The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
First, let this educate you as to what Common Law is:
Federal common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The next link shows you how we are devoid of Common Law.
Brief History on Our American Common Law
Now what I found amazing is that most people, even on these forums, do not know that most of our Courts (actually all of them) operate under Admiralty Jurisdiction for Criminal Cases, some people (even on these forums) vehemently deny this claim. Yet, they do not realize that Common Law requires AN INJURED PARTY or specifically Corpus Delicti. Civil cases are under Equity.
As such, especially the with the woeful lack of ignorance on these forums, I decided to make a thread that serves to educate with both academic links concerning the subject, and with MY OWN CASE six weeks ago to avoid penalties for rushing a yellow light.
You see, under Common Law, I cannot be punished unless there is an actual injured party, so running a red light (rushing the yellow) without causing injury to anyone, prevents me from being punished under Common Law. Since the case is criminal, and is not under Common Law, IT MUST BE UNDER ADMIRALTY. This is logical deduction, there are only three Jurisdictions of the Article III Courts.
Common Law - NO
Equity - NO (not a civil case)
Admiralty - Only jurisdiction that remains, so this must be it. The Judge called is "Statutory Jurisdiction." This Jurisdiction operates under the UCC.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-IV/chapter-97
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp
This Cornell link proves that the UNITED STATES is a corporation (15a):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
--------------------------------
I want to share my story with on how I avoided paying a ticket for rushing a yellow light six weeks ago. First, this assumes that my driver's license and car registration are signed by my signature with "Without Prejudice - UCC 1-308" and that DID NOT enter a plea. In this transcript I omitted many of the mind games that the Judge tried to play and my responses.
First, at the start of hearing, when the judge asked:
"Mr. Edward King Solomon, do you understand the charges against you?"
I replied "No, your honor, I do not understand the charges against me."
Judge - "What do you mean, the charges are simple enough to understand, what so difficult to understand?"
Me - "Your honor, before I plead, I must, in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, ask several questions so that I may be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."
Judge - "Fine, what are your question?"
Me - "I am confused to the nature of this Case, is this a Civil or Criminal Case?"
Judge - "This is not a Civil Case; would you like an attorney?"
Me - "No your honor. Let the record show that this is not a Civil Case. So, then this must be a Criminal Case, correct."
Judge - [Silence]
Me - "Let the record show the judge's silence, and that this Case is indeed a Criminal Case."
Me - "Your honor, if this is a Criminal Case, does it fall under Common Law Jurisdiction or Admiralty?"
Judge - "This Case is not under Common law."
Me - "Let the record show that this is not a criminal case of Common law."
Me - "Then this must be a Case of Admiralty?"
Judge - "No, this is not a Case of Admiralty."
Me - "Let the record show that the Judge has stated that this Case does not fall under Civil, Common or Admiralty Jurisdiction. As such, I motion that this Case be dismissed, as the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, only recognizes the jurisdiction of Common Law, Equity or Admiralty, and these jurisdiction only."
Judge - "I object, this Case is under Statutory Jurisdiction."
Me - "What? There exists no such Jurisdiction in the Constitution, may I ask the Judge to show me where these hidden or unrevealed Jurisdictions of the Article III courts are located in the Constitution of the United States?"
Judge - "I can assure you that this jurisdiction exists."
Me - "Your honor, the jurisdiction of this Court has been challenged, such that the burden of proof is on the Court before this Case can proceed."
Judge - "Statutory Law operates under internationally recognized Codes, and is within the Jurisdiction of this Court."
Me - "Your honor, then Statutory Law is indeed Maritime Admiralty Jurisdiction, correct?"
Judge - [Silence]
Me - "Let the record denote the Judge's silence, as such this Case is under Admiralty Jurisdiction, are there any objections?"
[Silence]
Me - "Let the record denote that there were no objections."
Me - (this statement I read off a prepared piece of paper, got the information from the link at the end of this OP) "“Well, I didn't know that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”
Judge - "I don't have time for this nonsense." Judge leaves the bench and exists the room.
Me - "Let the record denote that the judge has left the room. I motion to dismiss this Case."
No objections - Case dismissed (on record).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603
The UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman
Here is the video that guided me last month:
Federal common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The next link shows you how we are devoid of Common Law.
Brief History on Our American Common Law
Now what I found amazing is that most people, even on these forums, do not know that most of our Courts (actually all of them) operate under Admiralty Jurisdiction for Criminal Cases, some people (even on these forums) vehemently deny this claim. Yet, they do not realize that Common Law requires AN INJURED PARTY or specifically Corpus Delicti. Civil cases are under Equity.
As such, especially the with the woeful lack of ignorance on these forums, I decided to make a thread that serves to educate with both academic links concerning the subject, and with MY OWN CASE six weeks ago to avoid penalties for rushing a yellow light.
You see, under Common Law, I cannot be punished unless there is an actual injured party, so running a red light (rushing the yellow) without causing injury to anyone, prevents me from being punished under Common Law. Since the case is criminal, and is not under Common Law, IT MUST BE UNDER ADMIRALTY. This is logical deduction, there are only three Jurisdictions of the Article III Courts.
Common Law - NO
Equity - NO (not a civil case)
Admiralty - Only jurisdiction that remains, so this must be it. The Judge called is "Statutory Jurisdiction." This Jurisdiction operates under the UCC.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-IV/chapter-97
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp
This Cornell link proves that the UNITED STATES is a corporation (15a):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
--------------------------------
I want to share my story with on how I avoided paying a ticket for rushing a yellow light six weeks ago. First, this assumes that my driver's license and car registration are signed by my signature with "Without Prejudice - UCC 1-308" and that DID NOT enter a plea. In this transcript I omitted many of the mind games that the Judge tried to play and my responses.
First, at the start of hearing, when the judge asked:
"Mr. Edward King Solomon, do you understand the charges against you?"
I replied "No, your honor, I do not understand the charges against me."
Judge - "What do you mean, the charges are simple enough to understand, what so difficult to understand?"
Me - "Your honor, before I plead, I must, in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, ask several questions so that I may be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."
Judge - "Fine, what are your question?"
Me - "I am confused to the nature of this Case, is this a Civil or Criminal Case?"
Judge - "This is not a Civil Case; would you like an attorney?"
Me - "No your honor. Let the record show that this is not a Civil Case. So, then this must be a Criminal Case, correct."
Judge - [Silence]
Me - "Let the record show the judge's silence, and that this Case is indeed a Criminal Case."
Me - "Your honor, if this is a Criminal Case, does it fall under Common Law Jurisdiction or Admiralty?"
Judge - "This Case is not under Common law."
Me - "Let the record show that this is not a criminal case of Common law."
Me - "Then this must be a Case of Admiralty?"
Judge - "No, this is not a Case of Admiralty."
Me - "Let the record show that the Judge has stated that this Case does not fall under Civil, Common or Admiralty Jurisdiction. As such, I motion that this Case be dismissed, as the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, only recognizes the jurisdiction of Common Law, Equity or Admiralty, and these jurisdiction only."
Judge - "I object, this Case is under Statutory Jurisdiction."
Me - "What? There exists no such Jurisdiction in the Constitution, may I ask the Judge to show me where these hidden or unrevealed Jurisdictions of the Article III courts are located in the Constitution of the United States?"
Judge - "I can assure you that this jurisdiction exists."
Me - "Your honor, the jurisdiction of this Court has been challenged, such that the burden of proof is on the Court before this Case can proceed."
Judge - "Statutory Law operates under internationally recognized Codes, and is within the Jurisdiction of this Court."
Me - "Your honor, then Statutory Law is indeed Maritime Admiralty Jurisdiction, correct?"
Judge - [Silence]
Me - "Let the record denote the Judge's silence, as such this Case is under Admiralty Jurisdiction, are there any objections?"
[Silence]
Me - "Let the record denote that there were no objections."
Me - (this statement I read off a prepared piece of paper, got the information from the link at the end of this OP) "“Well, I didn't know that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”
Judge - "I don't have time for this nonsense." Judge leaves the bench and exists the room.
Me - "Let the record denote that the judge has left the room. I motion to dismiss this Case."
No objections - Case dismissed (on record).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603
The UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman
Here is the video that guided me last month:
Last edited by a moderator:
