Here is why so many of you don't get Justice when arguing Common Law
and the Constitution in the States Court, Because the State's court
doesn't deal with issues of LAW! The Inferior (Article 1)
Administrative court only deals with issues of FACT! The Appellate
Courts (Article 3) Judicial courts deal with issues of LAW!
You can and must bring up issues of LAW and Constitutional arguments
in the Inferior court, because if you don't, you can't bring it up on
appeals. If the judge thinks you're an idiot and know nothing about
APPEALING, he will con you into waving you're RIGHTS and allowing him to
adjudicate you!! State level Courts are inferior and don't have the
power to fine or imprison without you're consent! HERE'S ALL THE PROOF
YOU NEED!!
COURT OF RECORD
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. John 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.
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.
Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 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.
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
Courtesy of Jurisdictionary
You CAN Control Judges!
You must learn how to force the judge to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
Otherwise, the judge will rule as he pleases, confident you don't know how to get his decisions reversed on appeal.
Unless you force the judge to see he will be reversed on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor, justice will be whatever the judge wants it to be.
Your objective is always to: force the judge to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
Losers miss this point ... and lose!
Trial judges are not legal authority!
Appellate courts are!
The U.S. Constitution is not controlling law. What appellate courts say the U.S. Constitution means is controlling law.
Statutes are not controlling law. What appellate courts say statutes mean is controlling law.
Only controlling law controls judges.
Appellate court opinions are the legal authority that controls trial level judges!
You may disagree with this. Many do and lose needlessly. I want you to win, but truth is unaffected by what you believe. Only truth is true. Nothing else is. Appellate court opinons are controlling law in this nation and every nation that follows our English system of justice.
Trial judges fear being reversed on appeal. That's what keeps them straight. That's why it's essential to learn how to force the judge in your case to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
No trial judge wants an appellate court to publish an official written opinion telling the world he was wrong!
Knowing how to control judges is the secret to winning
What you believe is controlling law means nothing.
Don't believe me?
Ok. Tell a judge your personal opinions about the law and how he should apply it and rule in your favor. See how far it gets you!
The only opinions that count in court are the published opinions of appellate court justices who stand in judgment of trial level judges and have power to reverse lower court decisions.
This nation (and all others that follow our English justice system) is run by lawyers who sit as justices on appellate courts! The buck stops in court, not at the Whitehouse, Congress, or state legislature. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.
Your legal opinions (no matter how clever or persuasive and no matter how many tens of thousands agree with you in emails or on the internet) count for nothing in court.
Controlling judges is what wins lawsuits, and judges are controlled only by appellate court opinions!
The Appellate courts are Superior Courts, meaning "Courts of Record"; The lower courts are inferior courts and not "Court of Record". Courts of Record
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
COMMON LAW ACTIONS are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute. - Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition
COURT OF RECORD
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. 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.
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.
Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 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.
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
“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 parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Courts of Record must proceed according to the course of the common law, without the aid of a statute.
Courts which proceed according to statutory jurisdiction are inferior courts, and may be sued directly, without appealing.
Courts designated as courts of record may act as statutory courts unless the parties to a case object.
The "judge" has no discretion in a court of record, and can only do ministerial functions, such as signing your orders.
No judgment of a court of record can be appealed. There is no higher court.
The type of relief demanded by the plaintiff determines if the court will operate as a court of record or not, on a case by case basis.
There is no such thing as a "common law court." All courts of record can hear actions at (common) law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT OF RECORD
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. John 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.
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.
Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 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.
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
Courtesy of Jurisdictionary
You CAN Control Judges!
You must learn how to force the judge to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
Otherwise, the judge will rule as he pleases, confident you don't know how to get his decisions reversed on appeal.
Unless you force the judge to see he will be reversed on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor, justice will be whatever the judge wants it to be.
Your objective is always to: force the judge to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
Losers miss this point ... and lose!
Trial judges are not legal authority!
Appellate courts are!
The U.S. Constitution is not controlling law. What appellate courts say the U.S. Constitution means is controlling law.
Statutes are not controlling law. What appellate courts say statutes mean is controlling law.
Only controlling law controls judges.
Appellate court opinions are the legal authority that controls trial level judges!
You may disagree with this. Many do and lose needlessly. I want you to win, but truth is unaffected by what you believe. Only truth is true. Nothing else is. Appellate court opinons are controlling law in this nation and every nation that follows our English system of justice.
Trial judges fear being reversed on appeal. That's what keeps them straight. That's why it's essential to learn how to force the judge in your case to see that the appellate courts that can reverse his decisions will reverse his decisions on appeal if he doesn't rule in your favor.
No trial judge wants an appellate court to publish an official written opinion telling the world he was wrong!
Knowing how to control judges is the secret to winning
What you believe is controlling law means nothing.
Don't believe me?
Ok. Tell a judge your personal opinions about the law and how he should apply it and rule in your favor. See how far it gets you!
The only opinions that count in court are the published opinions of appellate court justices who stand in judgment of trial level judges and have power to reverse lower court decisions.
This nation (and all others that follow our English justice system) is run by lawyers who sit as justices on appellate courts! The buck stops in court, not at the Whitehouse, Congress, or state legislature. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.
Your legal opinions (no matter how clever or persuasive and no matter how many tens of thousands agree with you in emails or on the internet) count for nothing in court.
Controlling judges is what wins lawsuits, and judges are controlled only by appellate court opinions!
The Appellate courts are Superior Courts, meaning "Courts of Record"; The lower courts are inferior courts and not "Court of Record". Courts of Record
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
COMMON LAW ACTIONS are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute. - Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition
COURT OF RECORD
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. 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.
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.
Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 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.
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
“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 parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Courts of Record must proceed according to the course of the common law, without the aid of a statute.
Courts which proceed according to statutory jurisdiction are inferior courts, and may be sued directly, without appealing.
Courts designated as courts of record may act as statutory courts unless the parties to a case object.
The "judge" has no discretion in a court of record, and can only do ministerial functions, such as signing your orders.
No judgment of a court of record can be appealed. There is no higher court.
The type of relief demanded by the plaintiff determines if the court will operate as a court of record or not, on a case by case basis.
There is no such thing as a "common law court." All courts of record can hear actions at (common) law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment