Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Courts of record and courts not of record

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... What is your point? You posted dictionary words and none of your own. A suit in equity is still different in substance from an action at law, it s just
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jul 23, 2006, at 8:37 AM, FreeTex@... wrote:

      > Civil action.   Action brought to enforce, redress, or protect private
      > rights.   In general, all types of actions other than criminal
      > proceedings.   …..
      >  
      >             The term includes all actions, both those formerly know as
      > equitable actions and those known as legal actions, or, in other
      > phraseology, both suits in equity and actions at law.

      What is your point? You posted dictionary words and none of your own.
      A suit in equity is still different in substance from an action at law,
      it's just that the two courts they used to be settled in were combined
      into one, for the convenience of N.Y. lawyers. The two jurisdictions
      certainly were not combined.

      > ………….The former distinction between actions at law and suits in equity
      > , and the separate forms of those actions and suits, have been
      > abolished. 

      That's right, they have, but what has not been abolished is the
      SUBSTANCE of each. The "distinction" and "forms" have been abolished -
      in other words, the appearances. This is to help those who would
      destroy us. They were clever enough to know that getting rid of the
      words would be enough to convince many to give up what the words used
      to be used for, as if doing away with the word "tuna" would eventually
      do away with the eating of fish sandwiches. To a large degree, it
      worked!

      But here is the real point: it is a trick to get you to waive rights,
      and submit to arbitration. ANY common law suit (action at law) can be
      settled by moving the case to the equitable jurisdiction for
      arbitration, with the consent of the parties. But the reverse cannot
      happen - a suit belonging originally in the equity jurisdiction cannot
      be settled according to common law principles because there is no
      "substance". The imaginary cannot be made real by pretending, but all
      parties may agree to pretend. When one party refuses to pretend based
      upon "substantial rights" then (s)he will NOT consent to waiving rights
      and submitting to equity, no matter what the "forms" are. Today,
      people have been diseducated so that they cannot distinguish (their
      ability to make a distinction has been "abolished") a case with
      substance as its basis from one with figments of the imagination as its
      basis.

      One who demands rights brings this to the attention of all involved.
      When I consent to play in the courtrooms, I file a disclaimer of all
      equitible, admiralty, Roman, chancery, and commercial jurisdictions. I
      make it known that my rights are substantial and based in the common
      law. And I know how to find all of my common law rights in the code
      books of those now incapable of making any distinctions. I know how to
      make the distinctions, and how to use the codes that THEY understand to
      achieve the same effects as if the two courts and two forms were never
      combined.

      I don't like to be tricked like others are.

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.