cause controversy, and so as to then be in a position to profit as a result of that controversy being cases in that manner. This is typical Divide and Conquer (Hegalism or Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis) methodology by employing counterfeit language (which is "currency" or "money") as a means to reach that end. This is willful deceit employed legally, and therefore FRAUDULENTLY, by criminals as criminals create victims willfully, and they do so under the "color of law" so that their crimes are in that way higher order crimes, whereby the word for that level-up of severity of crime is what?
Malfeasance Modern version:
The wrongful or unjust doing of some act which the doer has no right to perform, or which he has stipulated by contract not to do.
No definition offered here:
Why are the true original meaning of so many words hidden?Cause for concern?
Do the parties in question (controversy) share the meaning of any word or does one member of the controversy (one side) willfully employ deception as a means of profiting at the expense of the other member(s)?
Comments on:
Court of Record
What authority lists the requirements of a court of Record?
Court of Record info 1
Court of Record 2
[url=http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sealing_Guide.pdf/$file/Sealing_Guide.pdf]http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sealing_Guide.pdf/$file/Sealing_Guide.pdf[/url]
Modern version (missing common law reference?)
Returning to Court of Record:
Information on Writs of Habeas Corpus includes words that communicate to me a measure of a power struggle among the incorporated (counterfeit) courts as to which court profits from the exploitation of a specific targeted victim. One judge/court wins the battle to gain the license to exploit the target in question, or another judge/court wins, or neither court wins, and the victim is free to go, as there is no clear winner among the judges/courts engaged in the turf battle.
Modern source
Habeas corpus originated in English common law as a means to protect individuals from illegal detention. An individual who had been held in custody could file a petition seeking a writ which would require the custodian to provide adequate legal justification for the detention. If the custodian failed to do so, the court could order the petitioner’s release.
Today, habeas corpus is mainly used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention.
That is one of many corporate versions of corporate licensed (patented?) facts.
Here is a competitive source of information on Habeas Corpus:
Habeas Corpus
"You have the body." - the name given a variety of writs whose object is to bring a person before a court or judge - in most common usage, it is directed to the official or person detaining another, commanding him/her to produce the body of a person detained so the court may determine if such person has been denied his/her liberty without due process of law.
Also here
112.14
Writ of Habeas Corpus
The Sacred Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be reserved for remedy and relief when any Level 6 Life Form is unlawfully detained.
The Writ shall be served upon the present custodian and officials directly responsible for the unlawful detainment of a Member, ordering that the prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of claimed authority as why the prisoner should continue to be detained.
As the Writ is issued under the highest holy authority against the unlawful kidnapping of a Member, any claimed suspension of Habeas Corpus under common law or other unilateral statutes of a commercial court of a franchise shall have no effect.
As such a Sacred Writ shall be an Order of last resort against clear contempt for rule of law, any motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must clearly demonstrate unlawful detainment and a clear injury to the law.