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)]

Our court system is based on a centuries old system. There are some misconceptions about what is a court. There are actually several jurisdictions over which a court can preside. There is admiralty or commercial court. There is equity court or fair play court and there is common law court or a court of record. There is also a nisi prius court. A nisi prius court is a court that exist because you failed to object.

The vast majority of the time that one is pulled into court, he is pulled into admiralty court. If you hire an attorney, you are typically ceding jurisdiction to this court. That means you are consenting to the court jurisdiction, a voluntary act you must not do. The consent occurs even if done so inadvertently. Equity courts are presided over by chancellors. The chancellor was appointed by the king to oversee simple complaints. (Remember, common law is based on old English law.) The chancellor was permitted to make law as he saw fit to settle a claim fairly. An example of an equity court is the one in which Irwin Schiff was convicted on October 24^th, 2005. He was convicted for filing "false tax returns" for the years 1997 through 2002. According to transcripts, during the trial, Schiff's defense attorney made numerous attempts at quoting United States Code and previous cases regarding income tax that would have resulted in an acquittal had the jury heard the testimony. However, the trial judge, Kent Dawson, actually stated, "In my court I am the law." He has been criticized for this statement, but he was correct. Of course, since American people are not required to pay income tax or file income tax returns, why would he file a return to begin with?

Some people think there are no longer common law courts in the united states of America, because they think that the court is the building that court is held in. That is just a building. The papers filed to start an action is what determines the type of court.

People are the sovereigns in the united states of America or any other republic for that matter. As such, no law passed by any legislative branch of government has any lawful force of authority over the sovereign. The appropriate course of action when pulled into any court is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. When you do this, you must make yourself a plaintiff by filing a counterclaim in a court of record. A court of record is a common law court wherein the court is "the person and suit of the plaintiff". In a court of record, the judge is merely a magistrate and does not have the authority to make decisions, offer opinions or issue orders. So, although Irwin Schiff had this information since Bill Thornton had provided it to him, he could have done so and the judge would not have been able to claim that he is the law, because in that court, the decisions would have been made by Irwin Schiff, because it was his court. As a matter of fact, the sovereign decrees the law, so the law would have been whatever Irwin Schiff decreed it to be which would have been in his papers when he filed suit for his damages for being imprisoned.

So let's take a look at the definitions of a court. According to  Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426

                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.

Since, the common law is based on international laws that have been in place for centuries, this definition would apply. It is recognized in the Constitution for the United States of America. All mentions of law in the Constitution refer to the common law, which was the predominate practice at the time. Common law is rarely used now , because it is harder for judges to take advantage of people in favor of government. After all, they are government employees. They know that they are merely magistrates in a common law court and do not have the authority to make decisions or orders.

So let's see what a judge actually is according to  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.

As we can see, this would not allow the judge to perform the duties of a tribunal.

The best way to get a firm grasp on common law is to listen to the four hour seminar given by Bill Thornton. It is a four hour seminar broken into three segments. It will give you a very good comprehension of common law. It is a must if you are to take responsibility for your lawful wellbeing.

Defend Freedom™