ITS NOT CONTRACT LAW, ITS COMMON LAW.
HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN THE BASIC NEED FOR PROOF AND EVIDENCE. FUNDAMENTAL OF LAW.
SAME WAY BANKS CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS YET RECOUP THE FULL VALUE ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.
SO IF THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW THEY OPEN THE FLOODGATES.
SIMILARLY IF A JUDGE THROWS OUT YOUR REQUEST FOR PROOF, YOU HAVE AN OPEN AND SHUT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW.
GL
No, it is not Common Law, it is ALL contract. These are not courts of common law. Who cares if you have an appeal? You will run out of money before the banks do. They will win because in case you have not seen it for yourself-
THE BANKS OWN THIS NATION!
Common Law is where the Sovereign MAKES the law for the case. As a Sovereign, there is no appeal, because the PEOPLE end the case with the ruleing. No court thereafter can even hear the case, it is over.
The Judges are bought and paid for. You grant them jurisdiction and they own you.
Quoting: free man 700647I hear what your saying ..
But remember Contract is a part of common law ..
A "Court" is a republican institution where affairs are administered ..
There are no "judges" in america ..
You can recuse any of them by getting teir BAR registration number..
You can also recuse the Clerk very easily .. making you the COURT.
Its not a wooden room in the middle of the city .. those are administrative...
If you can prove you have a birth right to the original estate ... than you are the court ..
You are the power which all the Government were created ... and never gave up your own
