I Can Show You How To Bring Suit In Such A Way That Not Even The Supreme Court May Review A Court Decision In Your Favor

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:00 -0800
From: Bill Thornton
To: Bob Schulz
Subject: The law requires citizens to pay Income Tax

I'm ready to show you the law.

However, there is one problem: You may not be able to understand it.

Because persons can't figure it out they get convicted.

It will take quite a bit of thoughtful study for you to see it.
Once you see it, you'll be kicking yourself for overlooking the obvious.

I'm not so certain you are up to the effort required to see it. (Most persons are not, which is why the gov't gets the convictions.)

By the way, not only can I show you the law,
I can also show you the courtroom solution, the antidote if you will.
I can also show you how to bring suit in such a way that not even the Supreme Court may review a court decision in your favor.

Please call.

Bill Thornton
x@1215.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:43:39 -0800
From: Bill Thornton
To: bob schulz
Subject: Re: The law requires citizens to pay Income Tax

Do you want me to show you the law?

To the extent that you are serious about considering my points,
to that extent I'm serious about showing you the how & why the IRS gets
convictions.

No $$$ cost to you, but you may have to spend some time to understand it.

By the way, I can also show you how to counteract the law.
I've identified the problem, and I have the solution.

Bill Thornton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:41 -0500
From: "Bob Schulz"
To: "Bill Thornton"
Subject: RE: The law requires citizens to pay Income Tax

Pls do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:32 -0800
From: Bill Thornton
To: Bob Schulz
Subject: Re: The law requires citizens to pay Income Tax

Although I can show you the law, just showing you the law is not sufficient. You must understand the system that produces that law. Below you will find a brief outline of that system and how it leads to a law requiring one to do whatever the IRS wishes.

It's actually very simple. The information here is described in much greater detail at http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm
The underlined links provide more information.

Here's the chain of logic:

In the USA there are two systems of law: Roman Civil Law and Common Law. Roman civil law is the law of the legislature. Common law is the law of the people.

Attorneys are well trained in Roman civil law, but they have near-zero training in common law. However, the common law trumps Roman civil law. Even the Supreme Court of the USA may not second guess a decision of the common law.

A court is defined as "the person and suit of the sovereign." That means that the plaintiff is the sovereign and owner of the court. In any action at law, legally speaking, the plaintiff is the king and retains all powers for himself, including the power to make court judgments. A judge of a court only has those powers which are delegated to him by the plaintiff king.

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law."

A court of record is the only fully empowered [superior] court in America. All other courts are inferior courts.

Ask any attorney and he will explain that a court of record is a court that keeps a record of the proceedings and has the power to fine or imprison for contempt. That's only half the story. The rest of the story is that it is a court that proceeds according to the common law (no statutes), and the tribunal (the one doing the judging) is independent of the magistrate (the judge). Notice that in a court of record the judge is not allowed to do any judging; judging is reserved to the tribunal. In a court of record there are only two entities that are true tribunals: the sovereign of the court (the plaintiff), and the jury (if present). Several times I have fined judges for contempt of court when they refused to obey the law of the court.

The IRS strategy is simple.

They IRS opens a court of record. In the accusatory papers the sovereign accuser decrees the law: "Defendant is required to file." Right there, believe it or not, is the sovereign decree that creates the law in accordance with the rules of the common law.

Defendants are famous for demanding that the law be shown to them. The "law" is contained in the accusatory papers, decreed by the sovereign plaintiff.

The defendants do not recognize the law when they are looking straight at it. Because defendants don't see it, their entire strategy is not relevant to the accusation. A perfect example of this was in the Dick Simkanin case.

Defendants are correct when they claim that there is no statutory requirement to file. But, that is not the question before the court. The real question is, "Did you, or did you not, file your papers as required by the common law decree of the sovereign plaintiff in this court of record?"

The defending strategy is equally simple.

The proper tactic is to do a counterclaim which challenges jurisdiction. Just as in football, the best defense is a good offense. It is in the counterclaim that the legitimacy of the plaintiff's sovereignty may and should be challenged, because no government entity in the USA has sovereignty. The defendant becomes the sovereign counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the questionable counterdefendant. Because no sovereign can legislate against any other sovereign, it follows that the counterdefendant has no legitimate authority to decree any law applicable to the counterplaintiff.

That is a broad-brush explanation. There is a lot more detail involved which I will be happy to give you, if you are interested. At the web site there are three 8-hour lectures that go into great detail. The most relevant one is at http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/index.html

Perhaps we could talk on the phone. If we do, I suggest that you record the conversation for your future reference. The best times for me are after 7pm PST, Monday thru Friday, and any time Saturday & Sunday. During those times I can call you back at no cost to either one of us.

Bill Thornton

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT BY BILL THORNTON

Bob Schulz has not yet replied.

Most people have a hard time believing that there is another superior system of law in the USA. Perhaps Bob Schulz feels that way. Or, maybe he is too busy.

The website, www.1215.org, has the information to invoke the superior law of the people and stop abuses by the IRS. Those who take the time to understand the information on the website have had some very interesting successes in stopping IRS abuses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New to this site?

First, before you begin you should have a general knowledge of how the legal system works. If you are a uncomfortable about your knowledge of the law, consider purchasing the compact 2-day law course from Jurisdictionary. After absorbing that information you should be ready to learn the advance information here.

Second, read everything in this web page. As you progress, click on each underlined link and read the linked page. The linked page may have more links, but ignore them. Just click on the BACK button to return to this page, then click on the next underlined link. It is not important that you immediately understand everything you read. What is important is that you get "eyeball exposure" to all the information . The understanding will come later because you will recall the information as you work with it and discuss it with others.

Third, look at the example starting with the first amended action. That is an from an actual case in Southern California. Once you have been thus exposed to the information, we will be much more effective in our conversation. If you send e-mail, be certain to mention something about the law or website in the subject area.

It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.

Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius Cicero

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attitude A positive attitude is absolutely necessary for winning.

Attitude

Attitude is very important. Common law strategy will not work if you have a negative attitude. Many people who are defending their rights are also very angry. Not that they are not justified. However, anger is a luxury of the poor. As the saying goes, "Don't get mad. Get even."

The whole court process is about getting even. The reason the IRS does not tax court judgments is because the judgment is perceived as a compensation for what you lost. For example, if you were falsely incarcerated, that time in jail has a monetary value. The monetary judgment you receive is a monetary replacement for your injury, namely for the right you lost.

You need to psychologically detach yourself from your problem. If you don't, if you are too close to your problem, you will be blind to your options. Your mind will be channeled and you won't see other opportunities to win.

Have you ever bought a car? (Always a good emotional experience.)

Did you notice, after you bought your car, how many other cars on the highway were just like yours?

Those other cars were there all the time. But, until your mind was focused by your purchase, you were not sensitive to their presence.

So it is with law and strong emotions. If you are full of anger (or always extremely happy) your mind will be focused upon the stimulus, and you will not be sensitive to other factors. The angrier you are, the more opportunities you will miss.

You must pretend that your problem is someone else's problem. You must have a neutral mindset as you work on your case. As your brain gets filled with legal research you will find it easier to cross-connect different factors, if your emotions are low-keyed.

Remember this: Regardless of your emotional status, the facts are the same. Anger destroys your capacity to think objectively. Anger is a habit that can be retrained [It takes about 5 years to completely change the anger habit; I did it, and you can, too]. ANGER IS A NO-NO, GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM! View your case neutrally as if you were an attorney representing someone else. Then, and only then, will your papers start looking more professionally written. See this example of a paper written with that neutrwal attitude.

When you're not working on your case, your general attitude toward life should either be neutral or happy.

Brain research at University of California in Irvine proved that when a person is unhappy or angry the body produces biochemicals that stimulate your ability to fight. But a side effect is that those same biochemicals also destroy your health. It's not good for your health if you are angry all the time. My own (unproven) observation has been that people who are angry all the time seem to eventually develop cancer.

On the other hand, the university research proved that when a person is happy the body produces biochemicals that make you feel good. A side effect is that those same biochemicals also improve your health. Laughter truly is the best medicine.

By the way, I should mention that your general problems have nothing to do with your happiness. True, in a given situation one may feel anger or happiness, but, that is just a passing moment. Your general emotional status should be either neutral or happy, for your own health's sake if nothing else. And, that's also how you should be as you write your papers.

When I'm negotiating with the enemy, I always watch his emotional status. If he is angry I know he is insensitive to his opportunities. In subtle ways I can take advantage of his diminished brain functioning.

Don't let your emotions entangle your logic!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language and Dictionaries Which English language do you speak?

LANGUAGE AND DICTIONARIES

"How's the dictionary getting on?" Winston asked his comrade Syme, who worked with him in the Research Department.

"We're getting the language into its final shape," Syme answered. "By the year 2050 at the very latest not a single human being will be alive who could understand the conversation we are having now."
1984, George Orwell.

In America we speak three languages: Slang, Formal English, and Legal English, Though simular, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. This article is written in Legal English.

Slang

It's the language of the street. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next. It abounds with special and paradoxical interpretations. Once must "grow up" with the language to fully appreciate its peculiarities.

Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say either, "That's really cool!" or "That's really hot!" Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, "That's B-A-D!" or "That's G-O-O-D!"

Formal English

Precise communications require a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the schools, and it is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or centuries to evolve its meanings.

Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show slang or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more popular usages.

This author favors Webster's 1828 Dictionary (which is also online [but as of this writing, temporarily offline]): http://www.christiantech.com because it is useful in understanding words used in the U.S. Constitution. G. & C. Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary published in 1953 and earlier is great for modern meanings.

Legal English

When you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Also known as King's English, or the Language of the Court Room, Legal English is extremely stable, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning.

Because accuracy is required for good legal communication, legal definitions tend to be rather verbose. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve that accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries. The more thorough dictionaries are entitled "Corpus Juris" and "Words and Phrases." A given word could require fifty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning. Other dictionaries (in descending order of this author's preference) include Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1872 Edition), Ballentine's Law Dictionary, and Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition or earlier).

Later editions of Bouvier's Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th through 7th Editions are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations.

The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and the people's point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government's point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former.

For an excellent research paper on the use of dictionaries in the Supreme Court of the United States, see Kevin Werbach's LOOKING IT UP: The Supreme Court's Use of Dictionaries in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation (1994): http://werbach.com/stuff/hlr_note.html

Government Manipulation of Language
Source: http://www.natural-person.ca/govtricks.html

Government Tricks:

This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.

First Trick:

The first "trick" of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/ccra_trick_words.pdf Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law:

A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Second Trick:

The second "trick" of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

In the Canadian Human Rights Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/text.html you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.

Third Trick:

The third "trick" of the Government is to use the word "includes" in definitions instead of using the word "means". They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. If they used "means" instead of "includes" then their deception would be exposed, but by using "includes" they rely upon the reader to assume that "includes" expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that "means" restricts the definition.

Here is a means definition of the word "person" from the Bank Act:

person means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;

Here is an includes definition of the word "person" from the Interpretation Act:

person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation

To expose their deception, substitute the word means and you have

person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, means a corporation (viz. - artificial-person)

Both "means" and "includes" are restrictive in scope because they only encompass part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:

person means A or B or C (and nothing else).
person includes A and B and C (and nothing else).

From the above example, you will see the logical difference. The list that follows means is constructed using "or", whereas the list that follows includes is constructed using "and".

There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of "includes":

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

The definition of the word include is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.

Forth Trick:

The fourth "trick" of the Government is to modify how the word "includes" is used in order to make an expansion in the definition when such expansion is required. This "trick" helps add confusion to the use of "includes" convincing most readers that "includes" should always be expansive rather than limiting. Here are some legitimate ways in which "includes" is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:

also includes
and includes
includes, without limitation,
including
including but not limited to

The expansive definitions usually take the following form:

person means A or B or C and includes D. (A,B, C and D)

However, there is also a possibility that "and includes" is restrictive in some constructions. There are some people investigating this possibility right now. Their logic is demonstrated by the following example of a definition that states:

province means a province of Canada and includes Ontario and Quebec.

So, if we presume that "and includes" does provide expansion then we must ask why Ontario and Quebec had to be specifically mentioned when they are already part of a so-called province.

The above construction clearly defines the scope of what is meant by province, that is a province of Canada (it does not say which one), and includes only Ontario and Quebec (compiled from a list of two from the original scope of all provinces). In this construction means provides the scope of the definition and includes provides the list of what is actually included in the definition.

The foregoing analysis is one interpretation, but is not the only interpretation. The use of "includes" in statutory definitions can be argued both ways and is the backbone of understanding interpretations.

With the presumption that "and includes" is restrictive, then we must take a very close look at the following definition, taken from the Interpretation Act:

province means a province of Canada and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut .

With this presumption what is stated is: unless another statute re-defines province, the default definition of province only includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

So in order to not become absurd, we must allow for "and includes" to be expansive, however more work needs to be done on this subject before placing the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.

Definitions:

Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for "include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next source: http://www.natural-person.ca/definitions.html for the definitions.

From Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word "include":

* include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in , attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.
* inclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence, or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb include is clearly restrictive and only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, including (but not limited to) enlarges the scope.

Therefore the conclusion is that when used in a definition, include does not expand the existing definition of the word it is attempting to define. It is easy to be confused because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume include means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.

From now on, when you see the word includes, mentally substitute the word means and you will not be "tricked" by this definition any more.

For the Doubting Thomas:

If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word includes and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word to include the ordinary meaning, you will find that the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word. The breakdown usually occurs when slavery is invoked.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights): http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People or citizen? Which one are you?

PEOPLE or CITIZEN WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

PEOPLE

The Preamble does not specifically define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

HISTORY

Before the United States existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives, acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain.

From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence.

Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as expected.

In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution]

So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.

PREAMBLE

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE

TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]

VENUE: of the United States

PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,

ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]

ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]

WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]

TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE

The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here's an explanation that points to popular sovereignty:

After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.

What was before, continues to be so today.

From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States.

Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY

Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.

"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.

It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.

The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV:

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV

WHO: All persons

QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

PURPOSE: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ENFORCED BY: The Congress

ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV

As discussed above, the People are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in the United States.

Amendment XIV inverts the relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one must be, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without being born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.

From the point of view of the federal enforcers, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you say you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430:

The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].

"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].

"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"

In any case, if you fail to object to the government's view of citizenship, then you will most certainly be subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the citizens (there is no list for the People's natural rights because the People automatically have all rights), see People's rights vs citizen's rights: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?

The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people.

If you claim you are a citizen of the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.

PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS

As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you.

As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).

Here is a typical example:

As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill of Rights

People's rights vs citizen's rights

All rights are available to the People of the U.S.
But only some rights are granted as privileges to U.S. citizens.

Are you one of the People of the United States, as contemplated by the U.S. Constitution Preamble? Or, are you one of the citizens of the United States, as defined in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment?

Your answer affects the rights you have.

If you are one of the People of the United States, then all ten amendments are available to you. You have natural rights If you are a citizen of the United States, then you have civil rights [properly called civil privileges]. see Senate Document 108-17, p. 1006, 1007, Footnote 37, for details summarized here.

------------------------------------------------------

Amendments available to U.S. citizens:

1:

Religion (free exercise, establishment)
Speech
Press
Assembly
Petition

4: Search and seizure

5:

Double jeopardy
Self-incrimination
Just compensation

6: (protection has been diluted)

Speedy trial
Public trial
Jury trial
Impartial Jury
Notice of charges
Confrontation
Compulsory Process
Counsel

8: Cruel and unusual punishment

------------------------------------------------------

Amendments not available to U.S. Citizens:

2: Right to keep and bear arms

3: Quartering troops in homes (no cases)

5: Grand Jury indictment

7: Jury trial in civil cases

8:

Bail (mostly)
Excessive fines under equal protection

------------------------------------------------------

Senate Documents 103-6 and 108-17, Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html document the legal effect of your answer. An edition of the document and subsequent revisions is given free to all elected and past senators, congressmen, and vice presidents, delegates, and resident commissioners upon timely request to the Government Printing Office.

The doctrine of selective incorporation is the dominant doctrine for incorporating portions of the Bill of Rights for application to citizens of the United States.

You may purchase a copy from the U.S. Government Printing Office for $200+; STOCK # 052-071-01421-7 http://bookstore.gpo.gov/actions/GetPublication.do?stocknumber=052-071-0... (later issues may have a different stock number).

For related information, see Republic vs. Democracy: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sovereignty --

Notes and case law. Sovereignty lecture (8 hours)

This audio extract from the video seminar is a
general discussion mostly about SOVEREIGNTY and related subjects.

Track 01 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track01.mp3
Track 02 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track02.mp3
Track 03 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track03.mp3
Track 04 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track04.mp3
Track 05 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track05.mp3
Track 06 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track06.mp3
Track 07 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track07.mp3
Track 08 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track08.mp3
Track 09 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track09.mp3
Track 10 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track10.mp3
Track 11 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track11.mp3
Track 12 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track12.mp3
Track 13 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track13.mp3
Track 14 approximately 30 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track14.mp3
Track 15 approximately 21 minutes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/track15.mp3

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid concept.

"...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." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

California Government Code Sections 11120 and 54950 contain strong statements about the sovereignty of the people.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11120 et seq.

11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.

In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 54950 et seq.

54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

54950.5. This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SOVEREIGNTY

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition

The power to do everything in a state without accountability,--to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story, Const. Sec 207

Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in teh state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is "sovereignty." By "sovereignty in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986.

STATE

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition

A People permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201, 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130.

California Government Code

Deering's

241. Citizens
The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.

CONSTITUTIONAL PREAMBLES

Constitution for the United States of America: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1849 California Constitution: WE the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution--

1879 State of California Constitution: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

In all three constitutions (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative word is "establish." The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People "establish" a constitution, there is nothing in the word "establish" that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm (see Republic vs. Democracy; also see conditions of admission of California: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/caadmit.htm to the union). Also, see the legislated notice from the People to the government written in the California Government Codes 11120 and 54950 quoted above.

To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity (see Const. for the U.S.A., XIV Amendment, for the definition of a citizen of the United States.)

14 C.J.S. 426, 430

The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].

One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].

[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568

MISCELLANEOUS

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: "[15] (b) Even if the Tribe's power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe's power to exclude them, which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian's conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe's role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148. (Bold emphasis added here)

United States and State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant within its own sphere. Redding v Los Angeles (1947) 81 CA2d 888, 185 P2d 430, app dismd 334 US 825, 92 L Ed 1754, 68 S Ct 1338

As independent sovereignty, it is State's province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens. Roberts v Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 .... Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person." Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p 1300

The terms "citizen" and "citizenship" are distinguishable from "resident" or "inhabitant." Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A.Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from "domicile," Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S.W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C.S.C., 59 F.2d 35j0, 351. The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F.Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous. Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C.Pa., 59 F.Supp. 799, 800. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 310

Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 311

The Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States.*1 The preamble contemplates the body of electors composing the states, the terms "people" and "citizens" being synonymous. Negroes, whether free or slaves, were not included in the term "people of the United States at that time.*2 *1 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819]. See also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470 [1793]; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 93 [1795]; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 [1816]; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247 [1833]. *2 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 404 [1857].

The words "sovereign state" are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when aplied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

Government: Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republic vs. democracy -- Do you know the difference?

The Army knows!

Many of you have seen the reprint of this document. If you have, it's worth reading again. If you have not, it is worth reading, studying, and reciting to your friends, family, and neighbors. It is copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/tm2000-25.rtf that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Official Definition of DEMOCRACY

NOTE

Here are four (4) facsimile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30,1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definition stake precedence over any "definition" that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical "modification" to please "the powers in office. Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation. This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without.

-------------------

Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.

CITIZENSHIP

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.

WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles- Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless

Order original from:

Americans For Constitutional Government
P.O. Box 7012
Watchung, N.J. 07060
(201) 753-7347

"This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

COMMENTS

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Admission to Union -- a Republic, not a democracy.

CALIFORNIA ADMISSION TO Union

Act for the Admission of California Into the Union

Volume 9
Statutes at Large
Page 452

Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission into the Union, which constitution was submitted to Congress by the President of the United States, by message date February thirteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That until the representatives in Congress shall be apportioned according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, the State of California shall be entitled to two representatives in Congress.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor. Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that State.

Approved, September 9, 1850.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Common Law -- the concept.

The Essence of Common Law

A reader objects:

I disagree with your position that I am subject to the common law - what exactly is the common law?? And who says so?? And, as I am Sovereign, who gets to decide that I am subject to it??

Upon the revolution everything from England was nullified - including the common law of England!! As an explanation, that which is commonly known as "international law" is, in reality nothing but "custom and practice" -

Reasonable Sovereigns of equal authority and power do not want to go to war - so they are careful about how they relate to their Sovereign equals - this develops into "custom and practice" which, when "violated" could result in a confrontation and even war - that is what "excuse me" is used to repair.

There is no proper way that I can be held to some previously contrived "common law" that I had no participation in establishing and no choice as to my respect thereof or adherence thereto!!

--------------------------

We respond:

"Custom and usage since time immemorial" is generally what is behind the definition of common law. There is no singular source of the common law as one would expect with statutes made by a legislature.

Having said that, consider also that law follows physical power.

Let's pretend that you reset your brain almost to zero--you have no knowledge but your natural knowledge of good and evil, your natural intelligence, and a language with which to communicate with others. You are in your sovereign capacity, accountable to no higher authority, but acknowledging the sovereignty of others and that you may not diminish the sovereignty of others. You are at peace.

Along comes another being like you who causes you pain for which you want fair compensation.

At this point you have a choice: you can do immediate battle, or you can round up other like beings (we suggest 12 of them, a jury) and ask them to join you in battle. If you can get all of them to agree that you have a just cause, then it would be you and them against the accused (you+them=13 against 1).

They, not having been present at the time of the crime, being fair minded, demand that you justify your request (provide the rule and prove your facts).

You make your presentation, and the accused makes his counter-presentation. After the presentations (the trial) the jury retires to cogitate over two questions.

The first question: Is the rule valid? If, in the opinion of the jury your rule is not valid (jury nullification), then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree with your rule, then they move on to the second question.

The second question: Did the actions of the accused violate the rule. If, in the opinion of the jury he did not, then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree that your rule was violated, then they will join you (a guilty verdict).

If the jury's decision is split, the issue remains unresolved, and a new trial may be needed with a new jury.

If the jury's decision is unanimous, whether "guilty" or "not guilty", the question is decided, and you now have 13 vs. 1. Depending on the verdict, the "1" would be either the accuser or the accused.

Whoever lost the case would be foolish to do physical battle against 13 opponents. Thus, through this process, we bring peace to the realm.

An accuser always has jurisdiction to accuse. The accused always has jurisdiction to defend. And, either one may grant jurisdiction to a jury to intervene.

That is the bare essence of the common law.

Anything more than that is an attempt to "improve" the process. However, so-called "improvements" often are imperfect.

Although there is no singular authoritative source of common law, much has been written over the past thousand years. Many have come to respect the thoughts and opinions of those who preceded them. Having respect does not mean to quit thinking. Education is the process of learning about prior conclusions. Those conclusions are a valuable guide to use to arrive at our own conclusions.

In true common law, there are no obligatory rules or precedents. A common law court (a court of record) has unlimited jurisdiction and is independent of government. All external factors are, at best, advisory, not obligatory.

The founding fathers understood all that. At his 1801 inaugural Thomas Jefferson said, "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." And he wrote, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." [Letter, September 28, 1820.]

The self-correcting temporary imperfections of common law were preferrable to the entrenched imperfections of legislated written laws. That is why they chose the common law as the law superior to statutes and all other forms law. They expressed that choice through the Constitution's 7th Amendment which essentially says that no court may second-guess (review) a decision of a jury.

Also, notice that, although the common law is outside of the Constitution, the Constitution authorizes the USA to support the common law with its judicial power. See Article III, Section 2-1.

A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may not second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges the common law as supreme: “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court -- the substantive definition.

What is a court?

This article is about the substantive definition of a court. For form, legal, and dictionary definitions, see Court of Record: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm Most attorneys will tell you that a court is a forum where litigants may take problems for resolution. Others will tell you that the terms "court" and "judge" are interchangeable. Then there are the various dictionary definitions: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm But, here is the real substance of a court:

A court is a stage
upon which the sovereign conducts his show
so as to satisfy the rest of the world that his decision is a good one.

The modern concept of a court is based on the ancient English traditions. To best understand it, imagine how things were in the 12th century. The king was the sovereign. On his throne by Divine Right, he was the source of all law. So went the theory. But the king was as vulnerable to death as was anyone else.

Consider this scenario:

The king is sitting on his throne, gazing out the window, surveilling his kingdom. He notices one of the knaves stealing oranges from his favorite orange tree. No problem. Guards are summoned and instructed to incarcerate the knave for a month in the castle dungeon.

There you have all the elements of basic court procedure: jurisdiction, evidence, accusation, judgment, punishment. The king had the jurisdiction; he had personally seen the violation of his rules (the evidence), then he rendered and executed the judgment. Theoretically, that is all that is needed.

As a practical matter, there is more to the story.

In this case the criminal's brother happens to be the king's chief cook. The cook takes a day off to visit the dungeon. The prisoner complains about the injustice of it all, that he meant no harm, that he didn't do it, and that the king was totally unfair. Mr. Cook, enraged by his brother's story, promises to help. That evening the king dies from a slight overdose of arsenic: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/arsenic.htm (that's how the nobility solved problems in those days).

The arsenic factor is what led to our modern court system. The royalty of that period realized that they were vulnerable, so they devised a trial system which would encourage others to not take it out on the king. This resulted in a

new scenario:

The king is sitting on his throne, gazing out the window, surveilling his kingdom. He notices that one of the knaves is stealing oranges from his favorite orange tree. No problem. He summons the guards and instructs them to bring the knave before the court. Papers are drawn up and a formal accusation is published for the world to see. A future date is set, and the knave is given an opportunity to round up defensive evidence and witnesses as well as a king-trained, tested, and licensed defense attorney.

On the appointed day, the king's representative publicly announces the accusations, the defendant publicly states his innocence and the reasons therefor. Great argument is heard for both sides, and the king renders his judgment: 30 dungeon days. Attending the trial are the various court officers: judge, counsellors, marshall, court reporter, court jester, court clerk, and the various courtiers who invariably attach themselves to the seat of power. Among them all is the prisoner's brother, the king's chief cook.

On visiting day at the dungeon, the criminal complains on deaf ears. Brother chief cook says, "Sorry Bro. I was at the trial. I saw the evidence, I saw that you had an opportunity to defend, and I saw that the judgment was according to law. Even if the judgment was in error, the procedure was fair. There is nothing I can do for you."

The king's show was a success! Because of public judicial procedure he is guaranteed a long arsenic-free life, even though there was no difference in the final outcome.

In the first scenario the king acted according to theory. In the second scenario the king acted with prudent life-extending considerations.

Modern courts

Modern court procedure still adheres to the traditions of the past. You can see this in the various rules, statutes, and canons. For example, in Canon 2 of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/appendix/appdiv2.pdf#search=%22CALIFOR... it is well understood that "A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." There is no specific requirement that he actually have integrity and impartiality beyond that minimum required by law; only that the judge should act in a manner that promotes that image.

Maintaining image while protecting sovereign interests is probably the most important function of a court. The actual effectiveness of a government court in meting out justice has been questioned: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/ffflap.htm Spend a day in any traffic court and you will get the full flavor of how the courts protect sovereign interests as they put on a show of procedural propriety.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court of Record -- 4 1/2 substantive requirements to qualify.

Court of Record

COMMENTARY

This writer concludes, from the definitions below, that a
court of record is a court which must meet the following
criteria:

1. generally has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm#record of the proceedings
4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal.
The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully
empowered jury (not paid by the government)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426

COURT. ...

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....

CLASSIFICATION

Courts may be classified and divided according to several
methods, the following being the more usual:

COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being
those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

See 7 Cal Jur 571 http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/cal-jur-v7.pdf for more info
about courts of record

----------------------------------------------------------------

Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 386 (1953)
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.

MAGISTRATE

A person holding official power in a government; as: a The
official of highest rank in a government (chief, or first,
magistrate). b An official of a class having summary, often
criminal, jurisdiction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary

MAGISTRATE

an official entrusted with administration of the laws

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103

MAGISTRATE

Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State
ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630.

A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the
state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either
judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly
used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person
intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one
of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of
the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex
parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla.
655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W.
32, 34.
....

The word "magistrate" does not necessarily imply an officer
exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to
embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds. Schultz v.
Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

California Penal Code

7. Words and phrases....The following words have in this
code the signification attached to them in this section, unless
otherwise apparent from the context:....

9. The word "magistrate" signifies any one of the
officers mentioned in Section 808. ....

807. Magistrate defined. A magistrate is an officer having
power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with
a public offense. (Enacted 1872.)

808. Persons designated as magistrates The following
persons are magistrates:

1. The judges of the Supreme Court

2. The judges of the courts of appeal.

3. The judges of the superior courts.

4. The judges of the municipal courts.

5. The judges of the justice courts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1602, 1603

SUIT

Old English Law

The witnesses or followers of the plaintiff. 3 Bl. Comm.
295. See Secta.

Modern Law
A generic term, of comprehensive signification, and applies
to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues, in
such court, the remedy which the law affords him for the redress
of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in
equity. See Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v.
Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L.Ed. 481; Syracuse Plaster Co. v.
Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corporation, 169 Misc. 564 7 N.Y.S.2d 897.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1677

TRIBUNAL

The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice.
The whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial
court; the jurisdiction which the judges exercise. See Foster v.
Worcester, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 81.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 707 (1953)
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.

TRIBUNE
1. In ancient Rome, a magistrate whose special function was
to protect the interests of plebeian citizens from the patricians.
2. Any defender of the people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary

COURT

1. the residence of a sovereign or similar dignitary
2: a sovereign and his officials and advisers as a
governing power
3: an assembly of the retinue of a sovereign
4: an open space enclosed by a building or buildings
5: a space walled or marked off for playing a game (as
tennis or basketball)
6: the place where justice is administered; also: a judicial
body or a meeting of a judicial body

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A "minute order" issued by a judge is not part of the record.

RECORD

The proceedings of the courts of common law are records. But every minute made by a clerk of a court for his own future guidance in making up his record is not a record. 4 Wash. C.C. 698. See 10 Penn. St. 157; 2 Pick. Mass. 448; 4 N. II. 450; 6 id. 567; 5 Ohio St. 545; 3 Wend. N.Y. 267; 2 Vt. 573; 6 id. 580; 5 Day, Conn. 363; 3 T. B. Monr. Ky. 63.

"The Common-Law Record consists of the Process, the Pleadings, the Verdict and the Judgment. After Judgment, such Errors were Reviewable by Writ of Error. Errors which occurred at the Trial were not part of the Common-Law Record, and could be Reviewed by a Motion for a New Trial, after Verdict and before Judgment; by Statute, such Errors could be Reviewed after judgment by incorporating them into the Record by means of a Bill of Exceptions. It was therefore essential to keep clearly in mind the distinction between Matter of Record and Matter of Exception.

"UNDER the ancient practice, the Proceedings in a litigated case were Entered upon the Parchment Roll, and when this was completed, the end product became known as the Common-Law Record. It consisted of Four Parts, the Process, which included the Original Writ and the Return of the Sheriff, by which the Court acquired Jurisdiction over the defendant; the Pleadings, presented by the Parties in the prescribed order to develop an Issue of Law or of Fact, and which included the Declaration and all subsequent Pleadings, together with the Demurrers, if any; the Verdict; and the Judgment. These Four Elements formed the Common-Law Record, but it should be observed that at the point where the Retrospective Motions come into play, the Record has not been developed beyond the Stage of Entering the Verdict upon the Roll. At this point it should also be recalled that between the time when the Pleadings Terminated in an Issue, which Joinder in Issue was duly Recorded on the Parchment Roll, and the time when an Entry of the Verdict was made, nothing was Recorded on the Parchment Roll. The reason for this was that between the Joinder of Issue and the Rendition of the Verdict, the Trial takes place, and what occurs during this Trial does not Appear upon the Face of the Common-Law Record. Thus, Offers and Rejection of Evidence, the Court’s Instruction of the Jury, or its Refusal to Instruct as requested by Counsel, or any Misconduct Connected with the Trial, such as Prejudicial Remarks on the Part of the Court, and the like—that is—any Error that occurs at the Trial—cannot be corrected by resort to the Common-Law Record because not Apparent Upon its Face. Such Errors were preserved only in the notes made by the Presiding Judge, or in his memory, and were reviewable, after Verdict and before Final Judgment, by a Motion for New Trial made before the Court En Banc at Westminster, within four days after the Commencement of the Next Term following the Rendition of the Verdict. As each of the Judges of the Court had Motions of a similar character coming up for decision from the Trials over which they had presided, the natural inclination of each Judge was to support the Rulings of his brother Jurists, and thus Overrule the Motion for a New Trial. Furthermore, Errors that occurred at the Trial were not Reviewable after Judgment on Writ of Error, because Not Apparent on any one of the Four Parts of the Common-Law Record. To remedy this Defect, Parliament enacted Chapter 31 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285,6 which provided for Review of such Errors through the use of what came to be known as a Bill of Exceptions.

"Thus, it appears that in four out of five Retrospective Motions, the Court is permitted to consider only Defects Apparent Upon the Face of Part of the Common-Law Record—the Process, the Pleadings, and the Verdict—and Errors Occurring at the Trial were regarded as extraneous and not to be considered in rendering Judgment upon the Motions. Matters extraneous to or outside of the Record could be tested after Verdict and before Judgment only by a Motion for a New Trial. A distinction is made between Matter of Record and Matter of Exception, Matter of Record referring to those Errors Apparent upon the Face of the Common-Law Record and hence Reviewable after Final Judgment upon a Writ of Error, and Matter of Exception referring to those Errors which Occurred at the Trial, and were Not Apparent on the Face of the Common-Law Record, hence Reviewable after Final Judgment only by incorporating such Errors into the Record by means of a Bill of Exceptions, as authorized by Chapter 31 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285."
Koffler: Common Law Pleading 567-568

Proceedings in courts of chancery are said not to be, strictly speaking, records; but they are so considered. Gresley, Ev. 101. And see 8 Mart. La. N. S. 303; 1 Rawle, Penn. 381; 8 Yorg. Tenn. 142; 1 Pet. C. C. 352.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)

MINUTE

In practice. A memorandum of what takes place in court, made by authority of the court. From these minutes the record is afterwards made up.

Toulier says they are so called because the writing in which they were originally was small; that the word is derived from the Latin minuta (scriptura), in opposition to copies which were delivered to the parties, and which were always written in a larger hand. 8 Toullier, n. 413.

Minutes are not considered as any part of the record. 1 Ohio, 268. See 23 Pick. Mass. 184.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)

MINUTE BOOK

A book kept by the clerk or prothonotary of a court, in which minutes of its proceedings are entered.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, see Nisi Prius Court -- a court of no record, by prior agreement.
Superior Court vs Inferior Court and Tax Court.

Subject: NISI PRIUS COURT

"George H. Cullins" wrote:

> Black's Law Dictionary defines Nisi Prius Courts as:
>
> "The nisi prius courts are such as are held for the trial of issues of fact
> before a jury and one presiding judge. In America the phrase was formerly
> used to denote the forum (whatever may be its statutory name) in which the
> cause was tried to a jury, as distinguished from the appellate court."
>
> To me, that says the nisi prius court is a TRIAL COURT, which of course is
> where the FACTS of a case are discovered.
>
> Thornton says a nisi prius court is a "court of no record." But a record
> is kept in a trial court

===============================================================================

Bill Thornton replies:

On the surface of it, your doubts are reasonable. I'll do my best to
explain nisi prius courts, courts of record http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm and courts of no record.

First, the mere keeping of a record does not qualify any court to be a
court of record. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, contributes to
the confusion by listing only two of the four requirements for a court
to qualify as a court of record. If you want the full explanation, see
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/courtrec.htm. In
California, all courts are named as courts of record. However, if in an
individual case they are not operated as courts of record, then they
don't qualify as such. It takes more than a name to make a court of
record. Even though a court may be keeping a record, it is a court of
no record if it does not conform to the remaining three requirements for
a lawful court of record.

Black's Law Dictionary's omissions are subtle. But, if you look deep
enough, you can recombine the information and get to the real meaning of
terms such as "nisi prius".

"Nisi prius" is a Latin term. Individually, the words mean thus:

"Prius" means "first." For example, "Prius vitiis laboravimus, nunc
legibus" means "We labored first with vices, now with laws." Quoted
from Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.

"Nisi" means "unless." Quoting from B.L.D., 5th Ed.: "The word is
often affixed as a kind of elliptical expression, to the words 'rule,'
'order,' 'decree,' 'judgment,' or 'confirmation,' to indicate that the
adjudication spoken of is one which is to stand as valid and operative
unless the party affected by it shall appear and show cause against it,
or take some other appropriate step to avoid it or procure its
revocation."

A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object to
something, then it means he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is a
procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and
therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to
the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedure
to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause.

A "nisi prius" procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agrees
UNLESS he objects.

A "nisi prius court" is a court which will proceed unless a party
objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first.

It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of
record http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed
according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that
a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to
statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to
obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the
court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo
contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to
say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was
violated, not whether the common law was violated.

The dictionary does not lie in its definition of a nisi prius court.
But it does omit some important information. Namely, that it is a court
that has been set up by prior agreement assumed because when the three
statutory options [guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre] were presented
to the defendant he chose one. He thus failed to enforce his right to be
prosecuted in a court of record.

Once the agreement (as evidenced in the arraignment proceeding) has been
secured, the court proceeds under statutory authority. Now the court
ceases to be a court of record and becomes a court of no record by prior
lack of objection, i.e. by prior agreement implied by failure to object..

Naturally, after securing the agreement, a nisi prius court can move on
to examine the facts with a judge and jury, etc. etc.

George H. Cullins wrote:

> Mr. Thornton says that the murderers have entered into a contract to go
> outside the rules of the "codes" even though they don't know it. Since a
> contract is an AGREEMENT between two or more people, how can a contract be
> made without the parties knowing about it.

Bill Thornton replies:

Yes. If the party never objects, then he must have agreed. Surely you
have heard of appeals that were lost because objection was not timely
made. The appellate court treats unopposed actions by the trial court
as if those actions were agreed to by the party who untimely objected.

George H. Cullins wrote:

> He says the Penal Codes are not the "law." My understanding is that the law
> is the statutes (codes) plus the law made by appellate judges every time they
> make a decision. So if the Penal Code is not the law, what is?

Bill Thornton replies:

When the word "law" is used without qualification, then it means common
law. An "attorney at law" means one who practices common law
(notwithstanding the fact that modern attorneys are not trained about the
subject). An "attorney in equity" is one who practices before an equity
court. In the U.S. 99.99999% of all proceedings are in equity, which is
why the judges may take liberties.

Statutes are expressions of will from the legislature. To keep you
confused, they append the word "law" to it. Naturally, you are supposed
to then believe that statutory law is the same as and equal to common
law (it isn't). Codes are nothing more than a collection of statutes
and other rules arranged by subject instead of being arranged by date.
Law beats statutes; statutes beat codes.

A judge exercises his discretion. Because he is authorized by the
statutes to exercise his discretion, most appeals of judges' decisions
will fail. The appellate courts generally will not second guess a trial
court's use of discretion.

In a court of record, a judge has no discretion. Discretion is reserved to
the independent tribunal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A court of record is a "superior court."

A court not of record is an "inferior court."

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.

The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.

Decision of a court of record may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts.

However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Also see Counterclaim Notes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/counterclaimnotes.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAX COURT IS A COURT OF RECORD
IT IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Tax Court is a court of record. It is not an administrative court unless you permit it to quit being a court of record.

Here is what the Internal Revenue Code designates:

26 USC 7441: Status. "There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court etiquette -- some unwritten rules.

Courtroom Etiquette

Over the centuries the English court system has developed many customs. The customs are not arbitrary and can be summed up into one simple point: Consideration and respect for the interests and concerns of all parties. By following the customs one will have a better chance of bringing into the court a high degree of credibility, respect, and even success for himself.

Not all of the customs are covered here. But here are some important suggestions that one should follow:

Avoid Judge's Pet Peeves

Judges are persons, too. They have preferences just as you do. Click here to read about some of their gripes: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtetq2.pdf

Addressing the court

Unless you are so invited to do, never directly address the judge or any officer or litigant of the court. You are not dealing with the individual members of the court. A court is defined as the person http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm and the suit of the sovereign. During court proceedings you are doing business with the court as a complete entity. Therefor you address the court. When you address the court, look directly at the judge, even if your message is to be acted upon by another member of the court.

It is permissible to begin your address to the court with the phrase, "Your Honor." The judge is the chief officer of the court. He is the contact point for the court. By saying "Your Honor" you are merely getting the attention of the court and opening a communication channel with the court.

It is possible to have a court without a judge. In England that would happen if the king himself were sitting on the throne, conducting the proceedings. In America, if the judge were absent, then the jury (if it is not an advisory jury) could either sit en banc, or appoint a judge, or the jury foreman could conduct the proceeding himself. If no jury is present, then the plaintiff (in his sovereign capacity) would conduct the proceedings, and all communication with the court would be through him.

Comportment

Court decorum is a high priority. When someone is addressing the court, when he has the floor, he is entitled to be fully and fairly heard. You should be like a statue. Nodding or shaking your head, talking to others, reading, or otherwise distracting yourself or others is a grave discourtesy. It is acceptable to take notes when another is talking. You can lose a lot of points in the minds of others who understand court customs (you certainly do not want to lose status in the mind of the tribunal). Attorneys should admonish their clients and witnesses to never show any outward response to anything said or done in the courtroom. If the opposition is lying through his teeth, you will get your opportunity to present your truth later.

The court, through the judge or other channel, is always the entity with whom you are doing business. It is acting in a sovereign capacity. As such, it receives no direction from anyone, but acts on its own sovereign authority. When addressing the court, it is gross error to say something like, "The court's attention is directed to...." or "The court will note...." It is also gross error to so address the human who speaks for the court. If you want the court to take notice of something, you can properly preface your presentation with, "The court's attention is invited..." or "May it please the court...". Never say to the judge, "Your attention is invited," because you are addressing the court through the judge, you are not addressing the judge himself. It is ok to say, "Your Honor, the court's attention is invited...," because the phrase "Your Honor" serves only to open the channel of communication.

The whole idea is that the court is in charge of things. You do not want to do or say anything to challenge the sovereignty of the court--it will be resented. If the court does something that you believe is unfair or wrong, the proper corrective response would be to object, or to make a verbal or written motion.

Dress

Excepting for the robe, you should dress as the judge dresses. John Molloy's book, Dress for Success is an excellent resource. A best seller, it is in all the libraries and book stores. Wear a business suit, polished shoes, conservative haircut. Your appearance broadcasts your attitude. You can be certain that if you look like a rebel, you will be so treated. It is a discourtesy of major proportions to do as one litigant did in a San Francisco appellate court: A 21 year old, on his way to the beach, walked into the clerks office wearing only bathing trunks and sandals with long uncut hair. His response to criticism: "Hey! I have a right to dress any way I want!" Yes, indeed. But, he didn't get what he wanted from them. Look and talk like a lawyer; speak in formal or court English (not slang); appearance plays a big role in winning your case. What's at stake is your credibility. Are you believable? Not if you sound, act, and dress like a ruffian.

Language

In America we are trilingual. We speak three languages: Street English (slang), Formal English (taught in schools), and King's English (not taught in the schools, but used in the court rooms).

Although they involve similar sounds, they are quite distinctive in how they convey ideas. For example, in Street English if you think something is really good you can express that thought by saying, "That's really bad!" Or if something's really cool, you say, "That's hot!" Foreigners who have studied Formal English have a lot of trouble understanding local slang. If you're from the neighborhood, then there is no problem.

If you want to communicate with someone from another neighborhood, then you use Formal English. Slang is too volatile and localized for communication with folks from other geographical locations. Formal English, because it is widely taught, is the best way to communicate with a stranger.

If you want to communicte with the court, then you use King's English, also called the Language of the Court, or the Language of the Law. It is a separate language and should be studied as such. Changes in meaning can take as long a 300 years, so it is useful for referencing precedent. Law schools do not really teach the idea that it is a separate language. Consequently, even attorneys can make crucial language errors. Judges attend special classes (called seminars) where they can be apprised of the the real game. If you want to know what a word means in the court room, look it up in "Words and Phrases," a multi-volume dictionary at the law library. Other useful works are Corpus Juris, American Jurisprudence, and California Jurisprudence.

A useful exercise is to start at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution and look up each new word in the legal reference books. You will be amazed how differently parts of the Constitution will read when you become aware of the full legal meanings of words. Even prepositions and conjunctions have been battled over in the courts.

Court relations out of court

There are many opportunities for contact with court personnel outside the courtroom environment. The two most frequent situations are when you file papers with the clerk and when you have contact with the opposition.

Whatever the situation, look your best and be your best. If someone wants to scrap with you, just pass the opportunity by. Your case is in court, and that's where the fight will be....all according to the rules. I always give them a friendly greeting. And I always am courteous to them, regardless of their behavior. I learned this from the Buddhist leader in southeast Asia. Here's the story:

Back in the 1970's and 1980's the Buddhist monks were very upset with the local government. To make their point they would from time to time douse themselves with kerosene and ignite themselves. This great suicidal act encouraged by the Buddhist leader was a major embarrasment to the local government.

Normally, the local government had a simple solution for dealing with its enemies. It simply kidnapped and executed them, usually around midnight. As far as the neighbors knew, the victim simply was gone the next day, never to be seen again. However, the Buddhist leader, who everyone knew was behind the suicides, was never touched. He went about the country without the usual bodyguards that normal leaders of the country had. People marveled that he was so troublesome to government, and so unprotected, and that nothing happened to him pesonally. Though there was no definite answer, the speculation was that he was untouched because EVERYONE liked him. The Buddhist leader was so likeable by both friends and enemies that no one really wanted to kill him, despite the trouble he was causing.

The lesson to be learned here is that it is important how you conduct your battle. Do it with friendliness and courtesy. Even if your enemy would not hesitate to stab you in the back, treat him (guardedly) as your friend. Let him be the uncultured fool.

If the court clerk refuses to file your papers because of some incorrectly perceived error, then do it her way as long as you suffer no significant loss of rights. If you can't see your way to do it the clerk's way, then simply ask the clerk to "FILE ON DEMAND." Normally that stops all argument, but save that for last. Usually the clerks know what they are doing and if you do things their way you will increase the probability of winning. If push comes to shove, you can still file a motion with the trial court for mandamus under 28 USC 1361 if you are the plaintiff, or with the appellate court if you are the defendant. At all times be friendly, even trade jokes. You never know when that may pay off behind the scenes. More than once I have seen court personnel do mysterious turnarounds when I thought I would never get them convinced to do things my way.

Remember, the opposition is human, too. They will make their mistakes. Of course, you will take advantage of their mistakes. But always be fair, friendly and courteous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Habeas Corpus -- What it really is.

Habeas Corpus

History and Definition

There are two definitions for habeas corpus: one formal and the other substantive. The formal definition may be found in any law dictionary. This essay is about the substantive definition. The substantive definiton of habeas corpus is not found in the dictionaries, but rather, in the history books.

In the early days (before Magna Carta), the king had many court systems operating: e.g. courts of Common Pleas, Exchequer, King's Bench, Chancery, etc. Each court had its jurisdiction defined. Of course, as an arm of government, courts are simply another form of bureaucracy with assigned functions. Like any bureaucracy, they always want to expand their jurisdictions. If a court exceeded its jurisdiction, a person could go to the proper court that should have had jurisdiction, and ask for an order directing the errant court stop its proceedings and release jurisdiction to the proper court. The phrase, "habeas corpus," meaning, "you have the body" was put at the end of pleadings to the second court asking that the first court be required to produce the body if it was being held. In its most common form, the full formal phrase for habeas corpus was "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum."

Of course, as you might surmise, that would pit one court bureaucracy against another. The Habeas Corpus worked quite well because, as long as the defendant was not a common enemy to both bureaucracies, one bureaucracy would not miss any opportunity to put down a competing bureacracy. The practical result of all this is that the defendant would often be ordered released, which was the second court's way of telling the first court that it didn't know what it was doing and had strayed from it's original jurisdiction (i.e. exceeded jurisdiction). The habeas corpus, as a by-product of bureaucratic turf protection, tended to serve personal liberty well. Over the centuries it became known as the "Great Writ of Liberty." It was the only known privilege or right that became stronger with the passage of time.

In summary, habeas corpus is the process of one court sitting in judgment of another court's jurisdiction. It is NOT a civil or criminal proceeding, but rather it is a family fight between courts. That is why, even though you find habeas corpus rules in the civil procedure books ( FRCP and Calif CCP) the procedures stand somewhat alone, independent of the rest of the procedures in those codes. The reason is obvious: Why would a court burden itself with procedural requirements? That stuff is ok for outsiders not part of the court system (i.e. plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys) but not ok for judges themselves.

In America, everyone can be sovereign. When you move for habeas corpus, you are activating your own court, which is separate and distinct from their court. You sit in judgment of the jurisdiction of their court. When you order them to produce the injured party and to demonstrate the injury, and when they fail to produce, then your court can issue an order to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Your court is a court of record http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm and takes precedence over the statutory court.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confirmatio Cartarum, Requires officials to accept Magna Carta as common law.

This document is a bridge between the Constitutional protection of one's access to the common law, and the Magna Carta. The modern value of the following is that it links the Magna Carta to the Common Law. The U.S. Constitution guarantees one's access to the Common Law, i.e. the Magna Carta. (See the next to last line of the first paragraph.)

=====================================================================

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM [26]
October 10, 1297

EDWARD, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guian[27], to all those that these present letters shall hear or see, greeting. Know ye that we, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and to the profit of our realm, have granted for us and our heirs, that the Charter of liberties, and the Charter of the forest[28], which were made by common assent of all the realm, in the time of King HENRY our father, shall be kept in every point without breach. (2) And we will that the same charters shall be sent under our seal, as well to our justices of the forest, as to others, and to all sheriffs of shires, and to all our other officers, and to all our cities throughout the realm, together with our writs, in the which it shall be contained, that they cause the foresaid charters to be published, and to declare to the people that we have confirmed them in all points; (3) and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magna.htm as the common law[*] and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm.

2. AND we will, That if any judgement be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by the justices, or by any other our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for nought.

3. AND we will, That the same charters shall be sent, under our seal, to cathedral churches throughout our realm, there to remain, and shall be read before the people two times by the year.

4. AND that all archbishops and bishops shall pronounce the sentence of excommunication against all those that by word, deed, or counsel do contrary to the foresaid charters, or that in any point break or undo them. (2) and that the said curses be twice a year denounced and published by the prelates aforesaid. (3) And if the said prelates, or any of them, be remiss in the denunciation of the said sentences, the archbishops of Canterbury and York for the time being shall compel and distrein them to the execution of their duties in form aforesaid.

5. AND for so much as divers people of our realm are in fear that the aids and tasks[29] which they have given to us beforetime towards our wars and other business, of their own grant and good will (howsoever they were made) might turn to a bondage to them and their heirs, because they might be at another time found in the rolls, and likewise for the prises taken throughout the realm by our ministers: (2) We have granted for us and our heirs, that we shall not draw such aids, tasks, nor prises into a custom, for any thing that hath been done heretofore, be it by roll or any other precedent that may be founden.

6. Moreover we have granted for us and our heirs, as well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk of holy church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the communalty of the land, that for no business from henceforth we shall take such manner of aids, tasks, nor prises, but by the common assent of the realm, and for the common profit thereof, saving the ancient aids, and prises due and accustomed.

7. AND for so much as the more part of the communalty of the realm find themselves sore grieved with the maletent of wools, that is to wit, a toll of forty shillings for every sack of wool, and have made petition to us to release the same; We at their requests have yearly released it, and have for granted us and our heirs, that we shall not take such things without their common assent and good will, saving to us and our heirs the custom of wools, skins, and leather, granted before by the communalty aforesaid. In witness of which things we have caused these our letters to be made patents. Witness EDWARD our son at London the tenth day of October, the five and twentieth year of our reign.

NOTES

[26] 25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75.

[27] Aquitaine, the territory in southwestern France.

[28] The Charter of the Forest was issued in 1217, early in the reign of Henry III, as a supplement to Magna Carta. It was confirmed by him in 1225. Some of the provisions omitted in the reissues of Magna Carta which relate to forest matters appeared in the Charter of the Forest.

[29] "Aids," "tasks," and "prises" were forms of taxation.

====================================================================

The above is quoted from "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation; distributed by Associated College Presses, 32 Washington Place, New York 3, New York.

[*] This reaffirms that the Magna Carta may be pleaded as the Common Law before a court.

Go to Confirmatio Cartarum Interpretation: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magnai.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magna Carta -- Foundation of liberty.

MAGNA CARTA
THE GREAT CHARTER OF ENGLISH LIBERTY
DECREED BY KING JOHN AT RUNNYMEDE
JUNE 15, A.D. 1215*

From
"Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,"
as translated from
"Stubb's Charters"
by Ernest F. Henderson.

JOHN, by the grace of God, King of England, lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjuo: To the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, prevosts, serving men, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, Greeting. Know that we, by the will of God and for the safety of our soul, and of the souls of all our predecessors and our heirs, to the honor of God and for the exaltation of the holy Church, and the bettering of our realm: by the counsel of our venerable fathers Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church; of Henry archbishop of Dublin; of the bishops William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelin of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugo of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict of Rochester; of master Pandulf, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope; of brother Aymeric, master of the knights of the Temple in England; and of the nobel men, William Marshall earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galway constable of Scotland, Warin son of Gerold, Peter son of Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poictiers, Hugo de Neville, Matthew son of Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigni, Robert de Roppelay, John Marshall, John son of Hugo, and others of our faithful subjects:

1. First of all have granted to God, and, for us and for our heirs forever, have confirmed, by this our present charter, that the English church shall be free and shall have its rights intact and its liberties uninfringed upon. And thus we will that it be observed. As is apparent from the fact that we, spontaneously and of our own free will, before discord broke out between ourselves and our barons, did grant and by our charter confirm--and did cause the lord pope Innocent III, to confirm-- freedom of elections, which is considered most important and most necessary to the church of England. Which charter both we ourselves shall observe, and we will that it be observed with good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all free men of our realm, on the part of ourselves and our heirs forever, all the subjoined liberties, to have and to hold, to them and to their heirs, from us and from our heirs:

2. If any one of our earls or barons, or of others holding from us in chief through military service, shall die; and if, at the time of his death, his heir be of full age and owe a relief: he shall have his inheritance by paying the old relief;--the heir, namely, or the heirs of an earl, by paying one hundred pounds for the whole barony of an earl; the heir or heirs of a baron, by paying one hundred pounds for the whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, by paying one hundred shillings at most for a whole knight's fee; and he who shall owe less shall give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

3. But if the heir of any of the above persons shall be under age and in wardship,--when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without relief and without fine.

4. The administrator of the land of such heir who shall be under age shall take none but reasonable issues from the land of the heir, and reasonable customs and services; and this without destruction and waste of men or goods. And if we shall have committed the custody of any such land to the sheriff or to any other man who ought to be responsible to us for the issues of it, and he cause destruction or waste to what is in his charge: we will fine him, and the land shall be handed over to two lawful and discreet men of that fee who shall answer to us, or to him to whom we shall have referred them, regarding those issues. And if we shall have given or sold to any one the custody of any such land, and he shall have caused destruction or waste to it,--he shall lose that custody, and it shall be given to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who likewise shall answer to us, as has been explained.

5. The administrator, moreover, so long as he may have the custody of the land, shall keep in order, from the issues of that land, the houses, parks, warrens, lakes, mills, and other things pertaining to it. And he shall restore to the heir when he comes to full age, his whole land stocked with ploughs and wainnages, according as the time of the wainnage requires and the issues of the land will reasonably permit.

6. Heirs may marry without disparagement; so, nevertheless, that, before the marriage is contracted, it shall be announced to the relations by blood of the heir himself.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall straightway, and without difficulty, have her marriage portion and her inheritance, nor shall she give any thing in return for her dowry, her marriage portion, or the inheritance which belonged to her, and which she and her husband held on the day of the death of that husband. And she may remain in the house of her husband, after his death, for forty days; within which her dowry shall be paid over to her.

8. No widow shall be forced to marry when she prefers to live without a husband; so, however, that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she hold from us, or the consent of the lord from whom she holds, if she hold from another.

9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any revenue for any debt, so long as the chattels of the debtor suffice to pay the debt; nor shall the sponsors of that debtor be distrained so long as the chief debtor has enough to pay the debt. But if the chief debtor fail in paying the debt, not having the wherewithal to pay it, the sponsors shall answer for the debt. And, if they shall wish, they may have the lands and revenues of the debtor until satisfaction shall have been given them for the debt previously paid for him; unless the chief debtor shall show that he is quit in that respect towards those same sponsors.

10. If any one shall have taken any sum, great or small, as a loan from the money-lenders, and shall die before that debt is paid,--that debt shall not bear interest so long as the heir, from whomever he may hold, shall be under age. And if the debt fall into our hands, we shall take nothing save the chattel contained in the deed.

11. And if any one dies owing a debt to the money-lenders, his wife shall have her dowry, and shall restore nothing of that debt. But if there shall remain children of that dead man, and they shall be under age, the necessaries shall be provided for them according to the nature of the dead man's holding; and from the residue, the debt shall be paid, saving the service due to the lords. In like manner shall be done concerning debts that are due to others besides money-lenders.

12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our realm unless by the common counsel of our realm; except for redeeming our body, and knighting our eldest son, and marrying once our eldest daughter. And for these purposes there shall only be given a reasonable aid. In like manner shall be done concerning the aids of the city of London.

13. And the city of London shall have all its old liberties and free customs as well by land as by water. Moreover we will and grant that other cities and burroughs, and town and ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs.

14. And, in order to have the common counsel of the realm in the matter of assessing an aid otherwise than in the aforesaid cases, or of assessing a scutage--we shall cause, under seal through our letters, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned for a fixed day--for a term, namely, at least forty days distant,--and for a fixed place. And, moreover, we shall cause to be summoned in general, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, all those who hold of us in chief. And in all those letters of summons we shall express the cause of the summons. And when a summons has thus been made, the business shall be proceeded with on the day appointed according to the counsel of those who shall be present, even though not all shall come who were summoned.

15. We will not allow any one henceforth to take an aid from his freemen save for the redemption of his body, and the knighting of his eldest son, and the marrying, once, of his eldest daughter; and, for these purposes, there shall only be given a reasonable aid.

16. No one shall be forced to do more service for a knight's fee, or for another free holding, than is due from it.

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court but shall be held in a certain fixed place.

18. Assizes of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held save in their own counties, and in this way: We, or our chief justice, if we shall be absent from the kingdom, shall send two justices through each county four times a year; they, with four knights from each county, chosen by the county, shall hold the aforesaid assizes in the county, and on the day and at the place of the county court.

19. And if on the day of the county court the aforesaid assizes can not be held, a sufficient number of knights and free tenants, from those who were present at the county court on that day, shall remain, so that through them the judgments may be suitably given, according as the matter may have been great or small.

20. A freeman shall only be amerced for a small offence according to the measure of that offence. And for a great offence he shall be amerced according to the magnitude of the offence, saving his contenement; and a merchant, in the same way, saving his merchandize. And a villein, in the same way, if he fall under our mercy, shall be amerced saving his wainnage. And none of the aforesaid fines shall be imposed save upon oath of upright men from the neighbourhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced save through their peers, and only according to the measure of the offence.

22. No clerk shall be amerced for his lay tenement except according to the manner of the other persons aforesaid; and not according to the amount of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. Neither a town nor a man shall be forced to make bridges over the rivers, with the exception of those who, from of old and of right ought to do it.

+24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown.

25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trithings--our demensne manors being excepted--shall continue according to the old farms, without any increase at all.

26. If any one holding from us a lay fee shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff can show our letters patent containing our summons for the debt which the dead man owed to us,--our sheriff or bailiff may be allowed to attach and enroll the chattels of the dead man to the value of that debt, through view of lawful men; in such way, however, that nothing shall be removed thence until the debt is paid which was plainly owed to us. And the residue shall be left to the executors that they may carry out the will of the dead man. And if nothing is owed to us by him, all the chattels shall go to the use prescribed by the deceased, saving their reasonable portions to his wife and children.

27. If any freeman shall have died intestate his chattels shall be distributed through the hands of his near relatives and friends, by view of the church; saving to any one the debts which the dead man owed him.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller.

29. No constable shall force any knight to pay money for castleward if he be willing to perform that ward in person, or-- he for a reasonable cause not being able to perform it himself-- through another proper man. And if we shall have led or sent him on a military expedition, he shall be quit of ward according to the amount of time during which, through us, he shall have been in military service.

+30. No sheriff nor bailiff of ours, nor any one else, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport, unless by the will of that freeman.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take another's wood for castles or for other private uses, unless by the will of him to whom the wood belongs.

32. We shall not hold the lands of those convicted of felony longer than a year and a day; and then the lands shall be restored to the lords of the fiefs.

33. Henceforth all the weirs in the Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, save on the sea-coasts, shall be done away with entirely.

+34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court.

35. There shall be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm, and one measure of ale and one measure of corn--namely, the London quart;--and one width of dyed and resset and hauberk cloths--namely, two ells below the selvage. And with weights, moreover, it shall be as with measures.

+36. Henceforth nothing shall be given or taken for a writ of inquest in a matter concerning life or limb; but it shall be conceded gratis, and shall not be denied.

37. If any one hold of us in fee-farm, or in socage, or in burkage, and hold land of another by military service, we shall not, by reason of that fee-farm, or socage, or burkage, have the wardship of his heir or of his land which is held in fee from another. Nor shall we have the wardship of that fee-farm, or socage, or burkage unless that fee-farm owe military service. We shall not, by reason of some petit-serjeanty which some one holds of us through the service of giving us knives or arrows or the like, have the wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another by military service.

+38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

+39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

+40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants may safely and securely go out of England, and come into England, and delay and pass through England, as well by land as by water, for the purpose of buying and selling, free from all evil taxes, subject to the ancient and right customs--save in time of war, and if they are of the land at war against us. And if such be found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be held, without harm to their bodies and goods, until it shall be known to us or our chief justice how the merchants of our land are to be treated who shall, at that time, be found in the land at war against us. And if ours shall be safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. Henceforth any person, saving fealty to us, may go out of our realm and return to it, safely and securely, by land and by water, except perhaps for a brief period in time of war, for the common good of the realm. But prisoners and outlaws are excepted according to the law of the realm; also people of a land at war against us, and the merchants, with regard to whom shall be done as we have said.

43. If any one hold from any escheat--as from the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boloin, Lancaster, or the other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies--and shall die, his heir shall not give another relief, nor shall he perform for us other service than he would perform for a baron if that barony were in the hand of a baron; and we shall hold it in the same way in which the baron has held it.

44. Persons dwelling without the forest shall not henceforth come before the forest justices, through common summonses, unless they are impleaded or are the sponsors of some person or persons attached for matters concerning the forest.

+45. We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.

46. All barons who have founded abbeys for which they have charters of the kings of England, or ancient right of tenure, shall have, as they ought to have, their custody when vacant.

47. All forests constituted as such in our time shall straightway be annulled; and the same shall be done for river banks made into places of defense by us in our time.

48. All evil customs concerning forests and warrens, and concerning foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their servants, river banks and their guardians, shall straightway be inquired into in each county, through twelve sworn knights from that county, and shall be eradicated by them, entirely, so that they shall never be renewed, within forty days after the inquest has been made; in such manner that we shall first know about them, or our justice if we be not in England.

49. We shall straightway return all hostages and charters which were delivered to us by Englishmen as a surety for peace or faithful service.

50. We shall entirely remove from their bailiwicks the relatives of Gerard de Athyes, so that they shall henceforth have no bailwick in England: Engelard de Cygnes, Andrew Peter and Gyon de Chanceles, Gyon de Cygnes, Geoffrey de Martin and his brothers, Philip Mark and his brothers, and Geoffrey his nephew, and the whole following of them.

51. And straightway after peace is restored we shall remove from the realm all the foreign soldiers, crossbowmen, servants, hirelings, who may have come with horses and arms to the harm of the realm.

+52. If anyone shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below as sureties for the peace. But with regard to all those things of which any one was, by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgement of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: We shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them.

53. We shall have the same respite, moreover, and in the same manner, in the matter of showing justice with regard to forests to be annulled and forests to remain, which Henry our father or Richard our brother constituted; and in the matter of wardships of lands which belong to the fee of another--wardships of which kind we have hitherto enjoyed by reason of the fee which some one held from us in military service;--and in the matter of abbeys founded in the fee of another than ourselves--in which the lord of the fee may say that he has jurisdiction. And when we return, or if we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway exhibit full justice to those complaining with regard to these matters.

54. No one shall be taken or imprisoned on account of the appeal of a woman concerning the death of another than her husband.

+55. All fines imposed by us unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, and all amerciaments made unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be altogether remitted, or it shall be done with regard to them according to the judgment of the twenty five barons mentioned below as sureties for the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of them together with the aforesaid Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and with others whom he may wish to associate with himself for this purpose. And if he can not be present, the affair shall nevertheless proceed without him; in such way that, if one or more of the said twenty five barons shall be concerned in a similar complaint, they shall be removed as to this particular decision, and in their place, for this purpose alone, others shall be substituted who shall be chosen and sworn by the remainder of those twenty five.

56. If we have disseized or dispossessed Welshmen of their lands or liberties or other things without legal judgment of their peers, in England or in Wales,--they shall straightway be restored to them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this, then action shall be taken upon it in the March through judgment of their peers--concerning English holdings according to the law of England, concerning Welsh holdings according to the law of Wales, concerning holdings in the March according to the law of the March. The Welsh shall do likewise with regard to us and our subjects.

57. But with regard to all those things of which any one of the Welsh was, by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgment of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: we shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them, according to the laws of Wales and the aforesaid districts.

58. We shall straightway return the son of Llewelin and all the Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as surety for the peace.

59. We shall act towards Alexander king of the Scots regarding the restoration of his sisters, and his hostages, and his liberties and his lawful right, as we shall act towards our other barons of England; unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William, his father, the former king of the Scots. And this shall be done through judgment of his peers in our court.

60. Moreover all the subjects of our realm, clergy as well as laity, shall, as far as pertains to them, observe, with regard to their vassals, all these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have decreed shall, as far as pertains to us, be observed in our realm with regard to our own.

+61. Inasmuch as for the sake of God, and for the bettering of our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our barons, we have made all these aforesaid concessions,--wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm stability, we make and grant to them the following security: that the barons, namely, may elect at their pleasure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons, with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power,--namely, by taking our castles, lands and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until amends shall have been made according to their judgment. Saving the persons of ourselves, our queen and our children. And when amends shall have been made they shall be in accord with us as they had been previously. And whoever of the land wishes to do so, shall swear that in carrying out all the aforesaid measures he will obey the mandates of the aforesaid twenty five barons, and that, with them, he will oppress us to the extent of his power. And, to any one who wishes to do so, we publicly and freely give permission to swear; and we will never prevent any one from swearing. Moreover, all those in the land who shall be unwilling, themselves and of their own accord, to swear to the twenty five barons as to distraining and oppressing us with them: such ones we shall make to swear by our mandate, as has been said. And if any one of the twenty five barons shall die, or leave the country, or in any other way be prevented from carrying out the aforesaid measures,--the remainder of the aforesaid twenty five barons shall choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Moreover, in all things entrusted to those twenty five barons to be carried out, if those twenty five shall be present and chance to disagree among themselves with regard to some matter, or if some of them, having been summoned, shall be unwilling or unable to be present: that which the majority of those present shall decide or decree shall be considered binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had consented to it. And the aforesaid twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the foregoing, and will cause them to be observed to the extent of their power. And we shall obtain nothing from any one, either through ourselves or through another, by which any of those concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, it shall be vain and invalid, and we shall never make use of it either through ourselves or through another.

62. And we have fully remitted to all, and pardoned, all the ill-will, anger and rancour which have arisen between us and our subjects, clergy and laity, from the time of the struggle. Moreover we have fully remitted to all, clergy and laity, and--as far as pertains to us--have pardoned fully all the transgressions committed, on the occasion of that same struggle, from Easter of the sixteenth year of our reign until the re-establishment of peace. In witness of which moreover, we have caused to be drawn up for them letters patent of lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, and the aforesaid bishops and master Pandulf, regarding that surety and the aforesaid concessions.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly decree that the English church shall be free, and that the subjects of our realm shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions, duly and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and entirely, for themselves and their heirs, from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places, forever, as has been said. Moreover it has been sworn, on our part as well as on the part of the barons, that all these above mentioned provisions shall be observed with good faith and without evil intent. The witnesses being the above mentioned and many others. Given through our hand, in the plain called Runnimede between Windsor and Stanes, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

* King John's accession was on May 27, 1199, and he reigned for 18 years. Magna Carta was signed June 15, 1215 (17th year of his reign).

Henry III's ascension was October 28, 1216. He reigned for 57 years. The Charter of the Forest was issued in 1217 as a supplement to Magna Carta. It was confirmed by him in 1225. Some of the provisions omitted in the reissues of Magna Carta which relate to forest matters appeared in the Charter of the Forest.

Edward I's ascension was on November 20, 1272. He reigned for 35 years and reaffirmed Magna Carta October 10, 1297 (25th year of his reign)

"+" Article numbers marked with a "+" are recommended for beginning students of the Magna Carta. They deal with individual rights. Study the entire Magna Carta, but get as thorough an understanding as you can of the "+" marked Articles.

Go to Magna Carta Interpretation: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magnai.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interpretation of Magna Carta and Confirmatio Cartarum.

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM
1297
(PARTIAL INTERPRETATION)
ARTICLE MEANING

1 The Magna Carta must be accepted as the common law by government..

2 The Magna Carta is the supreme law. All other contrary law and judgments are void.

5 Voluntary taxes cannot be made permanent.

MAGNA CARTA
1215
(PARTIAL INTERPRETATION)

* 20. A freeman shall only be amerced for a small offence
* according to the measure of that offence. And for a great
* offence he shall be amerced according to the magnitude of the
* offence, saving his contenement; and a merchant, in the same way,
* saving his merchandize. And a villein, in the same way, if he
* fall under our mercy, shall be amerced saving his wainnage. And
* none of the aforesaid fines shall be imposed save upon oath of
* upright men from the neighbourhood.

The fine shall be proportional to the offense, and shall only be imposed upon testimony of non-government men.

* 21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced save through
* their peers, and only according to the measure of the offence.

Fines likewise proportional to the offense for the bottom two ranks of the greater nobility. A peer is a member of the peerage, i.e. a member of the nobility.

* 24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of
* ours shall hold the pleas of our crown.

No member of government may make a complaint against any individual. To "...hold the pleas of our crown" means to "...sue in the name of the king," or, in America, to "...sue in the name of the sovereign people," e.g. THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA VS A.B.

* 28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the
* corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give
* money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the
* will of the seller.

Rule of eminent domain also applies to personal property, which must be paid for when taken.

* 30. No sheriff nor bailiff of ours, nor any one else, shall
* take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport, unless by
* the will of that freeman.

No one may take your car without your permission. (However, if your car has a license plate, it is owned by the issuer of that license plate, and can be taken back anytime by that true owner). If your car is licensed, that is proof that it does not belong to you.

* 31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take another's wood
* for castles or for other private uses, unless by the will of him
* to whom the wood belongs.

Rule of eminent domain does not apply to privately owned wood.

* 34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not
* be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to
* lose his court.

"Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the kings court in such a way that the nobleman would deprived of his own court.

* 36. Henceforth nothing shall be given or taken for a writ
* of inquest in a matter concerning life or limb; but it shall be
* conceded gratis, and shall not be denied.

All prosecutions by the government are free, if the prosecution involves the taking away the life or limb (liberty, rights) of the defendant.

* 38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall
* henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful
* witnesses in evidence.

No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then be must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not faithful witnesses.

* 39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized,
* or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon
* or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by
* the law of the land.

One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron).

* 40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or
* justice.

Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution.

* 45. We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or
* bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and
* are minded to observe it rightly.

Key officials must be knowledgeable about the law, and willing to obey it. If the sheriff takes his direction from the county counsel, then he must quit his job. In Orange County, California, a jury found that the sheriff intentionally disregarded the law and was unwilling to obey the law when he took extraordinary action to prevent two opposing candidates from winning his office. Despite that, he did not resign his position. To date, no one has sued to put him out of office. In 1996 he chose to not run for office.

* 52. If anyone shall have been disseized by us, or removed,
* without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles,
* liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to
* him. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it
* shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five
* barons who are mentioned below as sureties for the peace. But
* with regard to all those things of which any one was, by king
* Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or
* dispossessed without legal judgement of his peers, which we have
* in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give
* a guarantee: We shall have respite until the common term for
* crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea
* was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the
* cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance,
* we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show
* full justice regarding them.

The civil grand jury is the surety of the peace. Any problems with government must be resolved by the grand jury. The civil grand jury has the last word--no appeal.

* 55. All fines imposed by us unjustly and contrary to the
* law of the land, and all amerciaments made unjustly and contrary
* to the law of the land, shall be altogether remitted, or it shall
* be done with regard to them according to the judgment of the
* twenty five barons mentioned below as sureties for the peace, or
* according to the judgment of the majority of them together with
* the aforesaid Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be
* present, and with others whom he may wish to associate with
* himself for this purpose. And if he can not be present, the
* affair shall nevertheless proceed without him; in such way that,
* if one or more of the said twenty five barons shall be concerned
* in a similar complaint, they shall be removed as to this
* particular decision, and in their place, for this purpose alone,
* others shall be substituted who shall be chosen and sworn by the
* remainder of those twenty five.

Unjust judgments are unlawful, and can be ignored or invalidated by the civil grand jury.

* 60. Moreover all the subjects of our realm, clergy as well
* as laity, shall, as far as pertains to them, observe, with regard
* to their vassals, all these aforesaid customs and liberties which
* we have decreed shall, as far as pertains to us, be observed in
* our realm with regard to our own.

Everyone, like the king, is obligated to treat his own subjects according to the Magna Carta.

* 61. Inasmuch as for the sake of God, and for the bettering of
* our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has
* arisen between us and our barons, we have made all these aforesaid
* concessions, -- wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm
* stability, we make and grant to them the following security: that
* the barons, namely, may elect at their pleasure twenty five barons
* from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe,
* maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which
* we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter.
* In such wise, namely, that if we, our justice, or our bailiffs, or
* any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in
* any respect, or shall have broken some one of the articles of
* peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to
* four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall
* come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us
* our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended
* without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being
* abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days
* from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our
* justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the
* remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons,
* with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in
* every way in their power,--namely, by taking our castles, lands
* and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until
* amends shall have been made according to their judgment. Saving
* the persons of ourselves, our queen and our children. And when
* amends shall have been made they shall be in accord with us as
* they had been previously. And whoever of the land wishes to do so,
* shall swear that in carrying out all the aforesaid measures he
* will obey the mandates of the aforesaid twenty five barons, and
* that, with them, he will oppress us to the extent of his power.
* And, to any one who wishes to do so, we publicly and freely give
* permission to swear; and we will never prevent any one from
* swearing. Moreover, all those in the land who shall be unwilling,
* themselves and of their own accord, to swear to the twenty five
* barons as to distraining and oppressing us with them: such ones we
* shall make to swear by our mandate, as has been said. And if any
* one of the twenty five barons shall die, or leave the country, or
* in any other way be prevented from carrying out the aforesaid
* measures,--the remainder of the aforesaid twenty five barons shall
* choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall
* be sworn in the same way as the others. Moreover, in all things
* entrusted to those twenty five barons to be carried out, if those
* twenty five shall be present and chance to disagree among
* themselves with regard to some matter, or if some of them, having
* been summoned, shall be unwilling or unable to be present: that
* which the majority of those present shall decide or decree shall be
* considered binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had
* consented to it. And the aforesaid twenty five shall swear that
* they will faithfully observe all the foregoing, and will cause
* them to be observed to the extent of their power. And we shall
* obtain nothing from any one, either through ourselves or through
* another, by which any of those concessions and liberties may be
* revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been
* obtained, it shall be vain and invalid, and we shall never make
* use of it either through ourselves or through another.

Civil grand jury procedure: self-elect 25 barons of the kingdom. 4 of the 25 go talk to the king and his persons. If that doesn't work within 40 days, the 4 go back to the 25 and the 25 will then correct the problem in any way they see fit. Note that present day American grand juries consist of fewer than 25, and all are paid funds by the government. These are not true grand juries in the tradition of Magna Carta. They are merely advisory grand juries, meaning that the government may lawfully ignore them (though it may be politically risky).

Definitions
Amerce - To impose a fine. Also to publish by fine or penalty.

Assize - A court, usually but not always, consisting of twelve men, summoned together to try a disputed case. They performed the functions of jury, except the verdict was rendered from their own investigation and knowledge and not from upon evidence adduced.

Burage - One of three species of free socage holdings. A tenure where houses and lands formerly the site of houses in an ancient borough are held of some lord by a certain rent.

Chattel - Personal property as opposed to real property. A personal object which can be transported.

Darrein Presentment - Writ of Assize when a man or his ancestors under whom he claimed presented a clerk to a benefice, who was instituted, and afterwards, upon the next avoidance, a stranger presented a clerk and thereby disturbed the real patron.

Distrain - The act of taking as a pledge anothers property to be used as an assurance of performance of an obligation. Also a remedy to ensure a court appearance or payment of fees etc.

Disseise - To dispossess or to deprive.

Escheat - Right of the lord of a fee to re-enter upon the same when it became vacant by the extinction of the blood of the tenant.

Intestate - To die without a will.

Mort d'Ancestor - Real action to recover a person's lands of which he had been deprived on the death of his ancestor by the abatement of intrusion of a stranger.

Novel Disseisin - Writ of Assize for the recovery of lands and tenements.

Peer - One who is a member of the peerage, i.e. the nobility. A jury of your peers is a jury of your nobility. In America everyone is a king without any subjects, so a jury of your peers means a jury of people, the owners of the country (not citizens, who by 14th Amendment constitutional definition, are all publicly owned slaves).

Praecipe - An original writ drawn up in the alternative commanding the defendant to do the thing required. An order to show cause.

Scutage - Tax or contribution raised by someone holding lands by knight's service used to furnish the King's army.

Socage - A species of Tenure where the tenant held lands in consideration of certain inferior services of husbandry by him to the lord of the fee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Additional Options

Bank:
Account name:
BSB:
Account number:
SWIFT BIC Code:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376
ANZBAU3M

PAY PAL

Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au
Additional Options

 

The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES
NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES photo Kindom_zpsa6d24e8a.jpg

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

His-Story/Her-Story (History)
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
2005-2007 - Re-posted July 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8529

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMK7CkU1ih8

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8575

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015
https://youtu.be/hx7qJ7r2OS4

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015
https://youtu.be/b_KuEFdKmnA

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015
https://youtu.be/9pJc1NfnAcI

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015
https://youtu.be/kSVURGwm1Go

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Interviewed By
Jahnick Leaunier, The Tru-Mon Show
24th August 2016
Love For Life - 142 Minutes
https://youtu.be/C5TViw1NLr4

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8577

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOag66v7uo

IMAGE POWER
The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8496

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8499

IMAGE POWER
Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014
http://youtu.be/qFnuuw3kLog
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8501

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian
http://youtu.be/CZVj-ddUoZw
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8500

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8503

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8504

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8505

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8506

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8508

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8510

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 8th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8511

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8509

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8512

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +
His-Story/Her-Story

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8513

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

Falling For Fairy Stories
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 24th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

A Disassociation From The Work
Of Kate of Gaia

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 17th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8517

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8516

Revolution Or Revolution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 25th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8520

Routing Out Psyop Programs
Routs Out Intel Operatives
Exposing Max Igan's Psyop Program

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 31st May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8524

The Psyop Program Scam
Behind Religion Belief Faith
& Associated Opinion

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8525

Another Delusion
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8526

A World Of Words Is A World Of Lies
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
13th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8527

E-MAN
The Name Of The Beast Is MAN

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014
Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8528

E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 13th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8537

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8542

The Psyop Program Behind Free Food
And Permaculture

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
29th October 2014
Facebook Discussion With Unconditional Love Moon
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8544

Head So Strong
Music and Vocals Arthur Cristian
Backing Vocals and Vocal Effects Arthur Cristian & Hannah Wood
Lyrics Fiona and Arthur Cristian
Written during our spare time between Aug & Oct 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4UQCTsqwU

The Time Of Trauma That Destroys Us
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
9th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8547

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
Or
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It

Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tolle
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8548

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8552

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8554

The Void Of E-GO That Is Spiritual Suicide
The Justification Of Laziness
That Perpetuates System Creature Comforts
Ensuring Our Fall

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
13th December 2014
Massive Update Occurred 14th Dec 2014 3.10pm Sydney Aust time
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8556

Darkness Visible Part One A, B, C, D
The Freemasonic World In Plain Sight
Decoding George Washington Lithographs

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
Part One A http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8557
Part One B http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8567
Part One C http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8568
Part One D http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8569

Darkness Visible Part Two
Yin And Yang, Duality, Spiritual Suicide
And Frank O'Collins UCADIA / One Heaven

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8558

Darkness Visible Part Three
How The Word Sausage
Re-Presents The New World Order
Boiling Point & Out To Get Us

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th December 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8560

Darkness Visible Part Four
Aleister Crowley - Thelema - OTO
And The Black Magic Psychedelia Of The Intellect

Facebook Discussion
4th to 10th January 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8561

Darkness Visible Part Five
Living MAN Fiona Cristian's Standing
+ Decoding Judeo/Judaism

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8562

Darkness Visible Part Six
The Many Fingers Of The Hidden Hand Appearing
YouTube Community Flagged A Video
Posted To The ArthurLoveForLife YouTube Channel
As Being "Hate Speech"

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
4th February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8563

Darkness Visible Part Seven
The Full Responsibility For Setting
True Freedom For All Into Motion
In Present-Sense Forevermore

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
10th February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8564

Who We Really Are Does Not End
At The Surface Of Our Skin

Arthur Cristian & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8565

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo

The Rot Parts One, Two, Three
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
5th June 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8571

"The Good Guys" And The "Bad Guys"
Working Together To Bring In
The New World Order

Arthur Cristian - 18th July 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8572

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part One

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8573

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part Two

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8576

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8575

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015
https://youtu.be/hx7qJ7r2OS4

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015
https://youtu.be/b_KuEFdKmnA

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015
https://youtu.be/9pJc1NfnAcI

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015
https://youtu.be/kSVURGwm1Go

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8577

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8578

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System" Part One

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 24th August 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8583

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8585

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying
Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8586

New Love For Life Kindom Facebook Group
Started March 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1434747556816918
Includes 63 Minute
Introduction To Kindom Video
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
and
Facebook Kindom Group Guidelines
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8566
The Love For Life website home-page provides
the bigger-picture background to the themes
touched on in this video: http://loveforlife.com.au

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8470

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8350
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8487

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8468

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8404

REMEDY

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Three
7th March 2016
60 Minutes
https://youtu.be/SH9i8ZStzWI

Love For Life Food Forest & Native Garden March 2016
Extension Of The Love For Life Food Forest And Establishment
Of A New Native Garden At The Front Of The Rental Property
In East Bowral - 24th October 2015 to Mid February 2016.
15 Minutes
https://youtu.be/y-Uz8HmnSIM

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8483

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8414

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email : action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile : 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Snail Mail: PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
Facebook Arthur Cristian : http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian : http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife

Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

Facebook Group Why Aren't We Free Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Group Kindom/Do No Harm Community Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925

Links below will kick in when the professionally recorded Love For Life music is released.

SoundCloud : http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music : http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter : https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music : http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
YouTube Love For Life Music : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian : https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

"The Steps Of Kindom"
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

---------

Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGE

Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
www.loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY SUPPORTS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH - FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

The Cristian Family November 2006

Posted Wednesday 17th June 2009
Updated September 2011

NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies
Has Threatened To Shut Down
The Love For Life Website

No Freedom Of Speech - No Freedom Of Thought

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 6000 documents, articles and videos are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and the earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 articles, documentaries etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: "NSW Supreme Court Case - Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited vs Fiona Cristian - Victims Of Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges" http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 (orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies accused us of being anti - Jewish, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 and http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and the EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate ourselves into groups, dividing ourselves from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures and conditions, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and the earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for themselves, others and the earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and the earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and the Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and the earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction because ALL civilisations that have ever existed are apocalyptic by design.

If we truly want peace on earth and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life Website Homepage also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life Mailing List here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list. We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

The Cristian Family November 2006

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.

Fiona & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
21st July 2014