Commercial Liens - The Most Potent Commercial Weapon

CHECK THIS OUT!

Rib roast 1950's. Notice the amount of fat and lack of tender cut strip along the bottom left side of the pic. Best damn part of a rib eye steak didn't even exist back in the 1950's.

If you've been wondering what's been going on with the cuts of beef you've been seeing at the store, this (unless you have some old old cookbooks like I do) will trip you out. No marbling, little meat, lots of fat was considered AA etc. Most of the cuts of beef in this, you wouldn't even recognize today in the store. I feel sorry for you kids born after 1990. You were probably too young to remember what a good cut of beef really looked like. This 63 yr old vid, I don't even know what's going on with some of it. They refer to marbling as huge chunks of fat on the sides of the steaks with no real marbling in the muscle. I don't know yet what they were doing in the 50's to feed their beef, but I would bet they were doing everything they could just to put fat on them. Lot of fat, little meat. Now we have super beef. I'm referring to both the American and the Japanese. 99% of what is now sold here in the states as Kobe beef is not even from Kobe Japan. Kobe is just one region of Japan this beef comes from. It's a generic name, and in all but 3000 beef here in the states, is a complete lie. 99% of the 'Kobe' beef here is actually a mix between a Black Angus, to some percentage, and a Wagyu (Japanese) beef.


One real kicker between back then when this was made and today (I'm assuming) is the quantity of grain they are fed, not to mention the antibiotics and other nasty stuff they pump into the meat. I learned today that by eating fermented grain (all grain contains an amount of fermentation), their systems become acidic. Their milk, their meat, everything is too acidic for people to eat it and digest it properly. ANOTHER REASON WHY PEOPLES ALLERGIES ARE AT RECORD LEVELS THESE DAYS! Not to mention lactose intolerance! Wen we eat acidic stuff, our own acidic stuff is forced into a battle yo break the other acidic stuff down. If we eat too much acidic stuff, it becomes toxic to us, because we can not break it down. Beef these days being fed percentage is total BS on the food posts as is on the law posts.

If you didn't check out any of the earlier posts I shared from that one farmer guy, you should if you want to start understanding the problems with our store bought meat these days. I've seen it all change a lot in my 45 years on this planet, and today it's about as pathetic as it's ever been. I have trouble finding any decent steak anywhere for any price these days here in LA. Nothing but crap sold in the stores. Crappy marbling, and if it has any marbling, then most of it is hard and inedible.

I didn't start out thinking about raising any beef on my place when I get one, but what I've learned today, it's about mandatory. Just enough that I can maintain in pasture given how much pasture space I can get. Crop rotation is about every 5 years per plot of pasture to keep it viable and healthy. So if you only have 5 acres of land, you can only raise a crop in one acre of land every year. After you cropped your main crop be it non GMO soy, corn, alfalfa, wheat, beans, etc, you can do a second crop of oats, then it's another 5 years before you can go back and plant that field again. Proper land stewardship does not take away from the land. It only adds to it.

We all could be living in a Eden, but corporate interests only take and make things that should be given back to the land, a chemical hazard that has to be dealt with down the road and becomes the next guys problem down stream.

The ecology is as big an issue as any other one out there these days. Especially with companies like Monsanto leveraging all government programs to get control of all our food. It's in my opinion the second, or even the first battlefield we face in this century. In reality, I believe it to be the most important one we face as a people. The big problem is just that nobody wants to learn their rights and start exercising them. People are just too damn comfortable eating their giant sized Tyson hot chicken wings to realize they are probably what is giving them cancer.

People, If your not at least willing to take responsibility for yourselves and learn some basic law, and the concepts of freedom, and the difference between civil liberties and rights, then at least grow some of your own damn food.

In any case, this vid is a BIG history lesson for anyone willing to watch it! If your over 40, you may remember this or that. If your under 40, you may just find it interesting. If your like me, and have been all pissed off by the current quality of beef at the stores, then you need to see this! I bet a rib roast was about $3 back then if that much. Not $53.oo

All anyone cared about beef in the 1980's till today.

Game, set and match.

 

By: Liberty Smith

Game, set and match.

A]n orally amended citation charging the defendant with the criminal offense of driving with a suspended license would be dismissed where no arrest warrant, sworn statement, or other complaint substantiating the offense was prepared and the traffic citation was not sworn to by the arresting officer or notarized by an authorized person." (State v Olivia (1990, Dade City Ct) 42 Fla Supp 2d 221) [ Fla Jur 2d, Autos., s. 138]

"Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1

"Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorist's back pain during period of incarceration and jailor's refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5

O Fortuna = The Sheeples Song

"O Fortuna" is a medieval Latin Goliardic poem written early in the 13th century, part of the collection known as the Carmina Burana. It is a complaint about fate and Fortuna, a goddess in Roman mythology and the personification of luck.

My take on it is that it exemplifies people complaining about their lot in life. Those who would rather subject themselves by their own ignorant consent to the will of another and not stand up to take responsibility for themselves. The sheeple. Their self made hell on earth in reality. Hope and fate are words and ideas for slaves, not freemen.

Translation

O Fortune,
like the moon
you are changeable,
ever waxing
and waning;
hateful life
first oppresses
and then soothes
as fancy takes it;
poverty
and power
it melts them like ice.

Fate – monstrous
and empty,
you whirling wheel,
you are malevolent,
well-being is vain
and always fades to nothing,
shadowed
and veiled
you plague me too;
now through the game
I bring my bare back
to your villainy.

Fate is against me
in health
and virtue,
driven on
and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour
without delay
pluck the vibrating strings;
since Fate
strikes down the strong man,
everyone weep with me!^[3]

Sui Juris Is

Sui Juris is the means by which one goes from being the hunted in court, to the hunter.
~ Chris Duke

Federal Complaint Template w/ notes

This notice brought to you by: Jamie Barker

by Leisha Tringali
(modified)



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ___________
ATTACHMENT 1

____________________________________
)
YOUR NAME HERE, ) Civil Action No.:
)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
) FOR JURY TRIAL
WHO ARE YOU SUING, )
)
Defendant(s) )
_____________________________________


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a complaint for relief under ( example 42 U.S.C. §1983, with pendant state claims, against individuals and state agencies, which gives the district court original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of any right secured by the Constitution of the United States and to recover damages or other relief for such civil rights violations. )

A. ) For declaratory and injunctive relief . . . . . .

Declaratory Judgment : A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case that declares the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute.

Injunctive Relief: Injunctive relief, or an injunction, is an appropriate remedy if the plaintiff is being harmed by the defendant's actions in a way that money cannot fully compensate for. Injunctive relief refers to an order by the court that the defendant cease a specific behavior.

B. ) For damages . . . . . . .

Punitive Damages: Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award. Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

Compensatory Damages: A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. In order to be awarded compensatory damages, the plaintiff must prove that he or she has suffered a legally recognizable harm that is compensable by a certain amount of money that can be objectively determined by a judge or jury.


C. ) For Pendant State Claim . . . . . . .

Pendent Jurisdiction: Pendent jurisdiction is the authority of a United States federal court to hear a closely related state law claim against a party already facing a federal claim, described by the Supreme Court as "jurisdiction over nonfederal claims between parties litigating other matters properly before the court."[1] Such jurisdiction is granted to encourage both "economy in litigation",[2] and fairness by eliminating the need for a separate federal and state trial hearing essentially the same facts yet potentially reaching opposite conclusions. Pendent jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to adjudicate claims it could not otherwise hear.

2. Jurisdiction for this action pursuant to ( example Title 28 U.S. Code §§ 1331 and 1343. Actions of the defendant(s) has further aggrieved plaintiff in the state of New Hampshire in which the plaintiff resides. Therefore, jurisdiction under 28 USC §1332 and venue lie with this Court. )


PARTIES

3. (Your name) is currently inhabiting ( your address ).

4. The defendants name ( individually / official capicty - or both ) their address

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

5. Now comes the plaintiff in the above entitled action seeking . . . . .

6. Place fact here . . . .

7. Place fact here . . . .

RELIEF

8. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue its Declaratory Judgment . . . . . .

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue its Declaratory Judgment declaring

9. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue its compensatory damages . . . . .

Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue its compensatory damages in the amount of $

10. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue an award of punitive damages . . .

Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue an award of punitive damages that a defendant’s . . . . . to plaintiff’s rights in the amount of $


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


The Sui Juris plaintiff , ( your name here ), demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable

NOTICE OF INTENT

Plaintiff, ( your name here ) hereby gives notice that he/she intends to rely upon such other and further evidence as may become available or apparent during trial in this action, and hereby reserves the right to amend his/her Complaint and to assert any such evidence by appropriate motion.

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION


I have read the above complaint and it is correct to the best of my knowledge.


Date: _____________________

____________________________

Your Name Here

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I, ( your name here ) , hereby certify that a true copy of the above complaint was served upon the following Defendant(s) at the addresses listed below.

1. Name of defendant and their address here . . . .

Notary:

A Fifty Five Year Prison Sentence For $350 Worth Of Marijuana?

It's sad that these things are allowed to happen to citizens. I can't stand the word 'crime' being used to describe something that is NOT a crime. No harm to another or their property, NO fraud committed, NO violation of another's rights, NO Corpus Delecti = NO CRIME! The fact that he had a gun is merely pre-crime supposition. There was NO act committed with the weapon. The charge is based only on his ability to act in a unlawful manner while doing something deemed illegal by the community he grants his consent to be governed by. The only real thing he's guilty of is granting the thieving pirates consent to govern him and not learning the law (<- lawful vs legal) and what his rights are. 

Read the article here: http://www.theweedblog.com/a-fifty-five-year-prison-sentence-for-350-worth-of-marijuana/

For the record, I do not use MJ, but the lawlessness the authorities are using to prosecute people innocent of any crime deeply disturbs me and IS A CRIME! 

It is also disturbing that almost everyone in the so called 'LEGALIZATION' movement are being bamboozled by the same ass hats who would like to make some money off of them and throw them in jail for these non crimes. To possess, smoke, or even sell MJ is not a crime PERIOD! It is a right! People have no damn idea what rights even are, and BEG these ass hats to legalize stuff that they have no business regulating in the first place! MAKE NO DAMN MISTAKE ABOUT IT! LEGALIZATION IS REGULATION! If weed were criminal in the first place, then how could a gov body make it noncriminal by forcing you to beg them for a license or permit and pay them money to do it? Does the gov have some magic moral authority that changes a criminal act into a noncriminal act by their act of extortion?

On The Subject Of Commercial Activity

 

A thought provoking question by: Mathew Wolfe

On the subject of commercial activity, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts have the authority to regulate commercial activity. This is messing with my head a bit. If I am a free sovereign man, and the governed must give consent to be governed, is it not my RIGHT to engage in any commercial activity I chose? Why must I submit to be regulated in my pursuit to make a living? Furthermore, if I chose NOT to consent, and engage in commercial activity anyway, what lawful authority do they have to use force against me to get my compliance? If I chose to have a taxi service, I would be "driving" and subject to the regulations in the motor vehicle act. If driving is a privilege and not a right, then who has authority to grant me permission to exercise this "privilege"? Are we not equal under the law? If I'm in court for acting commercially on the roads, and I break some traffic rule, what JURISDICTION do they have? There is still NO CONTRACT, and no injured party. Can someone clear this up for me. Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

 

If a judge is entering a plea for you against your wishes what are the charges?

If a judge is entering a plea for you against your wishes what are the charges?

"For starters he is violating your right to due process of law. The violation of ANY right is a crime. EVERYONE has a right to due process of law, and discussion and discovery come BEFORE entering a plea in the proper ORDER of due process of law. We have a right to law AND order, not one or the other but BOTH. In the order of due process of law before you can enter a plea you have a lawful right protected by the 6th amendment, to be INFORMED of both the CAUSE and NATURE of the charges and proceedings against you. If you do NOT claim to understand the cause and nature of the charges and proceedings because there has been no discussion or discovery which would explain and prove standing and corpus delicti, which MUST be PROVEN once challenged and not merely ASSERTED by a judge or prosecutor, then a judge cannot enter a plea nor even ask you to enter a plea until you have had an opportunity to engage in discussion so you CAN be informed of the cause and nature of the charges and proceedings against you. And after you are so informed if there is no element of harm you again continue to claim you do NOT understand the cause and nature of the charges and proceedings against you. the prosecutor is NOT going to answer your questions

1."is there evidence of a complaining party"?

2. "can you explain how all 3 elements of corpus delicti exist"?

You only have 2 questions you need answered and the prosecutor will not answer your questions so the prosecutor although ordered to, still refuses to provide you with discussion and discovery. If the judge is NOT a criminal and corrupt tool in the pocket of central banks he or she will order the prosecutor to provide you with the requested discovery within 10 days and will dismiss the charges when they fail to do so, and they WILL fail to do so if there is no element of harm. If the judge however IS a corrupt tool of England (central banks) then they will attempt to enter a plea for you on your behalf usually of not guilty. if this happens you must object. "I object your honor, do you represent me"? This alone is usually enough to get them to back down. They hate being asked who they represent, because they represent the state as well as the prosecutor, which is a conflict of interests. They are an interested party in a case they preside over.

The judge SHOULD allow you discussion and discovery, and if they DO NOT< they are violating your right to due process of law and committing a crime, if they talk about it with even the bailiff or prosecutor and agree to enter a plea for you they are committing another crime, CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHT 18 U.S.C .241. if the judge in any way attempts to imply any negative consequences for you asserting and exercising this right it is another crime under 18 U.S.C. 242 and because the violation of your right IS damage to property because your rights are literally your property, these are EACH 10 year charges. You can also file a claim and collect against this judge's bond".

"YOU did not enter a plea, YOU cannot in good conscience stand under charges that do not at least have a complaining party and an alleged element of harm. To do so would be unAmerican and it is your duty to stand against such charges. You are correct, when the judge entered the plea the judge took the defendant's stand, and agreed to stand under the charges. The judge cannot possibly represent you he prepresents the State".

~Rob Johnson-

Rob Johnson, Author of the book 'Sui Juris The Law of Full Age
Your Sovereign Claim to Unaleinable Individual Rights,' Available here -> http://www.suijurislaw.net/

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst

 

Ayn Rand

"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours." | Atlas Shrugged

 

One of the comments that followed a trolls post on the Ayn Rand page over on Facebook. I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him. (We will assume it was typed from a phone)
Brian Waas said: "reading atlas shrugged now, and even though im only 1/3 the way through it, its obvious that either a lot of these people commenting on this post either did not read it, they read it out of context, or they just don't have the brainpower to understand it. to those of you who argue that the state has total control over you... it doesn't. you always have a choice.. always.. stating that you have no choice is only your way of admitting that your not clever enough to find a way to circumvent the stupidity of those with a rubber stamp. the relationship between state and individual is a game.. but its a game that can have its rules re-written by both parties. or have you never heard of descent in the populous and the forming of a new nation out of the ashes of the old one that just couldn't cope with individuality. saying "I have no choice" is only an excuse to say you don't have the ability to deal with the problem head on, and would rather just give up... that doesn't mean its impossible. dunno where this saying came from, maybe I invented it myself iunno.. but I live by this "never let another judge your potential, based on their ability." if their too dumb to figure it out and they have a degree in engineering, and they cant figure it out,, that doesn't mean its impossible as they say it is with their attitude of "if I cant figure it out it cant be done". it just means they aren't smart enough to do it, and you might be, so don't let them discourage you from your goal, they say it for two reasons, because they literally think its impossible, and they don't want to see if you succeed, because it would make them look stupid for having said its impossible."

By: Robert Nunyer  

Getting out of it is simple, however, IT IS ANYTHING BUT EASY. In a nutshell, you secede, i.e. formally withdraw FROM MEMBERSHIP in the governments[1], quit using a taxpayer identification number[2], and waive ALL member-only benefits and privileges[3].

But before you make the leap, be sure that you understand what you will be giving up, becoming independent is NOT painless, we've strayed way to far from that path for it to be so. You may lose job, family, friends, and more.

Also, you need to know that although being sui juris, i.e. being self-governing, has its benefits, it is NOT a suit of armor, it will not make you bulletproof.

"The Matrix is a system, [Noel]. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ("The Matrix")
_______________________________________________
[1] You are NOT asking permission, you are making a Declaration of Independence because, "Dependence leads to subservience."(Thomas Jefferson) Remember, the STATES have submitted themselves, and thus their "citizens", to the dominion of the Federal Government, so you must withdraw from membership in these subsidiaries as well.

"It is an inarguable historic fact that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession from the British Empire." ~ Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. [Jurist Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence]

"The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession." ~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University

http://mises.org/daily/2624

[2] http://tinyurl.com/3c6yb

[3] • Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to
accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.
• Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

 Herbert Spencer

The Right to Ignore the State

[This essay is taken from chapter 19 of Spencer's first major work of political philosophy — Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed (1851) — in which his first principle is that of Equal Liberty: "that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other man."] http://mises.org/daily/2624

Notice Of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, and Notice of Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence

 

By: Jamie Barker

Dear sheriff,

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within FIFTEEN (15) days of service of notice of this action.

I am serving herewith, My Notice Of Understanding and Intent and my Claim of Right, as well as Notice of Estoppel through acquiescence. You will find the enclosed intact and complete.

I ____________ of the ______________ family , a flesh and blood living soul do hereby make oath and state the following is my truth and my law.

Whereas : it is my understanding that America and all her people enjoy the protection of common-law and it is my understanding that all living beings (flesh and blood) are created equally under one creator and it is my understanding that we are sharing this existence on Earth together under our creator and it is my understanding that we have been given a conscience to deliberate and make decisions for ourselves and it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory and it is my understanding that a statute is defined as a legislative rule of society which has been given the force of law, and it is my understanding that a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a Common goal and it is my understanding that the government of America is a Representative Body and Representation can only come from consent and

Whereas I am a peaceful and responsible human being and it is my understanding that peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statute and law and Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace Whereas permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Free-Inhabitant under any act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time.

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and effected parties, that I, (____________ of the ______________ family ) a Sovereign, Free-Inhabitant do hereby state clearly and specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law and trade, exchange and barter.

Furthermore: I claim the right not to apply for licenses, permits or to seek permission to do any action, that are already lawful,

I claim the right to exercise my "common law right to travel", unhindered, unencumbered, at my discretion in my private conveyance of the day, to wit, my private, unregistered, unlicensed mechanically propelled automobile,

I claim the right to possess, cultivate or use medicinally any plant or other medicine. Also to exercise omnipotent control over all of my own medical affairs with or without a Doctor's oversight.

I claim the right to possess unregistered firearms and ammunition and to use the same for target practice at a range or for hunting for food and further swear under oath never to open fire on another human being unless I am in fear of my life and as a last resort to protect any other human life. I Also swear to come to the aide of any peace officer should they request my assistance. That is my personal oath.

Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines and the failure to define between that which is legal, and that which is lawful in order to extract capital from the masses by legislating freedom and then putting a price tag on it is a crime on Man, and the failure to define between the Natural man and the State created Fiction is nothing short of fraud, theft, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form.

I claim that the courts in the United Staets of America are de-facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I furthermore claim that they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do herby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is (1oz of gold ) ONE OUNCE OF GOLD ($1,366.00) per hour or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (5oz of gold) FIVE OUNCES OF GOLD ($6,830.00) per hour or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent.]

Furthermore, I state that it is my duty to Claim such rights, to protect them and ensure they exist for future generations.Furthermore, I claim that the law of agent and principal does apply and that service upon one is equal to both.Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose I see fit.

Responses must be under Oath attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certification of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self

Signed: .

Witness: .

Notary: .

(You print this up, have it notarized, and the Notary Public puts this original in the file and holds this original Bill of exchange for collection along with the first one. The Notary sends a certified true copy, in my case to the Sheriff. If the Sheriff registers a response he may pick up both of the original bills of exchange and all is done. If there is no response the next notice is crafted by the Notary, and placed into your file, sending another certified copy of that Notice to the Sheriff.)

--------------------------------

Notice Of Dishonor

Dear

I am writing to inform you that you have dishonored my Notice of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, and Permanent Estoppel by acquiescence, by failing to accept and respond. Through your silence you have confirmed that we share an understanding regarding all points in the original notice received by you on October 7th 2010. This notice is to both inform you of the fact that you have dishonored my notice, and to give you another opportunity to respond and to clarify anything you do not understand. You have another ten (10) days to respond to this original notice that I have properly served upon you. I look forward to your response and an opportunity to discuss this matter. Responses must be under oath, bond, and full commercial liability, and received within ten (10) days from the date this notice is received. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Signature

Witness

Notary

(If there is no response to the Notice of dishonor, the Notary Public crafts the NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR NON ACCEPTANCE. Protest A formal statement in writing by a notary public, under seal, that a certain bill of exchange or promissory note was on a certain day presented for payment, or acceptance, and that such payment or acceptance was refused. The Sheriff gets another 10 days to come in and pick up these original bills by registering a response. The example below is as if it were coming from you, but the Notary can use this and your other notices to craft their own notice of protest. That is really supposed to be crafted and sent by the Notary Public.)

--------------------------------

Notice Of Protest For Non Acceptance

Dear As Notary Public I am writing this notice of Protest for Non Acceptance, under seal, in a formal statement, to advise you that a bill of exchange was on 10/06/2010, presented for acceptance, and that such acceptance was refused. The notice sent on 10/06/2010 was verified received by your signature via certified mail return receipt on 10/07/2010, and fifteen (15) days were given for acceptance.

On 11/16/2010, well after the time frame given, Notice of Dishonor was presented and held for collection also, and that notice was served by this office to advise you that you had dishonored a bill of exchange. This FINAL NOTICE, Notice of Protest For Non Acceptance, sought by the party presenting the bill of exchange, is to advise you again that this office is holding for collection a bill of exchange presented for acceptance, and that acceptance has been refused.

Per instruction of the party presenting said bill of exchange, you now have another fifteen (15) days to accept the bill of exchange and all original notices related, and they can be accepted in this office, either in person, or by certified mail, by registering a notarized response in this office, per the presenting party, in the fashion stated within the first notice given. The party presenting the bill of exchange has requested that this Notary Public fullfill their duty under New York Executive Law Section 138, to protest for non acceptance of the bills of exchange currently being held for collection under the same section. Protest service requested by signature of party below on this _______ day of ________________ in the year of _____________

(Please note that the Notary Public is simply holding these bills of exchange, attested to under oath by the presenting part, for collection, and protest relates only to the non acceptance of them, not the matters involved.)

Sincerely,

Signature

Witness

Notary . Administrative Default Judgement of Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence

After this if there is no response you win by default, all points not refuted in the Notice of Understanding and intent constitute a shaerd understanding by acquiescence. As a public officer constituted by law to assist the public in non contentious matters, the Notary Public, being that POWERS AND DUTIES EXECUTIVE LAW Section 138 ranks the Notary above and before justice of the supreme court, a judge, clerk, deputy clerk, or special deputy clerk of a court, an official examiner of title, or the mayor or recorder of a city, a justice of the peace, surrogate, special surrogate, special county judge, or commissioner of deeds, who is a stockholder, director, officer or employee of a corporation. A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY PERFORM ANY DUTY ANY OF THESE OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS CAN PERFROM IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, PROVIDED THE MATTER IS NON CONTENTIOUS, OR WITHOUT DISPUTE AS A DEFAULT MATTER IS. A justice of the Peace can grant the judgement as well.

Tools within Their system that will hold them accountable.

 

By: Jamie BarkerWeare Notsheeps

This is a powerful case that will get you paid, because the fee for illegal incarceration according to Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 (11th cir.1984), is $65,217 dollars per hour, and $1,800,000 ($1.8 Million) dollars per day.
The plaintiff came to this conclusion, because in Trezevant, a Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages (Note: multiply the total number of days plaintiff served behind bars with the going fee of $1.8 million dollars per day, in order to determine how much money to award the plaintiff in damages.

case-741-f2d-336-trezevant-v-city-of-tampa.pdf

------------------------------

These Damages were determined by GOVERNMENT itself for the violation listed. Breach Penalty Authority

VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED PROPER WARRANT(S) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED RIGHT OF REASONABLE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 DEFENSE EVIDENCE (RECORDS) $250,000.00 18 USC 357I
DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH IN EVIDENCE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
SLAVERY (Forced Compliance to contracts not held) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
TREASON (combined above actions). $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
GENOCIDE $1,000,000.00 18 USC 1091
MISPRISION OF FELONY $500.00 18 USC 4
CONSPIRACY $10,000.00 18 USC 241
EXTORTION $5,000.00 18 USC 872
MAIL THREATS $5,000.00 18 USC 876
FRAUD $10,000.00 18 USC 1001
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS $10,000.00 18 USC 1001
PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1621
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1622
GRAND THEFT (18 USC 2112) each $250,000.00
RACKETEERING (Criminal) $25,000.00 18 USC 1963

To determine the xact amount for damages, multiply no. of counts by damage 18 USC 3571, ex.:

RACKETEERING (Civil) Wages Taken $x3 = 5? 18 USC 1964 (Sustained Damages [total] x 3) Thirty-seven (37) Constitutional violations from Count 1: = $9,250,000.00

Damages Dealing with claims of "immunity."

Any claim of " immunity" is a fraud because, if valid, it would prevent removal from office for crimes against the people, which removal is authorized or even mandated under U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section IV; as well as 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, and other state Constitutions..

Elections, understanding this blog and why I do it, and the posible future.

Yeah, that's the new definition of a crime by the ignorant crossing guards we call police these days.

So, I've seen some elections were held today. Whoopee dingdong. My conservative thinking friends who are not yet free, are complaining about the freedom stealing crap that passed, and are still blaming those libtards who voted for it. My libtard friends, well, I don't have any of them. That's not to say that I don't respect some if not most if the ideals they stole and pretended to represent in the beginning. Yeah, even Kennidy is still a grey area for me these days. He had to know, and he went along with it to a point, then mase the Special services to deal with such things, and was going to challenge the creditors of our national debt and their Federal reserve bank as well as their owned IRS and got murdered by the bastards for his actions. Hell, look at Reagan when he tried to challenge them. Oops, missed. Gonna play ball now Mr. CEO man? Yup. "I cant remember." That's been the punch line to every rip off''s joke ever since. "I did not, or do not, etc."

I honestly wonder just how many Libtards are actually out there, and how many you see in the news are just payed actors? Anyone with an Obama phone is a payed actor. Anyone on welfare is a payed actor. Then the actual payed for actors for the spin doctors, then throw in a bunch of brainwashed idiots who do nothing but sit on the couch and get loaded after work every night instead of trying to learn anything. I know because I was once one of them. (skin crawling) To counter that, I have been a statist idiot for most of my life as well as a card carrying member of the Republican party. Reagan visited my High School when I was in the AFJROTC. Yeah, I idolized the guy back then.

My common sense was ALWAYS being challenged to the point where I would just drop out of the subject and consider it above my head. It's confusing when you trust what spin doctors say on the news. Your grasping for information, and given nothing but contradictory OPINIONS. No wonder why most people just drop out of the whole thought process. Politics suck for a reason. That's it's design.  It's meant to confuse people and get them to drop out of the thinking process. They can ONLY support one side or the other on one or two party platforms. Both platforms are created by the same creditors. People who have not taken any time to do research, can NOT form an educated opinion. People who have never opened a law dictionary to find out what words actually mean in law rather than on the street corner. Yeah, that's some substandard smack Byitch!

Before I get to far off my original intent for this post, let me get back on track. If your voting for these freedom stealing things / thugs, then you are robbing yourselves. If your voting for not passing these freedom robbing things / thugs, then you are still voting for them. Your giving your consent in an Opinion Poll. That is consent my friend! You are raping yourself. "If you vote, you have no one to blame but yourself." It's YOUR CONSENT they operate from! They have no other power but your consent!

We are on the verge of awakening to one of two realities. Either a reality where truth rules, and we have power over our own life's, or a bitter one where basic human rights and the opportunity to exercise free will and personal responsibility for ones own actions will be suffocated by the dimwitted opinions of the self uneducated. DON'T mistake people who have memorized statistics as educated.They are the most dimwitted of them all. Complete slaves to their programing with not even the ability to address conformity, or think for themselves.

"It's only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice, do we evolve."

Well, we are on that precipice. Even before I started waking up to the reality of what's been going on and then learning the law and the words they use and their definitions in legal dictionaries, I felt the same thing. That we were standing on the precipice of something great. Now it is clear that the great thing has the potential of being either great in a good way, or great in a bad way. From the looks of things, the bad way is looking more likely to happen.

This blog is not to tell you anything. It's sole purpose is but to show you the door. It's you who have to walk threw it. In order for you to understand, and act, and take responsibility for your own actions and finally be free, you must learn these things I'm pointing out to you. Some of it is just an example of absurdity you still call truth. Shock therapy. I'm far from learning it all myself, and consider myself to be at only a middle school level. I started this blog last May to point out some stuff I learned, then found I still had too many questions about what I was presenting. So I took a few months off to regroup and learn more. I'm still learning, and feel I have been able to skip threw some of the mud of disinformation now. I still have some important questions to ask and understand. I do have the basics down now. And to understand much more than that, sometimes only shades the truth of the basic principles. Creates that dark cloud of confusion in the back of your mind even when reading the truth is ringing in your head like the Liberty Bell about to crack your skull.

Well, I like to keep the posts here short and to the point. I think I've gone beyond that point tonight.

Last words for tonight. If you've woken up, then it's time to grow up and leave the nanny state and it's childish privileges behind. If you ever wish to exercise rights, then you must also exercise responsibility equal to those rights. This is not a have your cake and eat it too world we live on. You must make your choices.

The way someone who knows their rights and who they are looks at protesters.

A partial list of the various ways in which citizens of the US are taxed:

 

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7%

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Deficit spending
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inflation
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

"It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.”

“Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant–they have been cheated; asleep–they have been surprised; divided–the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson?…the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it…. It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.”
– James Madison


James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 (O.S. March 5)  – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, political theorist and the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817). He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.^[2] He served as a politician much of his adult life.
After the constitution had been drafted, Madison became one of the leaders in the movement to ratify it. His collaboration with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay produced the Federalist Papers (1788). Circulated only in New York at the time, they would later be considered among the most important polemics in support of the Constitution. He was also a delegate to the Virginia constitutional ratifying convention, and was instrumental to the successful ratification effort in Virginia. Like most of his contemporaries, Madison changed his political views during his life. During the drafting and ratification of the constitution, he favored a strong national government, though later he grew to favor stronger state governments, before settling between the two extremes late in his life.

Be Honest With Yourself

 By: Liberty Smith

 

COMMENT: "When police pull you over for a victimless 'offense' you are being threatened with murder? Making that claim is a bit extreme."
---------------------------
Cash: "Be honest with yourself. When you support government, or a government 'regulation' or 'ban' you are, by proxy since you used badged thugs representing you, threatening to cage people who disobey your gang. If those people resist being caged by you and your thugs, on principle, you want the violence escalated to whatever is necessary to force compliance.

If they resist their caging they will be murdered...not killed in self defense, since they were not the ones initiating the violence, but MURDERED. If you support a state and its victimless crime laws, you want people caged and shot if they resist the dictates of your 'majority' dictatorship. Honesty, telling the truth, can never be called extreme. You can't be TOO honest. It's impossible to be an honesty 'extremist.' Lying is extreme, not truth."

Only slaves ask for permission to exercise rights.

Actually, the title to this post is wrongheaded. Slaves don't have rights. They only are granted privileges by their masters. They MUST beg for permission to exercise those privileges.

Think about that the next time your about to beg them for permission to do something.
Ask yourself:

1. Is what I want to do lawful to do?
a) If yes, then why do you need to be licensed to do it?
b) If No, then how would asking government somehow make it a lawful activity?

2. Is it my right to do this?

3. Do I have the right to do this?

4. Does it harm another or their rights if I do this?

5. Is there ANY fraud involved? (Gov can not license fraudulent activities, even though they do it all the time)

6. Does my asking for permission to do lawful acts grant them my consent to step in and tell me what to do?

7. Do they then have MY permission to tell me just how I can exercise a right because I consented by asking for their permission?

8. Who died and made them god?

9. Are they MY public servants or MY masters?
a) If public servants, then why are you asking them for permission to exercise your rights?
b) If "masters" then learn why granting them your consent makes that so! And learn what granting them your consent even means!
c) Do I even have rights after I granted them to someone else?

Some stuff to think about before you go begging some pointy headed bureaucrat public servant for permission to exercise your rights such as a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. 

I disagree with some of the information presented in this video, but for the most part, I do agree with the content.
 

The Twinkie Defense

Haha! Sometimes ya just gotta laugh!

"Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from healthy food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

Serve The Public Good?

"I could say to you that you do not serve the public good—that nobody’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices—that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation—as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won’t. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own—I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!" ~ Ayn Rand

THE CREDITORS!

Click on photo for larger image.

The real stinker is that they already are!

When in a bankruptcy, who has all the power?

Yup, you guessed it. THE CREDITORS!

Now ask yourself just who the creditors are over the United States?

Obozo is their puppet, not your president. 

Who does the IRS work for?

Who is the Federal Reserve owned by?

Who is the IMF, and who are they accountable to?

Who is the Counsel on Foreign Relations, and who are they 
accountable to?

Just a few questions you need to start finding the answers for.

Don't even get me started on the UN and what a bunch of tools they are!

"A contradiction cannot exist"

 

"A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." - Ayn Rand

Protesting By Consenting Subjects

 

Here's a great example of citizens asking to get a spanking. Actually, for a citizen to say this could be construed as treason.

 

The bill of rights only tells gov to leave the rights of the People alone. Citizens gave up those rights when they consented to be governed. So when you see a protester arrested, and they are complaining that their rights have been violated, what has really happened is their 'civil liberties' (privileges) have not been respected. They can try to sue over it so long as the illusion that civil liberties / civil rights are the same thing as natural rights, protected by the bill of rights, is still being maintained. To 'PROTEST' 'YOUR GOVERNMENT,' think about the words your using. By taking part in 'protesting' what your doing is saying "I'm a bad little subject and want to be punished." "I am standing UNDER your authority by my own consent." If you want to beg your masters to change their ways, your gonna get spanked. They are not YOUR public servants when you consent to stand UNDER them! At that point they become your masters and ya better do as they tell you.

Why do People get shot down in the State's Courts, but always win on APPEAL?

By: Sovereign Not-a Citizen

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------