Common Law knowledge is spreading...

[Tower]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

To Towers' credit..............I myself have seen article examples of people who have challenged income tax laws in the U.S. and have been successful. I don't know if it would be worth it for the average Joe however, and I don't know if that success would translate in Canada.

I think there was another example in one of the Zeitgeist movies where a guy went to court to challenge the bank wanting to forelcose his mortgage. He won the case because he was aware of our fraudulent monetary system.....he knew that the money put up for his house by the bank did not really exist....or something to that effect.

Anyways.........I dont know jack about common law really.

It is because you can not pay a promise to pay note (our money system/legal tender) with a promise to pay note. Nothing was given from the bank of real value to which the man can to pay back... Except a promise to pay.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I'm not saying you're lying, and I'm sure those garbage movies do have something like this in them. but it is complete bunk. The fact is that the bank can prove that it issued a check for the amount of security claimed and that it could meet that obligation at that time. That is clearly the case because the seller would have been able to convert that cheque into hard currency with their financial institution. Therefore, the bank did give consideration for the security it was claiming and had the right to enforce its mortgage against the property.

The real reason I was responding to this thread though, was to confirm anecdotally that Tower is right about this lunacy spreading. I was at Court the other day on a couple of my real estate files and overheard a couple of other lawyers cracking jokes about a guy they had just seen in chambers that morning spouting off crap about being a freeman and not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction and the extremely direct and dismissive reply givwen by the judge or master. First time I've run into this garbage in RL.

So common Law is spreading.... You'll start seeing it a lot more.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Tower

So common Law is spreading.... You'll start seeing it a lot more.

Do you know what the common law is?

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by Tower

So common Law is spreading.... You'll start seeing it a lot more.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what common law is.

[Rerun]

Every time I read one of Tower's posts in this thread I get this weird feeling that he belongs to some religious cult that is trying to recruit more new members.

Maybe its just me... but his language and responses sound so programmed and rehearsed.... just like cult members when they are trying to sell their 'religion". He sounds like he is saying a lot but when you look at it closely he really isn't saying anything at all. .... just gobblygoook .

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

So common Law is spreading.... You'll start seeing it a lot more.

Ahh, so an example of how some ###### tried to get around something in court that was quickly dismissed by the court is an example of how this is spreading?

Spreading? Maybe.
Working? Not at all.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

It is because you can not pay a promise to pay note (our money system/legal tender) with a promise to pay note. Nothing was given from the bank of real value to which the man can to pay back... Except a promise to pay.

Well someone paid the seller of the house with real money, so that's a bunch of bunk.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I'm not saying you're lying, and I'm sure those garbage movies do have something like this in them. but it is complete bunk. The fact is that the bank can prove that it issued a check for the amount of security claimed and that it could meet that obligation at that time. That is clearly the case because the seller would have been able to convert that cheque into hard currency with their financial institution. Therefore, the bank did give consideration for the security it was claiming and had the right to enforce its mortgage against the property.

The real reason I was responding to this thread though, was to confirm anecdotally that Tower is right about this lunacy spreading. I was at Court the other day on a couple of my real estate files and overheard a couple of other lawyers cracking jokes about a guy they had just seen in chambers that morning spouting off crap about being a freeman and not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction and the extremely direct and dismissive reply givwen by the judge or master. First time I've run into this garbage in RL.

Okay it may be bunk to you but the guy won the case and got possession of his house back.........how do you explain that?
It was not a dispute between new owner/old owner, it was over the bank trying to foreclose his home.....

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Okay it may be bunk to you but the guy won the case and got possession of his house back.........how do you explain that?
It was not a dispute between new owner/old owner, it was over the bank trying to foreclose his home.....

Link?

2nd request

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well someone paid the seller of the house with real money, so that's a bunch of bunk.

I can't find anything from a truly reliable source about this mortgage case through Google. But the movie centers around a 1969 foreclosure case where a lawyer named Jerome Daly fought his 14,000 foreclosure by calling his bank manager to the stand where the bank manager admited that the credit that was given to Daly was created out of thin air via accounting entry so there was no true exchange of value because there should be no ability to create money out of thin air.

The judge in this case agreed that the creation of credit was not constitutional.

the bank tried to appeal and submitted the required appeal payment of $2.00 by submitting 2 American dollar bills, and I guess the judge dismissed the appeal before it got to the courts based on his perception that the two dollar bills were treasury notes and since they were not based on a backed value didn't represent proper payment for the appeal.

At that point the Bank packed it in and moved on.

However I think this was at a justice of the peace level, and wasn't a state or federally tried case so the veracity of its merits has never been tested at higher levels.

Supposedly the judge Martin Mahoney died serveral months later in a boating accident that some of these people believe was a deliberate poisoning by the bank in concert with the government.

Its important to note that this was jury trial and juries are notoriously un sympathetic towards banking institutes.

The appeal denial was very odd based on the judges refusal to hear it due to payment method.

The bank didn't follow through on appeals to the state and federal level, probably because it would have cost them more then the $14,000 value of the mortgage.

I don't know how valid this case was in setting future policies and bank procedures or if mortgage contracts were changed due to it.

http://boards.celebrityloop.com/arch...p/t-44446.html

If anyone cares to review this the documents are here

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/Cr...editRiver.html

Summary here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread383188/pg1

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Link?

2nd request

For christ sake read my post more carefully..........I said it was in the Zeitgeist movie in the finance/banking portion. You want me to link you to my DVD collection?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

For christ sake read my post more carefully..........I said it was in the Zeitgeist movie in the finance/banking portion. You want me to link you to my DVD collection?

You've directly requested another poster to refute this assertion, I think sharing anything resembling details of the case you've declared he needs to refute is pretty standard internet civility.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you know what the common law is?

He certainly does not. Nor does he have the guts to follow through on any of his lack-of-lithium-based ideas.

If we want to go back to common law, does that apply to criminal common law? As someone not that far removed from the bar exam, I can tell you criminal common law is comedic relief during endless weeks of studying (ie. definition of arson, rape, burglary, etc...).

[flylock shox]

I'd be curious to know the average annual cost to the Canadian taxpayer of fighting off ridiculous arguments brought by freemen and their ilk. I have no doubt it is significant.

Their impact upon the collective blood-pressure of Canadian judges is also not to be underestimated.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can't find anything from a truly reliable source about this mortgage case through Google. But the movie centers around a 1969 foreclosure case where a lawyer named Jerome Daly fought his 14,000 foreclosure by calling his bank manager to the stand where the bank manager admited that the credit that was given to Daly was created out of thin air via accounting entry so there was no true exchange of value because there should be no ability to create money out of thin air.

The judge in this case agreed that the creation of credit was not constitutional.

the bank tried to appeal and submitted the required appeal payment of $2.00 by submitting 2 American dollar bills, and I guess the judge dismissed the appeal before it got to the courts based on his perception that the two dollar bills were treasury notes and since they were not based on a backed value didn't represent proper payment for the appeal.

At that point the Bank packed it in and moved on.

However I think this was at a justice of the peace level, and wasn't a state or federally tried case so the veracity of its merits has never been tested at higher levels.

Supposedly the judge Martin Mahoney died serveral months later in a boating accident that some of these people believe was a deliberate poisoning by the bank in concert with the government.

Its important to note that this was jury trial and juries are notoriously un sympathetic towards banking institutes.

The appeal denial was very odd based on the judges refusal to hear it due to payment method.

The bank didn't follow through on appeals to the state and federal level, probably because it would have cost them more then the $14,000 value of the mortgage.

I don't know how valid this case was in setting future policies and bank procedures or if mortgage contracts were changed due to it.

http://boards.celebrityloop.com/arch...p/t-44446.html

If anyone cares to review this the documents are here

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/Cr...editRiver.html

Summary here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread383188/pg1

Nice post, Captain. I was reading through the decision and noticed the url was the same as one that you posted.

Here's a note on wikipedia about the "judge" in that case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Mahoney

He was a Justice of the Peace. The jury found there was no consideration. If this truly was a jury of Daly's peers than you can rest assured they were just as nutty as him. The decision was overturned by other courts and is not good precedent for anything.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

For christ sake read my post more carefully..........I said it was in the Zeitgeist movie in the finance/banking portion. You want me to link you to my DVD collection?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

To Towers' credit..............I myself have seen article examples of people who have challenged income tax laws in the U.S. and have been successful. I don't know if it would be worth it for the average Joe however, and I don't know if that success would translate in Canada.

I think there was another example in one of the Zeitgeist movies where a guy went to court to challenge the bank wanting to forelcose his mortgage. He won the case because he was aware of our fraudulent monetary system.....he knew that the money put up for his house by the bank did not really exist....or something to that effect.

Please find me the "article examples" that isn't from one of the Zeitgeist movies where this was successful in the US.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You've directly requested another poster to refute this assertion, I think sharing anything resembling details of the case you've declared he needs to refute is pretty standard internet civility.

Well..........even though work is not too busy at the moment I cannot just go home and watch a movie to write down some names/dates for you. Although CaptainCrunch may be talking about the same one.....

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Please find me the "article examples" that isn't from one of the Zeitgeist movies where this was successful in the US.

That would require him to keep track of stuff, look into stuff, and form intelligent opinions from a variety of sources.

That's not covered in the videos he watches and regurgitates.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

well..........even though work is not too busy at the moment i cannot just go home and watch a movie to write down some names/dates for you. Although captaincrunch may be talking about the same one.....

you fail! Go away!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well..........even though work is not too busy at the moment I cannot just go home and watch a movie to write down some names/dates for you. Although CaptainCrunch may be talking about the same one.....

Captain found, summarized, and opined on the details before you even finished your incredulous opposition to being asked to post them.