INTRODUCTION To:

THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM OF
MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW
HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A)

PRESENTED IN THIRTEEN PARTS

PRESENTED AND EDITED BY ELDON G. WARMAN


Any guesses as to which flag
is the true flag of
the People of the united states of America?
The Answer

For those who would like to have, and fly a 'TRUE' uSA Flag
Click Here

A 1913 picture of a U.S. Customs House
flying the flag of the Republic


PROLOGUE

The following brief, beginning in Part One of 13 Parts, is believed to have been presented to a Grand Jury in the State of California circa 1982 in an attempt to correct judicial abuse of people involved in patriot and income tax protest movements. Many people were being incarcerated as political prisoners of what is apparently a "shadow government" now in control of the USA. These patriots were attempting to educate as many of the general public as would hear their message. Unfortunately, short-sighted self-interest and apathy seem to have prevailed.

This narrative is based upon the American system, however, for Canadian readers, the American system of government and the Canadian system, are but "slips", or more appropriately "suckers" off the same plant, the British limited monarchy. Most of the following is, therefore, also directly applicable to the Canadian dilemma.

Before proceeding, you need to know and to recognize the fact that there is a vast difference between 'British Common Law' and 'Anglo-Saxon Common Law'.

To learn which is the true Common Law and which is the hoax; and, which version you may have been attempting to access in attempts to get out of 'admiralty law', go to:

Treason
[Click here]


Lord Blackstone, in his Commentaries of the late 1600's extended the great deception that all free will men and women are one and the same as 'natural persons' by his definitions of 'natural' and 'artificial' persons, a scam which had begun in earnest in England around about 1300 AD.

Beginning in this last century, the State has imposed a 'legal identity' upon all babies by way of the 'birth certificate'. It is upon this 'legal fiction' [person] that all legislation is imposed, be it driver's license, real property possession, taxes, civil and criminal laws, marriage and so on. All legislation - acts, statutes, orders and bylaws - is upon 'persons' - a term derived from a mask or role of an actor in Roman times. No legislation, Federal, State, county or city are applicable to 'free will men and free will women.

The name on a 'birth certificate', which includes the family name as the primary name, or as an integral part of the baby's name on that certificate, is the name of the legal fiction - legal identity - person. The parents completed a form for a Statement Of Birth, or Certification of Live Birth, which had on it a space for 'given name' and 'family' name. On this form, the family name is for reference purposes to show placement of the baby 'given' the name inscribed.

Example: If your given names were 'John Henry', and your family name is 'Doe', then you would be 'John-Henry' of the 'Doe' family. 'John Henry Doe', regardless in which case the name is spelled or if the family name is first, is the name of the State created and owned 'legal identity' attached to the baby concerned. Such a legal identity attached to the body of a man or woman is called a 'Natural Person'.

'Natural person' is a slave status imposed upon a human body, thus supposedly making the physically real thing a fictional thing - your body, identified with, or as, a legal fiction - a make-believe 'crewmember' on a 'make-believe ship' (body politic). This supposedly transforms the body of a free will mind (of a man or woman) into a 'corporate entity'. The other, and main point of the following quote is the fact that governments cannot deal with 'free will men and women' - our true status in Creation.

The US Supreme Court confirms that government are corporations:

U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886) [Source]

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes.

Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.'
U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."

Further commentary from a the now defunct BBCOA website on these two cases: "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial person. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc., can concern itself with anything other that corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." Penhallow vs. Doane's Administrator, 3 US 54, 1 L.Ed.57, 3 Dall. 54 (1795)

My note: Even if the quote from the above cited case is not authentic, as some critics have stated, it stands as truth by reasonable deduction. A fiction cannot rule over reality.

The obvious conclusion from the above cite is: The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible - mankind in their natural state." The use of 'artificial' as an adjective for 'person' is redundant, as any person, artificial or natural' is a mythical entity, unless one is a human crewmember on an actual ship at sea.

The following exerpt from a 1796 US (North Carolina) Court case tells us the true status of government laws relative to free will men:

"That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796.

The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate artificial persons(incorporated bodies) and natural persons(humans in a status of subjugation) and the contracts between them.

In researching the above court cites, one finds them used in documents where the defendants or litigants failed to realize that they were dealing with the 'property right' of the State, which supercedes statutory (codified) law, by their being considered by the corporate Government to be of slave/property status subject to the slave owner, the corporate State.

So, because "government" cannot force a free will human to be a corporate member, even though they use deception to entrap people into the status of "subject/slave" natural person, they do have to make an "exit door" available. That "exit door" is found buried in some government act. In the USA, it is in the Uniform Commercial Code, and in Canada, it is in the Criminal Code.
[Thanks to the research efforts of Robert Menard.]

Disobeying a statute
Sec. 126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Disobeying order of court
Sec. 127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Rob points out that in some jurisdictions, as in New Zealand, the phrase "without lawful excuse" is replaced with the phrase "without claim of right".

Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada has to do with defense of Person.
Current: No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another
person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by
law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who
commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that
the other person (police) is acting unlawfully.

It should be noted that ALL Police Acts in Canada (and the USA) are applicable ONLY to 'persons'.
Police have no authority over 'living free will adult humans', other than the
moral duty that all adult people have when it involves thwarting someone who is
committing harm to a human, or to their property.

This then explains the use of Section 35 of the Criminal Code of Canada which says: "Defence of Property with claim of right"

A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a)they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable
possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully
assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable
possession of property; (b)believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property
or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d)the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

No defence
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds
that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession
of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is
entitled to its possession by law.

No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they
are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of
the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence
believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

This also suggests that there are no true 'judicial' courts for the 'free will people' of the united States of America [and Canada]. All courts are 'administrative' [ All 'judges' are officers of the make-believe ship called a State or of the UNITED STATES - executive branch of government; and, in Canada, the corporate Crown of the City of London, for which, the Queen of GB acts as agent] for 'contract adjudication'. There MUST BE a contract in place between the parties in dispute and the 'arbitrator judge' for a judge to act as arbitrator.

This means that the summons or arrest warrant and trial are by contract of the accused with the Clerk of the Court; and another contract between the judge and the accused for the offer of sentence.

And, a primary point here is that for a contract to be valid, it must be voluntary by all parties concerned. This is true for both maritime and common law. If the accused refuses to volunteer to be tried or sentenced, in a timely manner, then the case cannot lawfully proceed. This applies to anything from a jay-walking ticket to murder.

So, if we want a true justice system, we must install a proper Anglo-Saxon Common Law justice system, with the requirements as stated in the Magna Carta of England created in (the Pope voided) 1215 version, and confirmed in 1225, where men of free will status were acknowledged to have rights to due process of law. The 1297 version was made first statute of the newly incorporated administrative Crown of England, and the 'free man' (or free will status man) was changed to 'freeman, a form of slave granted privileges that were/are revocable for disobedience to corporate rules (Acts and statutes). The latter is also synonomous with 'citizen' and 'subject'.

The present system of so-called justice makes traitors, murderers, kidnappers, unlawful confiners, assaulters, extortionists, mobsters and thieves of ALL men or women acting as Popes, royalty, politicians, presidents, governors, lawyers, judges, court clerks, police, prison guards, etc. There is no other catagory in which to place them. This is the ugly Roman system that has been imposed upon America and the other countries of the former British Empire, all in accord with the Popes of Rome and the British Monarchy.

Learn the facts about the Vatican's and British Crown's continued claimed ownership of the USA; and, their continued collection of 'tribute' from Americans through the Pope's 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Read about this here.

Who Owns the administrative corporation of the city/state, the District of Columbia (an independent country foreign to America), called "The UNITED STATES", or "The Government of the UNITED STATES"?

The Dunn & Bradstreet Corp. owned website called manta.com tells us that the 'Government of UNITED STATES' is owned by Archbishop Deric R. McLeod, of Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Michigan, and 4th NE Street, Washington,DC. And, since Roman Catholic Archbishops own nothing, but are only trustee holders for the Pontiff's Holy Roman Empire, you can draw your own conclusions.

To download these lessons in html format, click on common law. This is a ZIP file.

Additional, and VERY IMPORTANT information on this topic is available through LINKS at the end of PART THIRTEEN.

Link to PART ONE at the bottom of this page:


Go To: Common Law Part One

BY: Eldon-Gerald: Warman

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

eXTReMe Tracker

© DetaxCanada 2005 Thru 2013