Ask about Common Law, and They Adjourn?

Pierre at a Niagara Falls City Council meeting. He asks about Common law, and receives responses that do not answer his question, but receives ad hominem replies.
Notice how they try and claim its a belief system?
And how they wanted to 'discuss' it in private?

[@ElGatoLoco698]

And herein lies the problem. Just because everyone else pays the fee doesn't mean it's justified or legal. Just because government tells me I must do something, doesn't make it right. Just because the federal reserve creates money out of thin air doesn't mean it's OK. Just because a healthcare law was passed, doesn't mean it's ethical. I'm tired of this crap. People succumb and bend over backwards because the government tells them too. They don't protest. They don't care. So when someone does protest, they brush them aside like their point is not valid. Everyone is pissed off at the TSA. No one likes the TSA, it's just that most people just don't give a shit. And the people who do speak out, are chastised because no one really cares except the people who it affects.

[@chop98]

Djtomonuland I wouldn't agree with the Common Law except the fact that it's a start in the right direction. Didn't the King of England come up with this "law base"? If anything, what we need is to observe the Natural Law. It is the way things are.

[@holdmyhand2009]

***** no, the king was made to sign the agreement, the lords of the land came up with it after much discussion about what the people really needed.... instead of a king that could make everything up as he went along. which was what was happening up till that point. you might find the history interesting, if you have a look for yourself.

[@mrbrownkush4673]

chop98 you start by saying you dont agree with it then ask who made it hahah wtf you dont know what your speaking about

[@jmowreader9555]

Since no two people can agree on what the natural law is, how can you use it for a system of governance? Everyone's just going to say all the things they want to do are legal regardless of the damage those things might cause to others. (There are a lot of sovereign citizens who believe driving drunk should be legal unless you injure or kill someone; it's not legal because we know it causes great harm and dead people are bad, m'kay?)

[@mrbrownkush4673]

jmowreader clearly full of B.S and you make no good points. Go and learn what it is you freak

[@stopdemockery]

A friend's son, who claimed to be in with the ill-umiNaughty was in court for traffic violations, said to the court, “I am the living beneficiary of the trust and I appoint you (the judge) as trustee and instruct you to conclude these proceedings in a manner that most benefits me.” At which point the judge dismissed the charges.

[@monikori6473]

Really??

[@infinitesimotel]

If it was only that easy, LMAO.

[@silkhead44]

the supreme court of Canada has ruled that Common law flows from the Charter and when you claim Common Law Jurisdiction in any court they must abide by the rules of fundamental justice...the statutes and bylaws go right out the window...know who you are and stop presenting yourself under a title of Mr or Citizen or incorporated being. There is only two laws under common law you have to follow...don't hurt people and don't take their stuff

[@jimhumphries5309]

Wrong.

[@tommyseacat3580]

Imagine if 100's of people went to these meetings every week and gave them hell eh?

[@kevkelly8]

I go to council meetings in Australia and they are exactly the same. Old arse councillors bitching about the time and mayors delegating the answer to the clerk/CEO. They would not know what to do if people start taking an interest.

[@marbar1230]

Wow! So what is their job again??? I hope they are not getting paid by tax payers money, and if they are volunteers they should step down and give their seats to someone who`s really interested to help the community. They have no knowledge the law. what I felt about them is that they were up to hide something about what this man was asking for or was only me thinking this way?? And that idiot standing up and calling a citizen delusional was sick and wrong.

[@marbar1230]

Is that the mayor??? Is he on crack too? Arrogant and disrespectful toward citizen,

[@LFC-Star]

secret pm It's all a ploy to take back jurisdiction back from the man.

[@JollyRoger150]

@@marbar1230 I love this comment, would you say that in essence, this is common-sense?

[@jeffdevine6387]

I think it is quite rude of them to say he could finish what he was saying, and as soon as he started talking again, councilmen jumped up and interrupted him until the mayor called for adjournment. Worse than children, and no morals in that city council

[@LFC-Star]

It's they panicked as the man had jurisdiction over them. So they rudely interrupted him to try get back jurisdiction back from him.. That's a stunt they use..

[@c.a.g.3130]

"Council Meetings are not public forums." Well, now THERE'S an interesting assertion.

[@zopiclone199]

Except it's not an "assertion", it's a fact. Council meetings are meetings between municipal council members. So no, not any average joe can walk in from the street to blah blah blah to their own leisure, just like how not any average joe can march into the US Congress and blah blah about whatever ails them, unless invited to testify. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done.

[@c.a.g.3130]

zopiclone199 No, you are wrong. What he asserts is FACTUALLY untrue. The word public means, "people as a whole." A forum is defined as "place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views are exchanged." When a council chairman opens a council meeting to 'public comment,' that is precisely what it is and arrogant city attorneys, not-too distant cousins of the oldest profession, are not part of that discussion. Public Comment is PRECISELY that place where what you so condescendingly refer to as 'average joe' is not only permitted, but ENTITLED, to speak. The council are his EMPLOYEES; they ANSWER to 'average joe.'

[@zopiclone199]

C. A. Gravenhorst ' The word public means, "people as a whole."' Yeah, according to no dictionary ever. Look up the word "public" and get back to me. 1) Meetings of legislative bodies are not always open to the public (as is the case here). Try walking into the Canadian Parliament randomly on any given day when a House of Commons session is being held, and see if they will let you walk in off the street to interrupt the session so you can complain about taxes and fees. Not only are you wrong, but you are naive to think this would work great if anyone can do it. 2) Legislative representatives do not answer to any "average joe", they answer to their constituents. So yes, you are wrong. 3) This freeman/sovereign idiot was not scheduled on the agenda but basically disrupted meetings, so he was out of order and ejected from the meeting. Too bad you don't like it, but that is how it work. Stop being so naive.

[@c.a.g.3130]

zopiclone199 (1) You can consult your own dictionaries; I am not your secretary. (2) Your references to other legislative bodies are inapposite to the instant matter since the gentlemen in question is not IN the Canadian Parliament. (3) You are apparently a from 'another land,' where government is not understood, as a fundamental, principle to have established by The People, who created it, and are their sovereign masters. Perhaps that is why you have so much snow; God is not pleased with you. (4) Nothing in video provides evidentiary support for your conclusion that the individual in question had "disrupted" this or any other meeting. The chair inquired if he had 'a comment,' was asked to state his name and address, and was situated at the lectern; all elements of customary 'public comment' protocol, with which we here in New Hampshire are intimately and historically familiar. Neither was he 'ejected.' He was invited to meet at another time to more fully redress his grievance.

[@rachelb8863]

@@c.a.g.3130 Brilliant! Well said. And we the people are the common law court. And the people are waking up

[@cooliemango9422]

their asking for a private meeting. He has valid point and they refuse to address it.

[@jmallett6081]

I like how the greedy guy stated the other farmers wanted to pay his fee. If I asked those farmers if they really wanted to pay the fee, do you think all of them would say yes? Doesn't it make that greedy guy a liar? Why would anyone volunteer to pay fees if they didn't have to pay them?

[@sovereignfreespirit]

"We have a system here where we bully the common people and subject them to fees and dues, you either pay your dues or take your false law some place else because your not playing by our rules the only rules that matter"... and of course, I'm mocking them!

[@AztecMC1]

Amazing... Those liars/lawyers tried to slander him as a conspiracy weirdo.

[@thisistheendpt2]

I think we've all seen and practised being a freeman. I've been through it all too. There's a more effective way to get your point across and it's to use every law they have AGAINST them. It will force them to abandon their case against you. Oh yeah they'll try to confuse you by saying you're delusional but its cos they're scared they'll lose their jobs.

[@YMBey]

Factz

[@platinumw3]

i respect him for standing for his rights in this de facto system well done

[@Billsbyjoe]

the city rep holding court, the judge sat there and letting him do it, HILARIOUS.

[@Ha-zd7vr]

Everyone else WANTS to pay a fee but him... Priceless! This really shows how they actually think. Everyone wants to pay a fee... What everyone really wants is the same as this man, to NOT pay a fee, and not one of them WANT to pay anything... They are tired of government strong-arming it's citizens in hard economic times. These people don't have a clue what everyone wants, hell they've all made professions out of just the opposite...

[@budster999]

This is a civil court under maritime administrative jurisdiction, common law and the rule of law has no place here. It's a little to late to start quoting common law after you have consented to the civil jurisdiction of the court. YOU have to state a Common LAW jurisdiction right from the start and make it very clear YOU DO NOT except any other form of jurisdiction. Now the court doesn't have the jurisdiction they need to continue and will either bump it up to the high court that can deal with it or throw the case out. If they try and wing it and continue anyway then under Common Law the accuser mush provide the evidence to support his case. Just ask them to provide the proof that you are obliged to pay anyone for anything and provide proof that the statute they are quoting applies to you. you will find out that they CAN NOT and WILL NOT prove anything, job done.

[@gerrylaarakker2123]

Common Law has nothing to do with this. I think there is a huge misunderstanding as to what common law is. Whatever it is, it ain't that drivel spouted by the so called freemen!

[@cocreator69]

I like your explanation bud! I'm gonna use that in court when they call/summon my TRUST to court next month, thanks!

[@gerrylaarakker2123]

Good luck. Let me know how you made out.

[@safeway3168]

Niagara Falls City Council meeting - this is not a court.

[@kitevans6146]

anthony M how did it go?

[@bentley1960]

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby... The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3. “No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution. “ Reid v. Covert , 354 U.S. 1 (1957) "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957. "Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority." The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947) "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). "State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). Cooper v. Aaron, By Chief Justice Earl Warren No state, legislator, executive or judicial officer can "War" against (or test the limitations of) the Constitution without violating their undertaking to support it (Breach of Oath/Contract, Treason??). The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal...no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. (Book, Our Nation's Archive © 1999 pg 701) AM14.3/HO, IR No person shall hold office if he rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution (treason). AM14.3/RD Congress shall impeach anyone who rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution. " An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government". Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp.94. The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government” The governments of the world are the real terrorist in most cases. most are nothing but criminals pretending to still have some authority when by law they lost any claim to that authority when they violated their oath of office and became criminals. So in fact they are all impostors acting like officials. Nothing more than a fancy version of the bloods and the crypts, guess we could say the blues and the suits. The cream of the crop rises to the top and it is no different with criminals. Where do you think those who never go to jail for their crimes ends up. Like the Bush's and Clinton's and Obama's All criminals and all at the top. And they offer no choice but more criminals to take their place. When will people learn and bind our officials to the constitution and to the law. We DO NOT have to wait to "vote" someone out of office simply arrest them and replace them. "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320 "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~Thomas Jefferson~

[@vincemendoza2996]

That's awesome,I wish more people actually understood what you. 16Am. Jur. 2d.,Sec 97 Then a Constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the Citizen,is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to person and property Bart v United States 273 US 128

[@paw_ge0]

you are awesome..

[@gsp49]

vince mendoza , that would take a conservative view, the liberal interpretation is what we have now.

[@anythingafter10]

"His Worship?" Really, Canada?

[@AnnaLVajda]

Yeah they all kiss the crowns ass like royalty which makes them arrogant.

[@I_am_Diogenes]

If I understand .... the man said he would pay the fee if he could show them he was lawfully required to. 2:14 A simple yes / no question and he never answered him but instead attack him personally. ..... pretty much answered his question , Don't know how Canada works but that means they DO NOT recognize it.

[@fivespeedorange]

that's how it's done to us all----COZ EVERYONE PAYS -- who's the prick that owns everything on the planet I WAS BORN TO LIVE ON and why do I have to payTHEM to live?

[@malthus101]

I can't hear anything - who checked the volume levels before uploading?

[@endoscopicmadness4783]

Everyone wants to pay a fee? (Lie)

[@keithcitizen7314]

so it is safe to assume what he asked " does this court operate under common law," the answer must surely be yes, because everyone in position of authority got all scetchy and started changing the subject, and trying to pull him aside for a special private meeting, the truth is being revealed about jurisdiction or non jurisdiction of these courts, and the scam on the tax payers to unknowingly agree to be tried under courts that have no jurisdiction simply by playing along.

[@mycars1014]

When you ever go infront of a Judge...say the following: FOR THE RECORD, I ACCEPT YOU OATH OF OFFICE AND I BIND YOU TO IT. They don't have a fiduciary duty to you if you don't accept their oath.

[@QuiteObvious]

Dirk you've got some patience anwsering all these questions. I agree that nowadays this system is suitable for most folk in it who aren't capable going about daily life without it. Most have scheduled their entire lives around it and have to wake up on the beep and walk their dog in circles their whole life but others are very independent and don't need a dog walking circle(system) its a prison for some people. This isn't an argument people should lead their life how they please.

[@dmvallaccess]

Just because he is the only one who doesn't want to pay the fee, doesn't mean he is wrong. He may be the only one that knows his rights.

[@dangerousslave]

the french dude is bang on the nail he has the right to refuse any offer of any contract with any commercial entity, and if he did want to do business he has the right to put his terms and conditions to oversee any relationship under a mutual agreement. 1 to the freeman movement in Niagra falls, in the corporation of CANADA.

[@DowJonesDave]

so the case was dismissed because they made so many errors (as a matter of S.O.P.) willfully and negligently that it was a turkey shoot for me. I even, while the motion was being argued by the alleged defendant, blurted out "ha, this is a joke" from the gallery and no one bothered me. Of course before going through security we both said "I don't mind going through the security check, but I won't be waiving any of my rights today nor am I granting any jurisdiction to you, do you understand?"

[@mustaffa1611]

Factually, a law is only an 'opinion.' A judge's ruling is called an 'opinion.' The constitution is only people's opinions. There is nothing special or sacred to 'the law.' It is all totally arbitrary and subjective.

[@gerrylaarakker2123]

***** Oh you poor little nihilist. That attitude is so passé.

[@mustaffa1611]

Gerry Laarakker its a song lyric bro.

[@kitevans6146]

mustaffa1611 so do I use subject-matter jurisdiction?

[@MrHuckfin2]

An honest Man in a room full of thieves,shame on them, they say it starts at home!

[@buzzbang7930]

Wait a min. I agree the man should take his grievance through the proper channels but to say some nut shit like "He's the only one who doesn't want to pay the fee and EVERYBODY ELSE DOES plain and simple." EVERYBODY ELSE DOES?? As if people are more than happy and just can't wait to pay. I don't think everybody WANTS to pay the fee. You should have said "Everybody HAS TO PAY the fee". They have no choice. Any objections? Politicians = (Equivocal statements x Corruption) + Politics as usual[2] + Aliens.

[@emilee2u]

Do not ask, tell it as it really is: you have no legal jurisdiction - then they will adjourn - they cannot answer.

[@callmeknomey]

at a city council meeting, where a tax payer stands before elected officials cited in and paid by WE THE PEOPLE, i would say is one of the best places to bring up unjust fees contrary to common law

[@immafreemann]

He (the farmer) wants to be able to use the public commons to sell his produce without paying rent to the owner??? Who is the owner of the public commons??? The city council cannot claim it belongs to them? The city council men and women are enriched by all taxes and fees. They have a conflict of interest and cannot order their master (the people) to pay them. The city is a municipal corporation and has no right of ownership, no right to enforce its corporate law on any man, and it would be a fraud to say a corporation can force its policy on a private man and not on a member of the corporation acting as an employee where a Corporation can enforce its policy. If you work at WalMart, you are subject to WalMarts policy but if you dont as long as you dont go into WalMart you aren't subject to its policys. WalMart does not own and control the land geographically known as THE CITY OF NIAGRA FALLS? But...does the municipal Corporation known as THE CITY OF NIAGRA FALLS own the land??? No. the public owns the land and has a right to use the public lands except to the detriment of other equal partners in ownership (the other people) as the people are all beneficiarys of the public trust and have rights to the public lands. You cant trespass on your own land, remember that. The laws of Canada? What is that? A group of men and women who are currently stealing the property of other men and women and claiming some fictional thing (CANADA) gave them the authority to do so because some other men and women claimed they had some special power granted to them by voters who (as men) didn't have any power to enforce their will on any other men at gunpoint, themselves. That is why Jesus said...woe be unto you lawyers...because they use deception and fraud to claim rights to violate Gods laws, ie the common law, the natural law, the unwritten laws that every man learns as a child that there will be consequences if you 1) hit the other kids, 2) take the other kids property, 3) lie and bear false witness, and 4) break your word (breach a valid contract). What consequences do these Citiy Council suffer for stealing their masters (the peoples) property??? I say get a real job and do something that benefits the other people or starve to death trying to be a parasite on humanity without any right to do so. All these Agents will get theirs when the stand in front of God and review the evil deeds they have done in life and the pain and suffering they have caused others with their threats of violence if they are denied their exactions.

[@erinjay8431]

👏👏👏👏love it!

[@leakedfromtv]

NOT AT ALL! That's is when "peace officers" are given the authority to conduct a proper investigation to then do whatever it is deemed necessary to remedy the injured party and/or situation. You seem to think that "common law" is a way for people to go willy-nilly. That could not be further from the truth. Remember, "peace officers" are here to uphold the peace. It is their job to arrest and bring before the courts the negligent party at hand. Statutes and acts are for the corporation.

[@sageofgame]

he was not on the meeting agenda he was speaking in citizen comments council did not have to address him they told him to set up a meeting so it can be discussed.

[@ChrisA-vg4wo]

Commercial law is public, which is where they are, in public... Common law is the private side, which is where he wants to set up a meeting. Very respectful and will probably agree with the Man that he doesn't need to pay a fee.

[@dianefogarty2537]

To the judge...ignorance of the law is no excuse.....this natural man is right in what he says

[@danielmconnolly7]

No Jurisdiction. Case dismissed.

[@soulinite]

Freeman are modern day Don Quixote.

[@patfcat3187]

This is a city council meeting, there is no judge presiding or lawyers present. They may not know what the common law is because they are city council members, not lawyers. That is why he keeps saying that this is the wrong forum to ask that question.

[@Tommykennedy101]

The Common Law. Cause No harm, No loss, No breach of peace, No deceit within contract. Together with our Constitution, Magna Carts 1215. That covers any legislation, acts, or statutes.

[@SatsumaBeachBear]

council meeting are public forums, the council however has deemed this an appropriate forum to defend their actions or to deal with "common" people.

[@001rice]

Thank you! There is no such thing as a stupid question in my books, to bad others don't think this way!

[@anotherconsumerslave]

"Repeat after me. I want to buy a hamburger." pink panther movie with Steve Martin.

[@frootloopsian]

This becomes the issue of RIGHT TO SELL ONE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. This Man, regardless of Status, has every right under Common Law to do that WITHOUT BEING TAXED, LEVIED, HARASSED, INSULTED, MONITORED, FINANCIALLY TRACKED, etc. He cannot be FORCED to co-join, or by action, give the Commercial Court JURISDICTION over him. That fee, IF HE PAYS IT, gives that Jurisdiction over him. I wouldn't pay the fee either. Even if it was one penny.

[@aaronwildeofficial]

"Everyone else pays it" "Yes, and I don't think they should pay it either." He is not asking for unique treatment, are these guys legally trained? Do they not understand the difference between breaking a law and standing on a principle?

[@rjbourgeois5490]

It's not even a law. It's a statute of the state of Canada. An edict that no one is subject to except for those willfully placing themselves under the jurisdiction of those who established such an edict, either out of ignorance or not. They are definitely legally trained, that's the game they are playing to try and fine him. The maritime commerce (legal) court system. This just does not apply to anyone who approaches the law in the right way. Common law, the law established by God on Mt. Sinai. The state can't deprive you of the fruits of your labor lawfully unless you willingly allow it. Hence the reason they try and use legalease to get you to agree to their terms of contract.

[@qinwudi7744]

this how the law society rules canada, they just get togeather and say we a lawyers and your not so we are right and you not, if you disagree you can hire one of us to represent you in a show trial and the judge that is really a lawyer will still rule in our favour.

[@Pyotr_Troyan]

He is standing on his knowledge and he addressed properly, what they are doing is contract and is not law. The attorney or whoever was that who said that the individual under illusion and some kind of medieval stuff, clearly shows attempt to disclaim without evidence that common law does exist, and knows that by silencing one individual who is awaken is a good reason, because others will wake up. They do not want public hearings, but act in secrecy, because they have sold them selves to corporations therefore, they know they acting as agents to the state. I would demand to see Oath of Office and Surety Bond, if they violate your rights, you have a right to trial by jury. They will not want to pursue it, because the man knows he is on solid ground, and the law of the land is in effect, and he have not submit himself to admiralty/maritime/commerce jurisdiction.

[@Colgate64]

Common law has been subsumed by statute law for many years now.

[@harleyborgais]

Common law = allodial title = whomever creates/changes the land and maintains it owns it, held in allodium, like all U.S. Property was until the Federal Reserve 'Hypothecated' it in 1913 (James Traficant Jr. Speech in 1993).

[@DowJonesDave]

so there was no ruling on the part of the motion that dealt with fictional entities, right to travel, etc. It could be argued that those arguments didn't win the case, which I might even agree with. However, only because we're both sovereigns were we in there shooting turkeys in court. Because SOVEREIGNS KNOW WHO THEY ARE and HOW TO HANDLE THEIR OWN LEGAL AFFAIRS! So the victory was definitely a "sovereign" win when considered that way.

[@greywolf424]

ACCORDING TO THE LAW, SILENCE DOSE NOT MEAN CONSENT.

[@josephjones1791]

The Council members are absolutely correct. It is a LEGAL matter not a LAWFUL matter. Everyone understood that except for that man. He is conducting BUSINESS and as such is required to follow the rules and regulations under the legislature. Common law had nothing to do with what was going on and the members appropriately moved on.

[@PETEtheTRAINER]

There are TWO "CLASSES" of USA citizen: 1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized wth/in the meaning of the Organic Constitution & inhabiting one of the several Republics of the uSA w/ FULL Organic CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship, as a Citizen of the Republic which they inhabit. 2. Enfranchised 14th Amendment Citizen "SUBJECTS" who are born or naturalized into the U.S. corporation & are residing therein as a U.S. citizen (small c) w/ privileges, benefits & immunities of "LIMITED" citizenship.

[@007RoyalFlush]

If the laws in this country are anything like the laws in the UK, then Courts will always adjourn when discussing anything to do with the wording of the law. That is only for the ears of the Judge, the Clerk and the barristers. The Jury, witnesses, defendants etc are NOT allowed to be part of that discussion.

[@dirkdigler3283]

I never said I need one, society does. The death toll on the roads is evidence to that, the injuries at workplaces due to unsafe practices are further evidence to this. Legislation helps curb poor behaviour and dangerious acts. If it wasn't against legislation to drink and drive or to speed - almost everyone would do it IMHO. That applies to almost all legislation.

[@greywolf424]

Appellant's demand trivializes the vital purposes of the free exercise clause. Moreover, yielding to appellant's demand in this case tends to invite demands for special formulations in future cases and thus cause needless delay in the administration of justice.3 24 The trial court's dismissal of appellant's action should be affirmed.

[@jangofet555]

those guys are sad cogs. the clerics argument is weak. "he's the only farmer that doesn't want to pay the fee, plain and simple", what is your point? and the other guy criticises, common law and the people who believe in it to be of fantasy and delusion.

[@dianecranston7430]

It is VERY OBVIOUS that NOT EVEN ONE MEMBER of the City Council, has really studied HISTORY, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215, and right up to the present year. Statutes, rules and regulations are NOT law. Common Law IS the law. It's not DELUSION. If City Council HAD STUDIED HISTORY, they would realize HOW CONVOLUTED, things have become. Again, statutes, rules, and regulations are ALL based on CONTRACT LAW, which has very little to do, WITH REAL LAW-----which is COMMON LAW. The man addressing council KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. City Council, on the other hand, has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what THEY'RE talking about. And this sort of thing happens because it's not CONVENIENT for government anywhere, to refute the claims made by those, who HAVE STUDIED HISTORY and who know how CONVOLUTED things have become. To make things perfectly clear, the only one in the room who KNOWS what he is talking about, is the man at the microphone, addressing "City Council". City Council, part of the make-believe government, needs to go BACK TO SCHOOL, and learn the facts.

[@dirkdigler3283]

If someone goes to a cop and says 'he stole my phone'. Cop goes out and arrests that person and seaches them - no phone (Possibly thrown in the bin). Statute and Crimes Act protects the officer from being sued and charged with a false arrest (As they had beleif on reasonable grounds). Common Law leaves it totally open for the cop to be civily charged, as 'to do what ever is necessary' is debateable at BEST, meaning at the very LEAST the cop will have to defend himself at court.

[@frogmanbrabs]

The position in English law is that citizens of the United Kingdom and persons physically within the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are bound by the laws of the United Kingdom, whether those laws are statute-based or form part of the common law. Consent to be bound is implicit not explicit. This circumstance is an integral part of the rule of law as it applies in the United Kingdom. This was taken from a reply for FOI re; Common Law. It proves we are all slaves not living in democracy

[@dsfabrication101]

He is trying to over talk you, but they are trying to hide his truth. Start exposing these 😈

[@madisonerickson9289]

Trying to make him out as an idiot, which he is not. It is plain and simple, but not for the reason that he's unwillingly to pay a fine, but jurisdiction. God Bless!

[@DivineYT]

"The common law is the law of the land that only he is privileged to understand" LOL owned.

[@42blackflag]

People when you step into their foreign courts Please know how to adder's these criminals.

[@ronaldusevers1697]

So they won't give him a straight answer. Comman law is for all who dwell on the land. Unless you are Greek shipping tycon or something, Martime commerce law should not apply to you, unless you knowingly signed an agreement (contract) to participate.

[@Scrapheap71]

"His Kingdom does not require force, trickery or deceit" My irony meter just pegged and broke.

[@greywolf424]

@TheoryIsSpeculation "When you bring your civil suit it isn't published unless you go to trial. " . AND THERE WAS NO CIVIL SUIT SO NOTHING GOT PUBLISHED

[@omgz8876]

also the reason he asked, if this is a common law court, if the judge said no. then he can walk out as its illegal. if the judge said yes then he would have pulled the lawful rebellion declaration out of his pocket. ur laws are still based on old english law that can never be overwritten. they can try but its unlawful. thats why then never consent to do so would be submission to the very system u denying your taxes to. i know people that have never payed any tax.

[@FawnMeadows]

He just became a victim of the court, asking a question about common law regarding his fees. Then they, the judge and attorneys make him out to be insane, not being licensed as doctors. And Adjourn, knowing they violated his rights. I believe, the cost is $35.00 dollars under that common law for the court fee. They committed what's called, fraud upon the court, as going on hearsay regarding their statements pertaining to them claiming he is off his rocker. (as mind absent this one) under law.

[@fongy200]

Agreed,were better place than to air a concern about your rights than a local council meeting?This gentleman had every right to question the fee before he paid it and if it were a legitimate charge then why pass the buck so quickly?We should be behind the little man every time because it's by the grace of God that it's not you or one of your loved ones or friends that are at the mercy of the coporate revenue mangle.

[@frogmanbrabs]

I was invited (summonsed) to a magistrates court last week. I stood at the door of the courtroom and stated that I would be entering the court under common law jurisdiction with all my inalienable rights in tact do we have an understanding? They ignored my statement and asked me if I was Mr X which I told them I was Mr Xs agent. I was asked to wait outside after 3 occasssions of trying to establish common law jurisdiction. They found me guilty in my absence. I am now rebutting the charges.

[@lukehorobin5430]

There isn't a government which hasn't become corrupted either. Small government, local government can easily be replaced/over thrown when the corruption happens. It is easier to keep people accountable when their reach only extends so far. It is also easier to insure the voices of everyone are actually heard the smaller those groups are. We don't need legislation. Common law covers all we need. The only form of large government that would work, is a dictatorship, with a nice guy in power.

[@fauciknowsnada1127]

That man acting as mayor doesn’t appreciate what the man was saying about common law. If he did he wouldn’t have shut the meeting down.

[@dirkdigler3283]

In Australia, there are no such adds. The only thing similar are government ads. I dont really see what it has to do with Common Law anyway. 'Pot' and 'heroin' is only proof of the government banning previous prescription drugs that were too dangerous and addictive. Which is a trend that continues to happen, and the time to find out something is harmful is quicker than ever - reducing the change people would get addicted to the drug, which is why 'heroin' and 'pot' are still around (addiction)

[@Ghryst]

paying a fee is Corporate law. Common Law(based in the constitution) gives government the right to make laws to impose taxes. taxes are not fees. fees are not taxes. the state does not have the power to impose fees, only taxes. legal penalty (fines or imprisonment) are also reserved rights in the constitution of the federal government, not state.

[@armandodemichele1420]

He gave the judge jurisdiction the moment he didn't answer the question, and allowed the clerk to speak ( the judge took the jurisdiction back because you did not object). He should have objected and ask the question until answered. Pierre unknowingly let it happen because the judge seemed nice and polite, but nonetheless invoked his claim of right and did a good job. Next time .Pierre, try to speak more from the heart and less from your page! Claim common law after your name is designated as a man. Do not allow the court to ignore or continue by simply repeating your questions.You did the right thing as should we all. God bless.

[@quantafunk]

I don't understand why he should not be required to pay a vendor fee when this is quite common in business?

[@armandodemichele1420]

Off the top of my head , you are not under any obligation, it must be a voluntary contribution, according to international covenants. I don't recall exactly which article , but it is clearly indicated. Pierre was on the right track, and I think he did a good job.

[@quantafunk]

So anyone can just go to a random farmers market in Santa Monica California and put up a tent & sell what ever they want for free? What about property law? What about permits? If I buy something from him & get sick or die is he liable? If so, how will I know who he is & how to find him?

[@armandodemichele1420]

No, not anyone.( in my opinion, and I am not a lawyer) Only a man or woman, not a person. Look up the word person in Blacks law dictionary. A person or corporation has limited liability, but a man or woman has full liability. In Common-law jurisdiction, Santa Monica is either a corporation or a territory. Pierre was on the right track. He was trying to exercise his Fundamental ,Natural Rights, which we all already have. I am from Canada, but USA is also a member signed on the International covenants, so I believe it applies and there is a breech of freedom. The remedy for Pierre in this matter should be for the courts to pay all costs.

[@armandodemichele1420]

quantafunk Tell me about it, lol. I have been into this journey just over a year now, and I still have much to learn. If you are serious about learning the truth, google international covenant, and choose the united nations page, It is all there and you will change the way you think.. I am from Canada, but if you are from USA , it applies to you too because many countries signed this agreement. In my opinion, we are far from being free countries. Good luck , buddy! Ps; I don't mind the questions, keep them coming, it is good practice, lol.

[@dirkdigler3283]

My only issue with people who knowingly avoid following legislation is if they avoid it to the detriment of the safety of themselves or others (such as drink-driving, speeding, dangerous driving, culpable driving, unlawful possession of a firearm / offencive weapon etc etc). As for avoiding legislation which is designed to protect rights (ie. unlawful improsonment, deception laws etc.) is also wrong IMO, but more 'tolerable' if people avoid it, so to speak.

[@Larechar]

He wasn't in the wrong room. He went there purposefully to be heard by the courts; they dismissed him because they couldn't answer his question.

[@kokopelli314]

So the basis of the City's case is: 1. We demand a fee. 2. Everyone else pays that fee. 3. Therefore you must pay too. Hmm. Sounds like corporate law to me.

[@jossgower]

No it not given automatically it is PRESUMED and someone's silence is deemed as consent. Police Officer "Have you any I.D?" You "Yes officer, here is my drivers licence.." = Consent given for you to act as surety for the LEGAL PERSON named on said license.

[@bakersfieldmusicnow]

AHYEAH 2ND AM JURIS "common law prevails"...16 Am Jur 2d secs. 97 {liberally construed in favor of citizen}, 98 {national emergency/exigency notwithstanding}, 114 {Common law applies and prevails}, 117 {extrinsic aids in interpretation notwithstanding}, 155 { courts sworn to duty to enforce provisions},177 {Citizen can demand declaratory judgement}, 255 {irreconcilable [conflicting] statues MUST fall}, 256{any unconstitutional/non-constitutional statues VOID AND INOPERATIVE from inception},

[@dirkdigler3283]

I've never heard of someone getting their "Drivers license" revoked for missing child support payments. Prison time for supplying drugs linked to serious mental illness in the addicted isn't nessisarily a bad thing. The amount of pot addicts with mental illness - and the harm they bring to the community is bigger than you think. As I said, its not the penaltys that you are questioning - but the fact they are there, true ? Yes, they should be there - hence you argue only about sentancing.

[@hedonit]

interesting was the meeting set up and attended? looking forward to seeing more on this i see lots of claims being made about freeman on the land type of stuff so its good to see one actually going through the process, hopefully to victory wish this movement becomes more known and understood through your efforts here thank you

[@MrMorlaf]

You try to organise a free for all basketball game. it quickly degenerates into a farce with ppl of wildy varying abilities, some taking the game seriously, some just showboating and ignoring the team, others playing extremely rough, etc. Then the gym has to clean up the mess. I'm a little concerned where this ends. e.g. every man and his dog sets up a stall. no permits, no fees, nothing. they sell whatever they like and charge whatever they like. Take up stall-space where a genuine trader could work and support his family while some just put their feet up and get in the way as they are..... "free men". then when the market finishes and a mess is left the council needs to get specialised cleaners in which also costs money. At what point do we say: hang on guys, lets get this organised (which cost a bit of money)?

[@frogmanbrabs]

Can you leave the country legally without a passport? Where do you get the passport from? do you pay for it? If you have no money you can't buy your passport which allows you to leave, and even then it's up to the border police if they allow you to. The article I posted was from the government office in reply to a FOI request about the law. When you are born you are registered with the government (birth cert) that is your slave part of you being sold.The legal fiction/strawman.

[@ohannahdad]

Lawyers DO advertise on TV! They give potential clients an 800# to call if a drug caused a bad reaction in somebody. Drugs have been pulled from shelves, and a new "possible" bad reaction is added to the "possible bad reaction" list for that drug. Sometimes pharmaceutical companys are shut down. After a short period of time they reopen under a different name! You think the benefits of these drugs out weigh the dangers. Dream on!! The lawyers LOVE hearing people like you talk! Quite simple really

[@ronarmstrong835]

Some of these suited door knobs need to learn the difference between law and policy.

[@MoorishWanderer]

Then we have the treaty of Tripoli. And much more. None of this is to be construed as rejecting the teachings of 'Christ' or projecting that it is false, rather that there was an agreement for a common ground for all. Did that manifest in the purest sense? Not exactly because their were British and other agents in all ranks of the government influencing its laws to bring it under Christian jurisdiction.

[@38snipshow]

how is it common law to NOT pay a fee to have a booth at a municipal farmers market...everyone has to pay a fee to get a spot why would he be exempt. And I'm not saying he shouldn't have a voice, but it should get taken up in court. (not a council meeting)

[@dirkdigler3283]

Common Law doesn't state 'do what ever is neccessary'. There is no explanation on the powers they do and do not have. Can they search a person's house for the stolen phone? If so, how do they get that power? Who gives them the power? Court? (If so, thats about 7 days wasted, while the evidence is destroyed). Statute and acts were introduced due to the insufficiancies of Common Law. Providing guidlines and 'on the spot' powers for police to investigate.

[@JohnSmith-nw2ls]

Most people pay the troll, and direct their anger, not at the troll, but at those who refuse to be extorted

[@ohannahdad]

I am not defending common law. The "severity of crimes & their punishments ARE in question! A teenager is arrested and sent to jail for 8 mo. for filming a cop beating another teenager. He is told he could get 15yrs for his "crime?" Filming a cop? Another teenager is riding a "quad" (no plates) on a back country road and gets stopped by cops. His parents are told if he is caught again that cops will confiscate the parents CAR? A man gets sent to prison for having 5 marajuana plants in HIS yard!

[@dhenbhoy]

@greywolf In legal correspondence failure to respond or silence to a claim is tacit agreement (not consent) which is what they were referring to ....

[@brindlebriar]

Towards the end, the clerk said, "He doesn't want to pay the fee; everybody else wants to pay it." lol Just because they pay it doesn't mean they want to. Nor is it relevant what everybody else does or wants to do with their money.

[@TheFrownyclown]

ya that guy was out of order if he really understood bureaucracy he'd figure a way to avoid the fee.

[@james7167]

you should of also asked could you see the judges oath its your right to demand to see the judges oath in common law jurisdiction

[@bobbays1552]

It's real easy to see that government has the power and the people dont

[@lukehorobin5430]

I can't speak for everyone, the whole point of "freemen" is that we are all free, no one of us belongs to any kind of collective... Some times we agree, some times we don't. I "believe" in legislation, of course I do, it is written in black and white. It does however require your consent for it to have the force of law. What most freemen dislike is that your consent is either assumed, or tricked out of you. "Do you understand?" = "Do you consent?" Common Law is enough, if people act responsibly.

[@inrascoobz]

Parse Syntax Grammar..their procedures in the color of law are under scrutiny and since those within the court lie together or lay together with canon law/eccesslastical maritime law-law of the sea instead of law of the land , there comes a time when all contracts with adhesion contracts and their "planes" will be washed back to the sea. On the moon's first landing when it was proclaimed in 1961 that the earth looked as if in a 'sea of space' , a 1951-52 global cahoots plan stepped up endgoals.

[@didgevibratesmybrain]

When people call rights God given. They don't even need to be talking about God. It means, very importantly, that you are born with these rights and taking them away from you is violating nature itself. It is a crime against humanity to deny people their God given rights. Many institutions successfully take from people what they are born with and sell it back to them at a price. Religions exploit something else people are born with. The ability to believe in God. Religions CAN exploit this belief, subvert it into paying them etc. Many religions do a lot of good to mitigate suffering in the real world

[@TheFrownyclown]

tell that to the Jews.