The Tender For Law

May 27, 2013

Kirsten Carlstrom

May 27, 2013

I have a question regarding Common Law. I often hear people in the sovereign/patriot movement claim that complete ownership of themselves and their rights are upheld or enumerated in Common Law....From what I currently understand courts are ruling in Statutory/Administrative Law, so isn't a precedent being created favoring codes and statues? Is Statutory/Administrative Law becoming Common Law as a result from rulings advocating Statutory Law? If Statutory Law and Common Law are intertwining in the courts how do I go about negating Statutory/Administrative rulings and the attempts of the courts to bind me to their codes and statutes? Is it a matter or establishing jurisdiction? I personally believe my rights are inherent from a divine consciousness, however, if I'm in court defending myself I most likely will require case law to defend myself and keep me out of jail. Aside from the Maxiums of Law, and the U.S. Bill of Rights where else may I draw upon rulings or laws to create a strong foundation of what my rights are when I'm in the court room? — Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 434 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Read Comments 19

Scott Duncan

May 27, 2013 4:09 PM

Scott Duncan In 1982 the last of the common-law courts vanished (nobody noticed). Common Law has NOTHING to do with Admiralty (Roman) law. Admiralty is based on PRESUMPTION. Common law simply will NOT be acknowledged. Reading this group will show you how to remove surety and make yourself "worthless" to the court. These ae commercial rapists. Appealing to rapists is a stupid idea, and appealing to a Commercial Court is futile. SAME MENTALITY. The Muslim raping the Norwegian Girl (happens daily) thinks it's his RIGHT to do so. Same with the commerce courts. Spend a month reading this group. You will see. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 434 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

May 27, 2013 4:43 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom How do I prove that codes and statutes do not apply to me and only apply to public servants or a person performing a function of government? I understand that codes and statutes may have the appearance of a law, but codes and statutes do not have the force or effect of law. I get that, but how do I prove that in court? I'm unaware of any charter or state constitution that plainly spells out that codes and statutes apply only to government employees or a person performing a function of government. I apologize for what surely must seem to be a rudimentary question, but I'm lost in this regard and really want to understand this topic. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

May 27, 2013 5:11 PM

Beverly Berta Braakschmack Kirsten, you need to read through this group. Like Scott says, we are learning to REMOVE SURETY. Its all about SURETY!! — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Scott Duncan

May 27, 2013 5:21 PM

Scott Duncan ...and accounting. Don't forget accounting. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

May 27, 2013 5:39 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom will do... — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Vicky Logozar

May 27, 2013 5:58 PM

Vicky Logozar What about naturalized citizens?...I am asking because I sponsored my husband who recently acquired citizenship and in order to do so had to sign so many applications and declarations and (publically) Swear an Oath of servitude to the Queen...and promise to follow the laws of Parliament. Sorry if its a total novice question...I have been reading and couldn't find info on aquired citizens or dual-citizesnship Thanks for any info or links you may have. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

May 27, 2013 6:01 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom Any links on to claim or not to claim the BC and surety would be greatly appreciated too. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 435 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Vicky Logozar

May 27, 2013 7:40 PM

Vicky Logozar ...you're right...I got to the party late...trying to catch up. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Pete Daoust

May 27, 2013 7:51 PM

Pete Daoust I was the FIRST in the party, and I'm still on the catch-up mode....good luck ! — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kelleran Holman

May 27, 2013 10:39 PM

Kelleran Holman you aren't alone Pete Daoust — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Pete Daoust

May 27, 2013 10:41 PM

Pete Daoust Oh, I have figured that one out Kelleran Holman — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kelleran Holman

May 27, 2013 11:04 PM

Kelleran Holman some of the greatest (craziest) "all or nothin" bull and bronc riders I've seen, were from Quebec...it's the "all or nothin" attitude I like about those guys...you don't disappoint buddy — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Pete Daoust

May 27, 2013 11:12 PM

Pete Daoust Ho man, you don't mess around with US bastards http://storage.canoe.ca/.../776d4bcfc5295d59b91e054a81d85... — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kelleran Holman

May 27, 2013 11:28 PM

Kelleran Holman ha ha that's awesome! — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Derek Moran

May 28, 2013 3:33 AM

Derek Moran • Quaelibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet. Every jurisdiction has its BOUNDARIES. • Statutum affirmativum non derogat communi legi. An affirmative statute does NOT take away from the common law. • Quae legi communi derogant stricte interpretantur. Things that derogate (or detract) from the common law are construed STRICTLY. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

Nov 12, 2013 2:53 AM

Kirsten Carlstrom I've learned so much from this group since I posted this question. Thanks group!! — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 436 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Scott Duncan

Nov 12, 2013 2:55 AM

Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 437 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

Nov 12, 2013 2:59 AM

Kirsten Carlstrom Clarify - Scott your superior knowledge, invaluable information, cleaning up the shit-stains and everyone else's input. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 437 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Scott Duncan

Nov 12, 2013 3:54 AM

Scott Duncan Please! No need to justify! I know when you say "group", you REALLY mean "me". — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 437 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.