Uncommon Law Conference, July 18-19

Will you be the master or continue to be the slave?

The choice of slave has already been made for you and your children unless you have the will and courage to change it.

This is a grassroots, community empowered conference, gathered to discuss, inform, share, disperse effective remedies to retain our unlimited, unalienable rights through The People’s Common Law court

Sovereigns (people) are subject ONLY to common/natural law

Common Law = NO injury, NO damage, NO loss = NO crime! Period.

Only a (wo)man can bring charges against another (wo)man. Period.

**If you have a current court case you’d like to discuss, bring your documents

Bring camping gear to stay the night; organic food to share; musical instruments to soothe; open minds to learn & share
Registration fee: One silver dollar, waived if you bring in verified copy of jurist vow at: HawaiiCommonLawGrandJury.com/registeringoaths-to-be-a-cl-jurist/

Deadline to register: 7/15/15

Email your name, email, phone, vow: hawaiicommonlaw@outlook.com Bring your original vow to the conference or mail to the address given.

Contact: 808-217-8491

Issues up for discussion:
Hawaii Sovereignty

TMT, GMO, TPP

CPS/family

Taxes, Traffic

Foreclosure
Geothermal
Marijuana/Hemp
Learn the difference between Lawful and Legal
Jury Nullification

STATUTES ARE NOT LAW

STATUTE. [Blacks law 4th edition] The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]

TO BE CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE YOU MUST GIVE YOUR CONSENT

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

” When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, (injured party) leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” [Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” – [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.]

PEOPLE NULLIFICATION (to make null or void) when statutory charges are brought against the people the court cannot proceed without your “CONSENT” it’s called an arraignment, if you do not plead you cannot be tried.

=

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-truth-about-net-neutrality_022015
FAKE LAW:
Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261, “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.”

16Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, myst be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: 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 or any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, 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 valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

REAL LAW:
5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or inditement of a Grand Jury…”

New York Constitution Article 1.S8, “…the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Elmore v . McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905, “…the right to file a lawsuit pro se[sui juris] is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that Status/Standing), Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law.”

Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946, “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”

Hurtado v People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516, “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803),”All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985), “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…”

Curden V. Neale, 2 N. C. 338 May Term 1796. All men decide for themselves whether they want to participate in the institutions of men or not. “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”
” When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

16Am Jur 2d:16Am Jur 2d., Sec.97; Bary V. United States – 273 US 128, “…statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.”
Amos vs. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619: “If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.”
Chisholm vs. State of Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 2 DALL 1793 pp. 471-472: “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
City of Bisbee vs. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1: “”Government” is not “sovereignty.” “Government” is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power.”
Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914: “The “sovereignty” of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament.”

Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 279: “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (@ Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803): “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Riley vs. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018: “Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee.”

Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772): “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void … We are in conscience bound to disobey.”

Scott vs. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691: “The words “sovereign people” are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
Slote vs. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660: “Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”
State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” (See 16 Am. Jur. 2d 177, 178)

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.: “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” – “For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:, “Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government, and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgement of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty fo the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
U.S Constitution, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Hoke vs. Henderson, 15, N.C. 15, 25, Am Dec 677, “…Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.”

16 Am Jur 2d: 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97: Bary V. United States – 273 US 128, “That a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security fo the Citizen in regard to person and property.”

16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117, “Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the Constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them in determining its meaning, as previously noted, however such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the Constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”

CONTRACTS:
UCC1-308, Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights. (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uc…

Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803), “If any statement, within any law which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional…”

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98, “While an emergency can not create power, and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions, Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers, has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construe the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain and effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”

CONSENT:
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928), “…The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever means employed, must be deemed a violation the Fourth Amendment.”
Only people can file a criminal complaint: 1. one or more of the people sign a sworn affidavit that they have been injured. 2. A prosecutor, on behalf of the government brings an accusation before the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury either indicts or does nothing. 3. The Grand Jury by its “own will” can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it want assurance that it is not, and if it finds wrongdoing it can present it to the court and it must go to trial. No one can second guess the Grand Jury, unless the Grand Jury’s action violates another’s unalienable rights.

LICENSES:
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, “No state hall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 376 U.S. 262, “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

Isbill v. Stovall, the court is defined, “An agency of the sovereign created by him directly or indirectly under his authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the propose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers int eh course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority.”

RIGHTS:
USC 18 SS241, If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right that shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

USC 18 SS242, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State to the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

USC 42 SS1983, Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured but eh Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.

USC 42 1985, If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person’s rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators.

USC 42 SS1986, Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done or are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured.
US Code 42 and 18, When you are detained without your consent, for violating a statute, you have just been kidnapped and if the Judge sets bail he just set a ransom and when the prosecutor confirms the charges he becomes pare of a conspiracy and YOU can put the conspirators in jail and sue them for damages. it’s all about Jurisdiction and Consent.

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24, “The assertion of federal rights, [Bill of Rights] when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that status/standing, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law.”

CONCLUSION:
-Servant government can not do anything without individuals consent.
-Interference of a mans civil rights gives right to a person to sue for damages.
-Nisi Prius courts rely on statutes, which is fiction of law, that seeks to control the behavior of the sovereign people of New York and other states, who are under common law, not statutes, and who ordained and established the law, therefore legislators cannot legislate the behavior of the people.
-No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-Congress cannot alter Rights
-Rights do not come in degrees
-States cannot license Rights
-Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights.
-If the people refuse, It can not go forward.
-Servant government cannot do anything without your consent.
-When the judge asks you, “do you understand”, he means do you “stand under” the authority of this court, So when you say “yes”, you give him/her/the court jurisdiction over you.

=

WHAT IS LAW?
A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)

A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137;

State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.

“All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”

(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process[of law], in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.
“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.”

(Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.)

=
* 18 U.S. Code § 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
* Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28
Unlawful search and seizure, your rights must be interpreted in favor of the Citizen.
* Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
* Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512
Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
* Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.
* Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261
The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”.
* Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
* Murdock v Penn, 319 U.S. 105: clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
* Shuttlesworth v Birm, 394 U.S. 147: Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can’t punish you…they have to let you go.
* Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

Carl Miller:
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf

Uncommon Law Conference July 18-19 2015

Jurist Vow 2

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread381607/pg1

Leave a Reply