Last night I attended a presentation hosted by the Commoner Law Group. The speaker was Rick Martin, founder of the Constitutional Law Group. Ostensively, the topic was about his experience with driving for decades without license or registration, highlighting his dealings with traffic cops and the occasional judge who operate a system that seeks to financially exploit us even as they deny us our freedom of movement.
And he has been quite successful: he mentioned three very pricey SUVs along his journey that had been paid for by three different Texas townships that each put him in jail for one night. He also listed 26 judges, more than a couple prosecutors, and a handful of police officers that he has put in jail. As we've been learning, going after the indemnity bonds was a particularly effective part of his wins.
The talk was fascinating and inspiring in itself. At one point he touched on what's in store for state and local officials for the incredible harm wrought by their unlawful COVID mandates. Though an expert in the Constitution and the Common Law, Rick is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, he has committed himself to fighting the tyrants who are bent on removing all individual liberties. And he puts his money where his mouth is.
At one point the Texan let it slip that he was in a hotel in Michigan, and then proceeded to gave us some idea of what he was up to. Remember Marlena Hackne? She is the Michigan refugee from communist Poland who refused to close her Bistro on the say so of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and her health director Robert Gordon.
Martin actually traveled to Holland, MI to help defend her from AG Dana Nessel, and got thrown into jail for 93 days for his trouble. It seems the judge was under the misguided impression that We the People are not allowed to work within our court system unless we are bar licensed attorneys.
Well, that sort of attitude rubs freedom loving people the wrong way. So he came back for round two. It seems that there are now multi-million dollar suits in place against, at a minimum, Whitmere, Nessel, and a state prosecutor. Based on what I know of the Common Law, I would assume the liability involved would be personal.
He did not give any more details, but it started me to thinking. After the first round of draconian lockdown, unlike the most notorious Dem governors, Whitmer did not inflict a second round upon us Michiganders. As the saying goes, things were quiet; too quiet. Maybe these suits explain her loss of interest in inflicting pain. It's also interesting that she has not mentioned COIVD, nor how she saved us all from certain death even once in her recent campaign events.
I'm posting this as a potential win, but also as an example of the path (along with some resources) that patriots might be able to follow to permanently bring down the daemons who have been haunting us for over two years.
In my many years of learning and listening to common law speakers, I've seen them come and go. From the time of Gordon Kahl to the Montana Freemen and later, there have been a plethora of them.
I know driving is an act of commerce and that the right for individual travel to and fro via a motorized vehicle is a non-commerce activity and a Right. I knew someone who won in court for the right to travel using his vehicle. He was not a 'driver'; this is an act of commerce, but rather he piloted his vehicle. Twice he won in court, but the judge refused to rule with prejudice. The police just kept on ticketing him.
There's two undeniable factors that tends to bury the truth under the boot of judicial tyranny. #1. Evil does not play by any rules. The goal posts keep moving. #2. Might makes right. The Bar is wedded to government even though it is not actually part of government. This is the same as the Federal Reserve.
Lawyers are not licensed. This is the big fraud perpetrated by the Bar Association. The Bar Association provides a guild card to those who pass the Bar. It's really no different than an Union card.
All judges and lawyers know there is no justice in the courts. There is only the 'appearance' of justice. Therefore, it is really an act; a theatrical production trying to convince the audience (the Jury) of its performance.
I agree with all you said, and it is daunting to consider. Learning how much we've been duped is traumatizing.
There are many different approaches to working with the law and regaining our rights -- seeing any one of them work is a thrill. I don't know the one to settle on, so continue to search for the holy grail, and to be amazed by each Commoner I discover.
If you want to see for yourself how deep and pervasive the hatred is for a free people having unalienable Rights as recognized by the founding fathers and encoded in the Bill of Rights, look no further than the topic of 'Law Positive' versus Common Law.
Investigating this topic, you'll quickly learn why America is experiencing the Marxist takeover of government. 'Law Positive'; ius positum is a legal ideology based on human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. On the surface, it sounds good, but it's not. Instead, it is pervasive and evil. I'll go into this further, but it will require some background, so please be patient and your eyes will be clearly see.
The concept of 'Law Positive' (or Positive Law) is distinct from 'Natural Law'. Natural Law comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, Nature or reason. Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. In other words, it is based on legal ruling as precedent. This is the reason for the Marxists calling the United States Constitution a 'living' document. That is, a document that is continually edited and updated. The Bill of Rights is not editable nor update-able. It is immutable. So, why have I presented this. Here's why.
It's very unfortunate that most people don't understand what is going on regarding our Constitutional Rights. They can see what is happening, but they don't recognize the prevailing legal theory that has become precedent in the courts across the land.
All the law schools and all the courts in the United States have adopted "Law Positivism" as the guiding law of the land.
In legal theory, Legal Positivism (or Positive Law) is contrary to Natural Law. Our Bill of Rights is based on Natural Law and is being increasingly ignored from the bench. All the graduating lawyers are being brain-washed and indoctrinated to follow Law Positivism. Seldom is Constitutional Law practiced in the courts today. In some cases, and it is becoming more frequent, a judge will brazenly forbid Constitutional arguments altogether.
If you wonder why your Rights are being taken away, it is because of this very reason. It is a well-known historical polemic that the courts provide an "appearance" of justice. Indeed, this concept has long been known and accepted as a principle; ipso facto in the legal profession. Justice has admittedly been revealed to be illusionary for purposes of appeasing the masses.
If the masses ever found out that the courts are all a contrived act there would be rebellion. I know this sounds harsh. However, the courts can only provide the appearance of justice in that justice must be weighed with the known facts.
What does the appearance of justice have to do with your unalienable rights?
Under Natural Law from whence the Bill of Rights was derived, the appearance of justice is based on morality, fact, and truth. It is the closest real justice that can be served. Positive Law is based on rules, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. These are suppose to be imperative components to morality. However, Positive Law is based on the meandering continuum of legal opinions that are rooted in ordinances, statutes, regulations, and rules. These are often government dictates that often have little to no public input. In other words, Truth and Fact need not apply for a conviction.
No one would deny you or I have certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (which derive directly from Natural Law). Yet today, the legal system has adopted the theory of Legal Positivism, which does not recognize you have these unalienable rights. Again, Fact and Truth do not often apply in the dark-robed chambers of today's courts.
In today's world seldom does the appearance of justice actually equate to real justice. Under Legal Positivism, the appearance becomes obvious.
I wonder why none of this is ever taught in government school. Okay, I don't really wonder. You're right that this knowledge would lead to a rebellion.
In my web wanderings I came across a PDF put together by lawyers and judges about how to combat People trying to use the Common Law to assert their rights. Such a perverse system we have allowed to grow under our feet.
The American Bar Association is a subsidiary of the British Bar. The American system of governance has been under attack since the beginning. The missing 13th Amendment was the result of the War of 1812. This Amendment the founding fathers created banned lawyers from elected office of government. Why? It was for the reason the British and king George weaponized the use of lawyers for railroading American colonists. Looking further back in history even Rome banned lawyers from plying their trade on two different occasions to save the Republic.
As the Roman Republic declined and became progressively democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table. Alas, many young men, with more 'ambition than virtue' flocked to the practice of law.
Successful Roman lawyers were skilled in the art of rhetoric. The Greeks invented rhetoric and made a science of it and it became the science of persuasion. The Romans imported many cultural ideals from the Greeks and the rhetoricians were able to establish schools of rhetoric in Rome. Soon, tradition-minded Romans saw these rhetoric schools as a subversive influence an assault on Roman morals and customs. It was because falsehoods could be convincingly argued where every repugnant tactic of deception, evasion, and misrepresentation was used to vilify the opponent for the purpose of winning the argument. To the Romans, it was if Fraus, the two-faced goddess of deception, was released to destroy Rome itself.
Early in the 2nd century BC, Cato, the Censor, once commented after listening to some of these clever Greeks that it was virtually impossible to know what was true and what was not. Cato’s views were not the first commentaries to be uttered about the rhetoricians. Two centuries before, Plato had referred to them as notorious for "making the worse appear the better cause." In 161 BC, the Roman Senate ordered all of these Greek schools of rhetoric closed and their teachers expelled from Rome.
Alas, that provided only a momentary halt to the problem. The rhetoricians and the lawyers soon surfaced in greater forces than ever. Once again, the valorous Roman censors, who were Rome's official guardians of public morality, ordered all the rhetoric schools closed in 92 BC. However, this latest cure was insufficient for stopping the cancer. All the attempts to save the Roman republic were worthy, but futile acts that ultimately had no effect in stopping Rome’s fall. The lawyers fed upon and exasperated the downward plunge of Roman civilization. Just as they are doing now.