Right to Travel Affidavit

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Right to Travel Affidavit

The following is an example of a Right to Travel Affidavit. The downloadable templates are at the bottom of this post. Some of you may recognize it from an affidavit that was submitted to Texas, but with some references to citizenship removed. Remember, people own government, government owns citizens. There is no such things as a sovereign citizen or master slave. You are either the master or the slave. Pick one and stick to it.

Once you personalize the Right to Travel affidavit, you need to record it with your local county court clerk. Get two certified copies. One is for your records and one is to serve on the state's Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner. A certified copy is the government's equivalence of an affidavit. There are a couple of modifications that you can do as well. You can take out the section regarding the demand for the manufacturers source of original certificate (MSO) which is the allodial title to your automobile. But then, so long as the state retains it, the state owns your automobile even though the state contributed nothing to its purchase.

You will also want to take out the comment about holding a driver's license for your convenience if you intend to drop it altogether. Some people choose to keep one due to the ignorance of so many business owners who demand that we show them a driver's license. Also, if you frequent places like casinos, you will need a form of "government issued identification". So if you desire to drop your drivers license altogether, removed the sentence,

Let it be known, heretofore, as the holder of a “driver's license” I do not waive any of my inalienable and natural rights but hold a driver's license for my own convenience.

and change it to,

Let it be known, heretofore, that I will not renew the "driver's license" at the end of the term designated on said "driver's license".

or if you plan to turn the driver's license in to end it's use immediately,

Let it be known, heretofore, I am returning the "driver's license" issue by the state and will no longer require it's use, even though said use was strictly for my convenience.

Once you get the gist of the affidavit, you can customize it for your needs. Just remember, this only works if you are NOT claiming to be a citizen. If you do not know why, go read the linked article again.


John S. Doe

c/o 1234 Elm Street

Somewhere, Louisiana [76543]




State Of Louisiana ]

Parish of Somewhere ]

To Respondent:








KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, John Doe, one of the people of Louisiana and the united states of America, on this day, according to the common law, and upon my oath and states as ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE:

I, John S. Doe, one of the people of Louisiana, learned that a driver’s license from the STATE OF LOUISIANA automatically canceled my organic and inalienable rights. I do not operate a vehicle on the public highways for commercial purposes. When I obtained a driver's license from the STATE OF LOUISIANA, I did not knowingly or willingly contract with the STATE OF LOUISIANA commercially.

Therefore, I hereby revoke any and all contracts with the State of Louisiana which infringes upon my inalienable and natural rights.

I have extensively researched the organic laws of the united states of America, including over two hundred years of case law, and now I can confirm the security of my inalienable RIGHTS and UNREGULATED RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon the public walkways and highways, roadways, trails, paths, or any other corridor intended to the free movement, travel, or conveyance of people and their allodial chattel and guests, unhindered by ANY private, corporate, or statute, or Department of Motor Vehicles regulation or so called requirement. This inalienable right is guaranteed by the 9th and 10th amendments of the organic Constitution of the united states of America (1789) and Bill of Rights (1791) and upheld by many court decisions in support of those rights. I now RESERVE, ASSERT, and DEFEND all of my natural rights.

THIS AFFIDAVIT constitutes a constructive filing, administrative notice, and an evidentiary document submitted upon demand of a drivers’ license, registration and/or proof of insurance and as part of the record of ANY ensuing action and will be entered as evidence of said action.

I, John Doe, trustor and beneficiary of JOHN SMITH DOE, a.k.a. JOHN S. DOE, a.k.a. JOHN DOE, attest and affirm that I do not utilize the public walkways and highways, roadways, trails, paths, or any other corridor for commercial purposes. I am NOT a 14th amendment “person” or citizen engaged in interstate commerce, nor am I compensated for the transport of goods or persons. I am NOT a “driver”, nor am I an “operator” of a “motor vehicle”. The driver's license is for “drivers” involved in the “transport of goods and persons” only. The driver's license is for the driver or operator of a “motor vehicle” used in the transport of goods and persons only. My private conveyance/carriage is NOT used in commerce. Therefore it is NOT a “motor vehicle”. The corporate STATE OF LOUISIANA, Department of Motor Vehicles code1, which is not law, does not disclose the true meaning of the statutes, but a “motor vehicle” is clearly defined in the United States Code2.

Let it be known, heretofore, as the holder of a “driver's license” I do not waive any of my inalienable and natural rights but hold a driver's license for my own convenience.

I am not effectively connected with a trade or business in the corporate monopoly of the United States, whether federal, state, county, parish, or municipal. I am NOT a resident, U.S. citizen, or U.S. person of the United States subject to the jurisdiction therein. I am one of the people that represent the popular sovereignty. I am domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction to both the federal and state governments.

Let this affidavit also serve as notice that the STATE OF LOUISIANA did not participate in the purchase of the private conveyances for which they confiscated the allodial title known as the Manufacturer's Source of Origin or MSO. The state had no right or authority to confiscate said allodial title and I, John S. Doe, expect said titles to be returned within 60 days if this notice.

Therefore, I have determined and hereby affirm and under oath, by virtue of my sovereignty as one of the people of Louisiana and the united states of America, and case law supporting said determination, that I am NOT required to have permission from either the government or the government's corporation's to travel, NOT required to have a “driver's license” and NOT required to register my private conveyance or any other property or chattel, nor to surrender the allodial title to any state as security against government indebtedness and the undeclared bankruptcies (1930, 1938). ANY legislative rule, regulation or statutory act, of ANY state legislature or judicial tribunal, to the contrary is NULL and VOID.

American case law has clearly adjudicated that....

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making which would abrogate them.”

Miranda v. Arizona 284 U.S.

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489

For a crime to exist there must be an injured party.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of his constitutional rights.”

Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945

ANY action involving a citation or ticket issued confiscation, impoundment or search and seizure of my private property by a police officer, or ANY other public servant or employee that carries a fine
or jail sentence is a penalty or sanction, thus converting a right into a crime. ANY citation or ticket is thus NULL and VOID. Under every circumstance without exception, government officials must hold
the Constitution for the united states of America 1789 supreme over ANY other laws, regulations or orders. Every police (executive) officer or judicial officer has sworn an oath3 to protect the lives, property and rights of the people of the united states of America under the supreme law of the land. ANY act to deprive any of the people of their natural rights or constitutional rights is a direct violation of their oath of office, a felony and federal crime. Title 18 (criminal code)

ANY action by a police (executive) officer, officer of the court, public servant or government official to assert unlawful authority under the "color of law" will
be construed as a direct and willful violation of my constitutionally protected rights, and with violation and/or harm in any way to me will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of American law4

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 242]

Pursuant to Title 28 USC §1746 (1) and executed "without the United States", I affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united states of America that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my belief and informed knowledge.

As knowledge is ever expanding the deponent may amend this document at any time.

And Further deponent saith not.


Failure to respond within 30 days constitutes agreement.


Signed and sealed this 15th day of September, 2014 under penalties of perjury by affiance.







SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO before us: this 15th day of September, 2014, Some Parish, Louisiana.



Witness, John Smith



Witness, Jane Smith

1 Code – noun, a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., especially for the purposes of secrecy.

Verb, convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning.

218 U.S. Code § 31 – Definitions (a) (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

3The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. U.S. Constitution Article 6 Clause 3

4"Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading rights."

AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F2d 137 t.

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Right to travel

Dear Mr.Hamilton 

          I was wondering if you could help me out with my cases I challenge the judges jurisdiction and he proceed to convict of driving with no license after I stated I was traveling and I wasn't a corporate entity. I was jailed for 3 weeks, I'm still reading and doing my HW about the steps of filing a federal lawsuit, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction ? 

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
I can always help

I can help you with your case. Three weeks in jail after you objected to the jurisdiction is worth a minimum of $50,000 per day. The judge is required to prove jurisdiction and he does not have it.

Your claim should include your state, your county, the judge, the police officer who cited you and anyone else who participated in your imprisonment. Start a topic in the member forum. It should be titled, your name v your state. Once I get caught up on a few things, we can discuss the process.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Thank you very much

Thank you Mr.Hamilton for helping me. I couldn't find the member forum to post my case so I posted it "Right to travel Mallqui Vs. New jersey" in the Forum topics. Im not new to this and i have done my homework. Im aware of the different language they speak "legalese", im very well aware of the corporate entity and how they work in admiralty jurisdiction and not common law. They can not deal with real people but got the public fooled.  I wish to aid in your mission of awakening and helping the people to be able to stand up for themselves in court in any shape or form possible. Thanks again Mr.Hamilton

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

CorbanTheMan CorbanTheMan's picture
I don't recommend inalienable

I don't recommend inalienable. I would use unalienable... Inalienable is not the same as unalienable.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
I use neither alienable

I do not use either of these words. Whenever I feel a need, I keep it simple. They are natural rights. Except for the lien. The object is to use what is in the Constitution

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

ronvrooman38@gm... ronvrooman38@gmail.com's picture

I am open to learn, I have looked up in and un and the difference if one is being lawful is negligible. So, why natural rights?

I have stated inalienable rights guaranteed by our founding documents circa 1819 through 1860-61. I would be happy to correct his with natural, provided an explaination.

Phish Phish's picture
Right to Travel

This is one of the best videos on right to travel. https://youtu.be/AcUb5RzdBvo

Robyn Lansford

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
He is just quoting case law

We are in the process of vetting many of the case cites used in the video. We will be adding them to the aw of the case exhibit that is included with every case that we file. But it is a good video.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
People are natural

Human beings, or people, are natural not to be confused with fictitious persons. Also, "civil" rights, as you probably already know judging by your use of unalienable, are not rights at all. Since the term "natural persons" is used in law to differential between not natural persons, which is most of them, I just use the term "natural rights". As a matter of fact, I rarely use the term "constitutional rights" since a people is above the constitution and do not depend on the constitution to defend his rights. He is the sovereign and as such, his will is his rights.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

AmericanQueen AmericanQueen's picture

HUMAN BEING From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man ". A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction --that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior "animal" man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century--to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as "humans" --therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince people they've been fooled." ~ Mark Twain

Is this good

I added to your travel affidavit can you tell me if this is good? judge Hamilton, If so, anybody can use it as a template and if you can let me no if it need some work .

Thanks al

File Attachments: 
M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
I would not do it

I do not ascribe to the fee schedule. I would not want to limit myself in seeking remedy. Also, I do not ascribe to the hokey way of submitting my autograph. Look at the founding documents The Declaration of Independence and Constitution for the United States of America. We proceeded according to the common law back then and none of the founding members autographed their signature that way. As such, in my view, those who do this are not presenting themselves in a "normal" fashion. Note presenting oneself in a "normal" fashion makes one look kookie. Our purpose when we go to court is to prove to the rest of the world that we are right. We have to appear as "normal" as possible for other to take us seriously. SWo no matter how legitimate some of the tactics are, we want to stick to what is "normal" for our day and age without giving up our freedoms. Anyone who reads my name as Michael R. Hamilton already know that Hamilton is my family name. I do not have to spell out, michael-randolph: hamilton to inform people that my middle name is Randolph and my family name is Hamilton. They already can tell that by reading Michael R. Hamilton. Since I am the sovereign, I do not have to spell my name anyway other than how I so choose to do so, and my choice is to look as "normal" as possible so that other will help to enforce my orders in my courts of record.

That brings me to another point. You added that you were "making this a court of record". This is an affidavit, not an action in court. It merely serves as notice to those you intend to notify. If they do not respond, it means they agree and then you can file an action in a court of record, should those who you intended to notify continue an attacks against you.

I do not need to reserve my right to counsel, because I have yet to find one that knows what I know about common law that I have not already learned from. That does not mean that I know everything, because I most assuredly do not. I learn everyday of my life, because I make it a point to do so.

As a matter of fact, I have been intending to update this document to make it more common law. I have learned a bit since I wrote this and it needs to be updated. The only use that we have for statutes, which do not apply to people, is to point out what the corporation's employees are supposed to be doing or not doing.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

oops i sent it already

Hi judge

well i sent it to marshal Haywood already, but it did say i can amend it too, but i don't no if its possible and if she sent it to the county already what could I do

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
I would not worry about it

So long as you are the sovereign of your court, it makes no difference.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

17 yr old felony

i have a felony from over 17 years ago , where there is no injured party , no property damage. The witness and victim was the state, I went to jail for 6 months and 9.5 yrs on probation . But I'm still paying for it all these years later ,I sent the information to judge Haywood , an have tried to get her help , can I forward the info to your email or to you alone , it's of a personal nature .  I now know who I am , the natural man , with born rights . Would like to talk , if there is anything you can do to help

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Email me again

If you sent me your email, I am not sure I got it. Much of my email goes to junk and get deleted unless I know to go look for it. Send it again. I will look for the email address you have used here.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

17 year felony

here is a statement of facts , I sent this same information to marshal Haywood, 

17 yr felony

let me know if you got this , I sent an attachment to my reply , or do you have another email that I could send it to , or you could drop me a reply at pertender199@aol.com and I can attach it to your message and send it back , above you stated $50,000 per day for the gentleman that spent 3 weeks in jail, hope that's the case here, as there is no statute of limitation on fraud correct ?

17 year felony

tried to add it as an attachment , hope it comes over

Guess not

Guess not

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Well, you gave me a chuckle

Well, pertender199 you did succeed at giving me a chuckle. If you are going to be posting something about a personal case, I would consider it a favor if you start you thread.

You might also find it easier if you follow these instructions.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

emissarykingdom emissarykingdom's picture
How To Do A Court Of Record/Counter Claim

Hi, Can you give a small detail sample of How To Do A Court Of Record/Counter Claim, thanks



M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
courts of record

Comes now Michael Hamilton, a people of Louisiana of sound mind in this court of record and complains of;

Then it is up to you to assure it proceeds according to common law. If the judge makes a decision, you must overturn his decision and enter yours.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

yup just checked and the file

yup just checked and the file is 15.25mb , so it's to large to upload. , so does that mean that you can't help me ?

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
It means you have to reduce the size of the file

You have to reduce the size of the file. If it a pdf, you can print it to file again and reduce the resolution. Usually the resolution us set to 1200 or 600 dpi. Reduce it to 144 dpi and that will make it much smaller. However, you should start a new thread for your topic if you are uploading docs.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Judge Hamilton , I just sent

Judge Hamilton , I just sent over my statement of events as a reply to the message that your site sent me about trouble with my account , hopefully it will come over and you can look it over and give me your input, thanks you for any and all help that you provide   

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Email it to me

Email it to michael at this domain.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

This thread makes a serious mistake

This thread makes a serious mistake.  It confuses the "Right to Travel" with the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads; there is a clear distinction.  The right to travel is simply the right to begin at point A and arrive at point B, without regard to the method of conveyance.  This right has been much recited, for example, in cases involving the right to a passport (such as Kent v. Dulles), or in cases involving special waiting times or other impositions on newcomers to a jurisdiction.  The courts have held that the right to travel is not impaired simply because the person traveling may be somewhat limited in his choices of transportation (he might not, for example, be able to arrive in town on an enormous parade float pulled by a team of ten horses).

The right to travel is very much distinct from the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road.  A motor vehicle in motion is recognized as a potentially dangerous instrumentality, and its operation requires a degree of skill and competency deserving of regulation for public safety.  For that reason, the operation of motor vehicles on public roads is limited to persons who have obtained a driver's license.  Anyone may be a passenger, but only someone with a valid current driver's license can operate a vehicle on the public roads.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently upheld the authority - indeed, the responsibility - of states to limit the operation of motor vehicles on the public roads to licensed motorists -- regardless of whether they are paid to drive or doing it for their own amusement: Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610; Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 US 160; Reitz v. Mealey (1941) 314 US 33; Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535 (State can also require motorists to be insured); Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001) 532 US 1260 (this case involved a soccer mom driving her kids home from practice, about as non-commercial a situation as you could imagine).

No court decision, at least since 1916, has invalidated the requirement for a driver's license.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
But define a "motor vehicle"

A motor vehicle is defined as a conveyance used for the commercial transport of goods and or passengers on public roadway or highways. A driver is one who operates a motor vehicle. The easiest way to comprehend this is this.

If you own a construction company and you have a bulldozer that you move from one construction site to the next, and you own the flat bed truck that is used to move the bulldozer from one location to the next, that truck is not a motor vehicle. However, if you have to pay someone else to use his truck to move your bulldozer from one location to the next, that truck is a motor vehicle. Oh and a driver is one who operates a motor vehicle. So when you are driving your car to the grocery you are traveling, not driving, because you are not being paid to move passengers or goods on public roadways.

There is another fallacy with your argument.

WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)

So you see, while statutes apply to "persons" the term persons does not refer to people. Have you ever wondered why you never see the term "people" in a statute? It is because the courts have repeatedly held that people are sovereign.

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

As you will see, it is not enough to read some case law and think it applies to everyone. You have to know what the definitions of words used in the case cite mean. The argument you use falls on deaf ears of the people I know that rescinded there "drivers license" over 15 years ago and judges do not want too see them in court, because they might teach the sheeple in the court something tt interferes with the corporation's gravy train.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Inherently untrue

On a state basis, in almost every state, there is statutory provisions in the motor vehicle code that states that any highway, street, way, place, etc.. maintained by the state or a subdivision of the state is open to the use of the public as a MATTER OF RIGHT for the purpose of VEHICULAR TRAVEL. (Emphasis added) here in michigan, this can be found buried in MCL 207.211(k) the motor carrier fuel tax act. Regardless of where it is found, it specifically states it is a right to use public roads for the purpose of vehicular travel. Clearly articulating it is a right to travel in your private conveyance. If it's a right, it's not a privilege, thus, eliminating the requirement for a license a.k.a. permission from an employee. This not only means the state acknowledges the difference between driving and travelling but as well acknowledges the difference between a motor vehicle and a vehicle. Thus the state recognizes that the people have the right to travel in their private property on public property so long as they're not making the public property their place of business. Pretty simple really. 

The definition you are using for "motor vehicle"

... from 18 U.S.C. § 31 is from a 1956 Act specifically dealing with airplane sabotage (and expanded to include sabotage of commercial transport such as buses and moving vans) and the definition begins with the words that it applies to this particular act (in the US Code, to this particular chapter), not necessarily to others.  Attempts to use this definition in traffic court have been unavailing; Halajian v. D&B Towing (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 646; and several cases published only on internet services such as Lexis and Westlaw.   A more sensible definition (that is not limited to commercial uses or to carrying passengers and cargo) is found in 18 USC § 2311, which deals with auto theft.  More to the point, the vehicular laws of every state contain their own definition of a motor vehicle, which do not confine the meaning to commercial uses.  

Your cited cases are not on point.  Flournoy did not say that statutes are not law; it said that statutes that have been held to be unconstitutional are not law - there is a difference.  Self v. Rhay (377 P.2d 885; 1963) did not say that a Code is not law - it dealt with a very recondite question arising from a peculiar provision in the State Constitution requiring that amending acts must set forth the text of the act being amended, and the legislature having instead adopted the easier method of referencing the section number of the act's appearance in the State Code (the Court allowed this practice altho it appears to violate the terms of the State Constitution).  There are, in fact, other cases that would hold that the Code text is only prima facie evidence of the law and may be challenged by resorting to the underlying statutes.  The Koenig case depended on the peculiarity of that state legislature's practice that joint resolutions were neither signed nor vetoed by the Governor and did not become law -- Congressional practice is somewhat different. And so forth.

Your purported quotation from a "Rodriques v, Donavan" decision cannot be found,


and your other citations do not follow a consistent style.  But keep trying.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Fortinbras you are right

I addressed this in another thread. But that whole cluster of citations I included in the above post I went to vet myself tonight and you are right. They are bogus. I stand corrected. Howeer, it does not negate the fact that the Constitution for the United States of America does, in fact, guarantee the common law and under common law, there are no statutes.

We are also guaranteed at Article 4 Section four a republican form of government, which means that government must get our individual consent before it can hold us to the code and if we do not consent, we cannot be required to do so.

So we are back at the same point. You have proven me wrong on some cae cites that I trusted, and unusual thing for me. You are good at research. We have people good at research, too.

Now that that is over, let discuss the question of sovereignty and common law, shall we? Oh, and just so you know, as the sovereign of the court, I can decree anything I so desire to be the law of my case even if it is that set of false citation. That is how the IRS beats people in court. Tax court is a court of record, which means it proceeds according to common law. the IRS presents itself as the sovereign of the court and decrees its own law. That is why Irwin Schiff was not permitted to bring Supreme Court cases or federal statutes into the court. The law was what the IRS decreed. He should ahve filed a counterclaim to challenge jurisdiicton, but want to prove his way was the right way. He got 13 years in prison for his trouble.

You should know that no attorney has ever been able to overcome our arguments nor has a single one ever been able to prove that our orders were invalid even though we give them 30 days to provide just cause. Why do you think that to be the case?

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

The Constitution does not

The Constitution does not "guarantee the common law".  If it did, then it would not have set up the Congress and empowered it to enact legislation.  Legislation replaces the common law.  

I have no  idea why you think a republican form of government requires "our individual consent".  It requires majority consent, as expressed by elections.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Try again fortinbras

You have missed again. A republican form of government requires "the consent of the governed" What it difficult about that. You are confusing a democracy with a republic. A vote is not what determines a democracy or republic. It is the result of the vote. In a democracy, the result of the vote becomes mandatory. In a republic it is merely a suggestion, because the "consent of the governed" is required.

The law of the land at the signing was the common law. That is one reason that the Constitution differentiated in "law and equity". None of the founding father thought a need to specifically exclude the admiralty, because it was common knowledge that that was strictly the law of the sea. Any moron back then knew the difference between common law and admiralty.

The specific definition of a court of record includes;

A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [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][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]


Proceeding according to the course of common law [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][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]


Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).

And the judgment of a court of record cannot even be repealed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

“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)] 

So you say we do not have common law, but when people file their actions in a court of record, most judges once presented with the correct documentation honor that fact that it is a court of record and do not interfere. So while you claim that we do not have common law, most judges, at least on the federal level where they are more honorable and knowledgeable, respect the fact that it is a court of record and do not interfere with the proceedings.

You cannot come into a forum and tell someone who has had an experience, that he did not have the experience. We are not operating on theory here. We are operating on experience in court. Attorneys are not taught law. They are taught statutes and statutes are not law. They do not apply to "natural persons".

Sovereignty is the hardest concept for attorneys and big government proponents to grasp. Neither can stand the fact that people are sovereign. They have been repeatedly held to be sovereign by the courts. The one fact makes it impossible for any statute to be applied to any people without his individual consent.

You and I both know that members of the BAR setup a system to fool people into consent. You and I both know that the BAR is a British organization. Why else would attorneys have a title of nobility that falls between knight and gentleman? I know that a lot of people try to disclaim this fact, claiming that well the BAR might have some distance relationship British Accreditation Regents, but if that were true, they would have no use for the title esquire.

So you still have to come up with a better argument than simply denying a thing that we have experienced as fact. One thing that you cannot deny is what we have experienced in court.

I wrote a document that was accepted by someone being attacked in foreclosure. As you know, just about every single bank that is foreclosing on a house, does not have the lawful or legal authority to do so, because when the debt is sold to an investor "without recourse" the bank got paid and is no longer authorized to foreclose. That is according to their "laws". The document that was accepted by this victim stopped an eviction. The guy that put this victim in contact with me said, "Nobody ever stops an eviction." He was in shock this did. It is what you know. Being an attorney, those who desire to control all of us, also control what you know. Just compare the definition of "court of record" between the 4th edition and the 5th edition of Black's Law. It should become rather obvious. And you know that the dictionary closest to the Constitution is the one that prevails. We cannot just simply redefine a word in the Constitution in the hope of changing the meaning ot he whole document.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

 And you know that the

 And you know that the dictionary closest to the Constitution is the one that prevails.

That's a new one on me.  What legal authority said that??

You and I both know that the BAR is a British organization. 

I know nothing of the kind.  There is no British Accrediting Registry.  A check of the UK legal directories and the London telephone directory shows no such thing.  History books of the legal profession, in England and in the US, mention no such thing.  

  Why else would attorneys have a title of nobility that falls between knight and gentleman? 

'Esquire' is not a title of nobility; it is a title of commonality (and so is knighthood), and in the UK it is not at all regulated.  The monarch does not bestow an "esquire" on anyone, and no one is penalized for attaching it to his own name.  It was apparently adopted by junior barristers about the time of Charles I, when senior barristers were given the opportunity to become King's Counsels and put "K.C." after their names, and lesser barristers yearned for something they could put after their names.  In America, in the 18th and 19th century, when most lawyers became such by apprenticeship without going to college or lawschool, and therefore without any academic abbreviations to attach to their names, it was considered stylish.  But it was unofficial and self-inflicted; it did not come from any govt body either domestic or foreign.


M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Maybe right again

It may not be, but you really need to read outside the box you typically go to.


Thee is a wealth of knowledge out their. I do notice that you keep evading the root issue. People are sovereign. See if you can prove that comment wrong.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Can I get some help? I’ve

Can I get some help? I’ve been having a rough last few years.. Now heading in a new direction getting into internet marketing.. It’s slow and I’m broke, homeless and have a family.. I live in Haverhill, Massachusetts. Have court on 12/22/2016 at the haverhill court house for 3 charges.. License not in possession, unregistered car and no plates. I see 3 accounts of failure to intervene and 1 account of malicious prosecution. Was threatened imprisonment, told I was infact a operator when I had already made it clear I was a traveler in my automobile. They stated my ss card was my license. ? Totally didn’t check any of the case law I had or definitions to actual laws they were trying to charge me with. Stole my 91 accord. I’m frigging homeless and they took my car.   I think the younger cop who pulled me over put the wrong birth date on purpose, never asked for my signature of acceptance.. I'm not sure the lead officer was aware of the ticket screw up..  






M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You need to file a counterclaim

Do not listen to fortinbras. She is attempting to protect her profession. It is critical for club members to protect their profession and the fraud. She has not been able to overcome simple arguments on this site, so obviously would not be able to in court, like every other attorney that has sat in opposition to every case I have written the paperwork for. As a matter of fat, one such team of attorneys refers to themselves as "super lawyers" on their website, but we beat their pants pff in three courts and will be foreclosing on numerous bank properties this week. Im sure the bank that hired these "super lawyers" is not happy.

As far as your situation, you have time to file a counterclaim. I recommend you do it in federal court. It is critical you do not hire an attorney, as doing so is consent to the inferior court. An inferior court in any court tht uses statutes. That is why the judge pushes so hard to get people to ue the public defender. It is consent. Idiot attorneys operate at the low end of the judicial system. Most attorneys do not learn anything about common law until thy become judges and join clubs to study common law. That is also why we get less interference in federal courts. Federal court judges tend to be more honorable anf knowledgeable about common law, so when they see that the claimant knows what he is doing, he tends to not interfere.

The reason the fortinbras is on this site to dissuade people like you from doing this is because more and more people are learning just how powerful they are in their own court if record. Statutes do not apply in a court of record, which is a superior court to any inferior court that uses statutes. So government is losing its iron fist over people, because thy are learning the truth. Since I have started coaching people on how to handle their own cases in a court of record, any respect I have for attorneys has evaporated. They do lots of whining and common say in their responses "I don't understand" and claimants paperwork is "incomprehensible". So with all that "law" schooling a some college guy writes paperwork they can't understand and all of the people who I help understand just fine. That is why I think attorneys are morons. I ave yet to meet one that earned my respect.

As a matter of fact, my first case was my case. I proved in court in Louisiana, the only state to profess to not have common law, does in fact have common law if the sovereign of the court so chooses. I did like everyone else. When Discover bank sued me, I hired an attorney. As soon as I slid my $2,500 check across the table to him he said, "You know you are eventually going to have to pay this, don't you?" To which I responded, "What the hell am I paying you for then?" Once I learned what I now know from Bill Thornton, I fired my attorney and won my case. Idiot attorneys don't even know they credit card companies sell the debt to investors wit "no recourse". It makes no difference who pays the debt. Once it is paid, it is paid and he who "owed" it does no more. It is same with mortgages. As a matter of fact, the bank does not actually lend money for a mortgage and this came out in a case in 1968. A bank president admitted on the record that the bank simply made a ledger entry when a "borrower" signed the promissory note. As such, the bank did not give any consideration for the promissory note, a requirement for their to be a debt. Idiot attorneys do not kow these simple things that are even included in their statutes. The jury found in favor of the guy who was being foreclosed on and the juge wrote the opinion for the jury. It was a common law case, so the order was that of the jury, but the bankers still killed the judge six months later. ?the case was hard to find for a long time, but it is out in the open now. Everyone who has a mortgage could stop paying today and get damages awarded for the fraud the bank perpetrated. The bank sells the debt created by a people's signature for profit after not having provided anything.

To comprehend this consider a bank has $100,000 in assets. It "loans" you $100,000. It now has $200,000 in assets. Where did the extra $100,000 in assets come from? It was given by the so called borrower, who should be getting paid rather than paying. So banks get paid about at least twice for your mortgage. The way they do fractional lending, they usually get paid about 8 times for your mortgage.

So whatever you do, do not listen to an attorney. You will lose.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Having read this nonsense in

Having read this nonsense in your link I am further baffled.  There is a reference to an Augustus Blackstone, whom I cannot identify.  He is not an author of any law book nor, as far as I can find, a judge or even a lawyer.

The pretended history given of the English legal profession is also filled with errors.  The Inns of Court were originally, literally, inns for lawyers who followed the traveling judges, but these became, by the 16th century, permanent schools of law, of which four still operate - Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn.  These inns serve most of the purposes of the law schools and the bar organizations found in the US; they not only train barristers, they determine when a barrister is fit to enter the profession, and they discipline and even disbar barristers for unprofessional conduct.  I was fortunate enough to have an article published by a magazine at Lincoln's Inn many many years ago.

The Inns of Court are not in any way connected with the Masons nor the Knight Templars.  In fact, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple were begun in the abandoned buildings that had previously belonged to the Templars, but at least a half-century after the Templars had been exterminated and the buildings had been completely emptied, hence their names.  Only the real estate locations for those two inns links them to the Crusader order.   I have absolutely no evidence of any strange rituals, esp blood oaths, at the inns of court.  Presumably the training at the four inns is comparable quality and the constitute a sort of ivy league of barristers.   Solicitors are trained at different schools, which include some universities.   The rules and behavior of British legal professionals is rather different from their American counterparts:  The solicitor advises the client in various transactions and preparatory to a trial, and retains a barrister for the trial; the barrister is not supposed to confer with the client absent the solicitor and does the talking in the courtroom.  So at least two legal professionals are involved for the client in a trial.

Anyway, no occult connections to the Inns of Court.  And none for the American Bar Association.  I am not a member of the ABA, which does not have any govt connection - unlike the bar organizations in the various states, but which serves to try to improve the profession generally, accredit and supervise law schools and the like.

There is no "British Accrediting Registry" and never was.  It is not to be found in any history of the British or American legal professions.  No such thing existed because lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic entered the profession in different, but very conspicuous, ways that involved no such Registry.  The bar is not an acronym; it was originally the plank of wood that separated the cockpit of the court from the audience or gallery, only those who had been admitted to the legal profession were permitted to come forward of the bar, and eventually those admitted to the bar used that image as the nickname for their profession.

The word "attorney" is related to the word for "tournament"; the lawyer appears, as does the athlete in a tournament, as the representative - as the champion - in the "turn" for his client.  As the school team represents the hopes and defends the honor of the school in a tournament, so the lawyer carries the hopes and defends the honor of his client.

I'm sure that if I cared enough I could point out more misinformation in that link.  I won't even go into the mountain of nonsense about the Federal Reserve.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Very nice history lesson

However as we learn from reading Corpus Juris Segundum, the attorney does not, in fact, champion his client. His client is 3rd on his list of priorities and should his 3rd priority conflict with his 1st priority, his first priority takes supersedes his client. Not to mention that anyone who hires an attorney is consenting to an inferior court.  He is also considered a ward of the court and a ward is "an infant or one of unsound mind." Also, everyone I know that hires an attorney has lost his case and everyone I kow who does what I do has won hos case. Hard statistics for you to overcome. You still cannot, have have yet to even attempt, to get around the core argument of sovereignty and a court of record. Sovereigns are not subject to "law" and that is case law. And a judge is not allowed to make any decisions in a court of record.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

You've got to do better research ...

You could better persuade me that you can understand what's in Corpus Juris Secundum when you learn how to spell the title.

In any case, there are plenty of books on the professional responsibilities of lawyers and many comments in court decisions.  There have also been a series of Codes of professional conduct/responsibility/ethics, all slightly different but they generally put at the top of the heap (1) maintaining the integrity of the justice system and (2) representing the client's interests zealously.  There was a time not terribly long ago when the client may have been mentioned first, but then there was a very heated debate over what lawyers were supposed to do if their clients were determined to commit perjury, at which point lawyers were told that they were not supposed to knowingly tolerate perjury.   Retaining a lawyer does not involve a change in court or judge, nor does retaining a lawyer make someone a ward of court (wards of court are fragile persons recognized as such and are assigned lawyers and/or guardians to protect their interests).

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Hiring an attorney is in fact consent to an inferior court

We are very experience with attorneys aiding in the commission of fraud on the courts, so it is obvious to us, in our actual experience, with attorneys helping corporations to commit crimes. We have presented evidence of felonies to the bar "Commissions of Judicial Conduct" only to have it ignored. Espousing the ethics of the self policed attorneys falls on deaf ears in this forum. BTW, neither I nor most people who learn law call attorneys lawyers. I have yet to meet one that knows law. That includes you. Law in these untied states refers to the common law.  You still have not overcome that argument although our member uphold it in court all the time. If you cannot overcome the subject of sovereignty, court of record and common law on this forum, how do you think you will do it in court? You keep coming back to this forum and arguing anything but the core issues.

And by the way, I have read Corpus Juris Secundum and it does say in fact,

Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

The best you could do was comment on my one letter of misspelling? Really? At least I could read what someone who hire an attorney is. Again, everyone I know who hires attorneys lose and everyone I know who doesn't wins. I am getting real close to blowing you out of the water on this site. You are wasting my time. You have yet to overcome any argument you would have to overcome in court. You keep going back to statutes which are not law, and you dig up cases that were not in a court of record and were consented to by the moron who consented. If you do not get that issue, you will lose every time.What did you pay for the "law" school. As I told you before, law schools do not teach law. They teach equity and admiralty, but law, they do not teach law. They teach admiralty and equity, but law in these united states refers to common law.

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Lawyers are employees of the STATE

A clear Statement made on the STATE OF DELAWARE website.  Court of Common Pleas.  I have learned first hand in the last year the corruption going on between attorneys a man has hired and the actors at court.  What honorable man taking a huge payment for services advises his client to sign an open ended  verbal agreement with a prosecutor before a hearing that is subject to being changed by a partial judge to whatever he wants to impose? A man also getting a benefit from the STATE!   A victimless crime that after a criminal record is created could damage a young man's life irreversibly?  Police Officers are hunters, attorneys are the dressers, prosecutors are the packagers and the partial judges label you for the rest of your life so after the next hunt you can pay more for doing NO Harm to any Man or property.  Makes sense to them!  

Annie McShane



Response to agony message


I realize you're running on fumes financially, but I suggest you approach the public defenders office or else see if the nearest law school has a clinic that could help you, because your situation is not being helped by amateur advice.

I am not sure what you mean by "failure to intervene".  Evidently the cops have you cold on no license, no registration, and no plates - not a pretty picture.  A lawyer might keep you out of jail but being able to continue driving will require money - to get a license, to register the car and to get license plates.  If you were the one at the steering wheel, you were operating the vehicle, the doubletalk about traveling is not going to work.  At the very least I suggest you not antagonize the judge.

You say it but you provide no authority for it.


You have shown no authority for your claim that hiring an attorney is "consent to an inferior court".

Since many people hire an attorney AFTER they have been brought into a particular court as a defendant, either in a criminal or civil case, their hiring of a lawyer does not change the court in which their case is heard.

There are a very limited number of courts in which cases may be heard, depending on the type of case, and I do not know of an instance where it makes a difference if a party is or isn't represented by a lawyer.

As for your threat of "blowing [me] out of the water" ... oh, gee, the shame of it, like being excluded from a leprosarium.

By the way, my law school did not teach admiralty, except as an elective.  In these United States, law refers to statutory law, regulatory law, and administrative law (and probably a few more kinds)  as well as common law.

Statutes presume the Man is guilty already.

Our children are being brainwashed with that BS at school.  Attorneys expand on the fear tactics used by corrupt public officials creating an illusion that with all his help your are getting so much better deal than alone.  A man needs to know he has to accept what is given.  We need to eliminate the FEAR factor and put these vultures out of business. Without attorneys the courts would die a quick death.  I watched a man with an attorney be treated like a dog turd and a man who stood up against the corruption be treated with respect.  Attorneys can't speak to facts and evidence at court. What does a man need tge for?    Man needs to learn that Government officials can't testify against a human being.  The prosecution of Victimless Crimes would be eliminated and billions of dollars would stay in the pockets of man.  

Annie McShane

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Apparently some judges disagree with you.

Well, you say that law is "statutory law, regulatory law, and administrative law (and probably a few more kinds)  as well as common law." But some judges disagree with you.

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

You still have not gotten around the issue of consent. You have to have the consent of the governed in a republic. So no matter what you call law, you still have that obstacle to get around.

Here is another one you might want to check out. How about vetting it for us.

“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

And this is the ase that say the decisions of a court of record are not reviewable.

“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)] 

So now you known how we get to the court of record being the highest court in the land. And judges are not permitted to make any decisions therein. I gave you the definition of a court of record right out of Black's Law 4th. So don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.

Oh, and you must really like hanging out in a leprosarium. You sure are here a lot.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

The consent of the governed is not individual consent

The legal system rests upon the consent of the governed - as exemplified by the passage of legislation by elected legislators.  But the consent of the governed was never meant to require the consent of the specific individual arrested for a crime.  The notion that an arrestee has to consent to being arrested and tried is ludicrous.

I don't have CJS in front of me, so I don't know what court cases it was citing for the notion that a lawyer's client is somehow automatically called a ward of the court.  I suspect it was a Very Old case (possibly carried over from the original Corpus Juris), or else the quotation has somehow been mangled.  I have not heard "ward of the court" used except to describe someone who is considered, in some way, fragile or incompetent.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Individual consent is required

Fortinbras, your confusions lies in your lack of comprehension of common law and a republican form of government. The reason individual consent is required, is because people are guaranteed the common law and under common law, there is not crime if there is no injury. So when someone is charged for violating a code or statutes, the individual must consent to be pulled out of the common law and be held accountable to the code.

Consent by a group is a democracy. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America specifies the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government throughout the member states of the union

Wards of the court - infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. (Davis committee v. Loney , 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d. 189, 190)

Another issue you are having difficulty with is comprehending what constitutes a crime. Since in the common law does not classify anything a crime if there is no injury, then under common law, people cannot be arrested for drunk driving or smoking pot or any other victimless "crime" since there was no injury. That is why statutory courts have arraignment. The judge must get the consent of the individual to leave the common law. That is why judges commit perjury to make it appear that the accused consented. That will be coming to a stop very soon.

It is comprehensible why you do not get this. Most judges do not learn this until they join clubs for the purpose of learning common law. That is why some judges respect the orders of the court of record and some do not. It is as Goethe said, "There is nothing more dangerous than ignorance in action."

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?


Log in or register to post comments