Quote from: Blackbird0 on May 29, 2015, 12:30:41 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 29, 2015, 12:15:45 AM

Quote from: Blackbird0 on May 28, 2015, 12:09:57 PM

You continue to have no idea what you are talking about. This was not a "suit at common law," which is a civil suit, but rather a criminal trial.

Additionally, you utterly mangle the rule of the 7th amendment, which is that one cannot appeal a factual finding, but one can in a civil suit, appeal the law. Thus, if a judge instructs a civil jury incorrectly, and that jury renders a verdict, you can appeal the legal error of the jury instruction and get a new trial, even when that means overturning the jury's verdict.

You completely disregard the fact that, if a defendant in an administrative hearing is asked anything, even to plead, that all he need do is require pen and paper to write his answer, and then notice the court on paper that he wishes his accuser to appear and present, under oath, on the stand, the harm or injury that the defendant did to him, so that he, the defendant, can pay his accuser what he owes him. This effectively throws the whole case into common law, where the rules are different than the administrative side.

EDIT: The things you say about the 7th Amendment, are administrative law understandings. Once the case goes into the common law of the people, this understanding is no longer relevant, because it is no longer administrative law that is involved.

You continue to have no idea what you are talking about.

This is not an "administrative law hearing," or "administrative law." Administrative law is a large body of law generally referring to Article I and Article II tribunals, rulemaking, etc., etc. This is a criminal trial in an Article III Court, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It's sad that you're peddling this sovereign citizen shit to people who might be ignorant and not know enough and actually follow this crap.

Since when are Article III courts not administrative? Government can do anything that they want under administrative. Anybody that wants to be accused, and convicted or freed under administrative is welcome.

When folks opt into common law courts, they get to face their accuser. If he doesn't appear and take the stand, the defendant wins. If the guy looks guilty, from the accuser and the witness and the evidence, then the jury does what it wants, up to and including finding him innocent even if he is guilty, AND judging the legality of the law... whether or not it should continue to exist, and even determining the sentence.

It isn't your fault that you don't know this. Standard legal studies are directed towards administrative process. That's essentially all attorneys are trained in. And to really jumble things up, the courts have administratively decided to call the court cases common law. This is entirely administrative. It is NOT the common law of the people.

You can get an idea here http://voidjudgments.com/ as to what common law is really about.

EDIT: Big business, the banking industry, and the elected politicians generally don't want the people to know this. If the people find out how easy it is to remain free under common law, and still do the things that they want, it would change the whole face of America. The government would shrink to almost nothing.