About me . . .
John-Henry Hill is a pseudonym I have used recently (since 2008) when submitting essays solely on THIS BLOG, which I refer to as my “Law Blog”, even though it contains a small number of essays on “topics of the day”, plus a “JOKES” page, a LINKS page and so on… So, WHO am I really?
John-Henry Hill, M.D. is a pen-name used by this author, who is, in point of fact, a former physician and medical researcher, having earned a doctor of medicine (M.D.) degree in the early-1970’s. Within a few years I decided to center my career around private-sector clinical-medical-health research, whose clients most often were numerous U.S. government medical-health agencies. By the mid-1980’s, as personal computers and primitive computer networks (“local area networks” or LANs) began to appear, out of necessity and efficiency in terms of my own projects, I studied and took formal courses in database theory and programming; and soon was programming databases, not only for my own research projects, but for other researchers as well. It was actually FUN, so that I changed careers again and a became full-time medical-health research programmer and LAN specialist for private-sector companies and later two federal agencies,
In 1998 some colleagues and I also formed our own privately-owned company, specializing in database programming for medical-health research for major medical centers, U.S. government medical-health agencies, pharmaceutical companies and similar entities both in the U.S. and Europe. (We did the same work type of work that we had been doing, except that we integrated by code several software products into one system.) For over 20 years prior to my early retirement in late 2009, I worked as a software database programmer and LAN specialist. In the early 1990’s I also earned a Ph.D. degree in American history, with a specialization in “The Evolution of American Law-Political History from the Colonial Period Through the American Civil War”.
There is SO MUCH MORE to learn – for all of us!!! I have just scratched the surface in my years of research and studying; and consequently in all of my essays on this Law Blog. I have been studying this stuff (mostly as a “U.S. history junkie”) for over 55 years; and learned a great deal more when researching for my Ph.D. However, I still do NOT consider myself an “expert” in law, medicine or medical database programming. To me NO ONE is an “expert”; there are simply people who know more about a topic than most other people. None of us can learn everything – not even about our work or profession, our hobbies, or anything else. Life is simply too short. And all people possess knowledge that they never write down, so it is lost to the living and future generations. It is a pity that until about 100 years ago, it was customary for all Americans to keep diaries and write a great deal about what they knew, read, had done that day and so on. Watching sports, radio, films, TV, personal computers, the internet and cells phone have killed off that custom of a daily diary. Those were the people who were the true historians of past generations – and from which most real professional historians (who perform their own original research, as opposed to simply quoting so-called “facts” from books published by other historians) always use such diaries as one of their primary sources of information. It was the ordinary people who wrote such diaries who were the true historians.
My ultimate decision to leave America forever was precipitated by a JOKE I told to a U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (CIS) officer at “Passport Control” at Boston’s Logan Airport upon arriving from Europe in December 2008. The first two incidents were the most grueling and took place at Boston’s Logan Airport. What transpired and the means by which I sought remedy are described in one of my essays on this blog titled, “DONUTS, THE U.S. CUSTOMS-IMMIGRATION SERVICE (CIS) AND COMMERCIAL LIENS” It is FUNNY and SAD at the same time. However these incidents were NOT the root cause for my decision to leave the U.S. forever. Instead these incidents were the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”.
In 2009 I abandoned America forever as my home and have lived with my wife in Europe ever since, taking an early retirement, with homes in Ukraine, , Crimea (now part of the Russian Federation, with by far the greatest amount of autonomy of any Republic in the Russian Federation, retaining its own independent, the sole Republic with right and power to postpone and in some instances render void within Crimea the application and enforcement of certain Russian Federation laws, while retaining ts own independent legislature and court system) and Switzerland. I have has NO intention of returning to America… ever! I am a member of NO political party – neither the Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatever – since all political parties are simply competing factions within a Mafia-like system of oppression and wealth extraction.
As the old joke says, “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” Answer: ”His lips move.” Another relevant joke regarding the apathy of most Americans goes like this: One man asked another, “What do think about the ignorance and apathy of the average American?” To which the second man replied, “I don’t know and I don’t care!”
John-Henry Hill, M.D. , Ph.D.
BUY GOLD and SILVER !!!!!!
THANK YOU for reading my essays!
They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” – Gerald Massey
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
“He, who would be deceived, let him.” – ancient Roman maxim of law
“Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“. – Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington)
“We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with matches.” — Will Rogers
“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s CONSENT.” – Abraham Lincoln
“The Constitution is NOT neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
“I have never had but one opinion concerning BANKING. They [BANKS] are like party spirit, the delusion of the many for the interest of a few.” – John Adams (second President of U.S.A.) in letter to John Taylor of Caroline; Quincy, Massachusetts, March 12, 1819 as cited in “The Life and Works of John Adams”, 10 volumes, (Charles Francis Adams, Editor); Boston, 1850-1856, X, Page 375
All of MY essays were thoroughly researched and written by me; and concern primarily the various types of law from America’s colonial period under British rule, the 3 types of law authorized by the U.S. Constitution (1) the Common Law, which technically SUPERSEDES all other types of law, except when on waives some of his rights by CONTRACT. In the U.S, Britain and most of the former British colonies; (2) Equity Law (often called “Statutory Law”; and (3) Maritime-Admiralty Law which applied SOLELY to ships at sea; (and NOT even when a ship was anchored in a harbor or a dock), but which in the U.S. since the mid-1950’s has slowly been applied ON LAND primarily due to judge’s rulings at lower and mid-level courts within the U.S. In addition there is the U.S. version of (4) the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) which in the late 1950’s began to gradually replaced Equity Law (“Statutory Law”) at the federal and state levels; and finally the oldest form of law called (5) International Commercial Law accepted by all nations engaged in commerce with any other nation and from which ALL 4 of the previously mentioned previous types of law (1-4) listed above wee derived. There are also essays on how the various types of law originated and evolved (or more accurately “devolved” or were “corrupted”) over time in the United States to the present day.
On rare occasions I will post an article or essay written by another man or woman, with extensive citations and documentation included within that essay on law; and whose background, credentials, text of the essay and documentation and citations therein I attempt to verify to the greatest extent possible. Usually such posts are written by people who are recognized experts on the subject of their essay/article.
First, the MOST important piece of information people should know is that, PRIOR the to the 14th Amendment of 1868, there was such NO such entity as a “U.S. CITIZEN”. Any person if asked about his citizenship would either say “American” (to foreigners) OR give the name of the state in which lived. This fact is accurately demonstrated in the film “GETTYSBURG” in which a Confederate general explains to a British officer/observer that “My country is Virginia”.
I am an American, born and raised in Massachusetts; NOT the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” or the “State of Massachusetts” which for-profit corporations. And a man or woman living in a state of the Union (but NOT a “State”, which a “legal fiction” as a corporation created later) can be a citizen of his state, but NOT a citizen of the United States (or the converse), as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions. I do NOT and will NOT ever identify ever myself as a “citizen of the U.S.” (or any variation thereof). I identify myself as an “American”. The reason can be found in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which for the FIRST TIME ever defined a “citizen of the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
First, a “person” is NOT a man or woman, but rather a legal fiction. Second, a “State” in the NOT the same entity as as state of the Union, but rather a sub-corporation of the United States Corporation (also created in 1868 in Edinburgh, Scotland). However, a careful reading of this first sentence shows that, in order to be ” a CITIZEN of the United States”, TWO conditions must be met. The first condition may seem fairly simple: being born or naturalized in the U.S. – until you read the various definitions (below) of the U.S. recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Were you born in Washington, D.C., Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands? Or were you born in one of the various states? The second condition is that is that you must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]”. Unless BOTH these conditions are met, you are NOT a citizen of the United States. And since Washington, D.C., the Territories and insular possessions are under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of the Congress, the people living in those areas are NOT protected by the Constitution. Only the PEOPLE living in the various states are protected by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled hundreds of times. So what do “citizens of the United States” receive in exchange for waiving their rights? The answer is found is the second sentence if Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “No State [as opposed to a state] shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Consequently, by waiving ALL of their inherent, natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, “citizens of the United States” fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, become subject to ALL of its acts (statutes; and the regulations that spring therefrom); and possess only PRIVILEGES granted by Congress, such as “due process” and “equal protection of the laws”. However, any PRIVILEGE granted by Congress can just as easily be taken away. Personally, I would rather possess my inherent, natural RIGHTS as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights than waive ALL those right to a Congress which then grant me PRIVILEGES as it sees fit, unrestrained by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Further, I am NOT bound by any acts (statutes) passed by Congress since Congress has NO jurisdiction over the PEOPLE of any state, UNLESS those people, as individual men and women, CONSENT to that particular statute OR enters into a CONTRACT with the United States which binds them to that statute. In short, to the PEOPLE in the various states [NOT States, which are sub-corporations of the United States Corporation] and acts (statutes) passed by Congress are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which the people are free to accept [give their CONSENT] or reject.
The problems of the last 100 years in America is that the United States and especially its courts have made the PRESUMPTION in law, without presenting any evidence of a contract containing full disclosure and agreed to by mutual, voluntary consent, that We the People have living in the various states have AGREED to their jurisdiction. And several ancient Maxims of Law state, “He, who does not object, consents.”; “An oath is a contract in law.”; “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”; “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” ; “They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”; “While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.” (The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.)
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are a MINIMUM of three definitions of the term “United States” and, according to the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 and subsequent amending acts, the “United States” means either solely Washington, D.C. OR Washington, D.C., U.S. Territories, insular possessions and areas within the various states permanently ceded by that state’s legislature to the U.S. (such as for the erection of forts, etc.). Thus, the various states are NOT part of the “United States”, but are in fact the creators and “bosses” of the United States”
The root cause of increasing dissatisfaction with the U.S. government over the last 30 plus years is the result of years of study and simple observation over my lifetime. The evolution of certain types of law, along with the devolution and essentially the practical elimination of other types of law from our justice system and our society of was once most commonly used type of law in America: the COMMON LAW.
After the ratification of the original (“organic”) “The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, the various states were viewed as separate “foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect the United States”; and most almost all legislated acts (statutes; from which regulations were written) applied ONLY to employees and agents of the U.S. government. The Congress had jurisdiction only over Washington City, as the seat of the federal government, federal Territories, federal forts and and naval stations within a state; and federal buildings within a state, usually federal Post offices. Federal statutes applied to people living in one of the sovereign states ONLY if that individual man CONSENTED to that particular statute. The federal courts existed solely to settle disputes between states; and disputes between people from two different states
..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.]
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421..
The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
Even Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington) and one of the most ardent advocates for a strong central government wrote, “Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“.
“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.“ ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854);
“Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people“ — Glass v. Sloop Betsey, U.S. Supreme Court, 1794.
This last quote reflects the fact as understood by the Founders and the American people at that time that the Constitution was a type of CONTRACT as a legal TRUST (called “The Constitution for the united States of America” among the various independent and sovereign states. This contract was written by and for the people. The American people were the creators of this Trust. The Grantors (or Trustors) were the states; the Trustee was the new federal government called the “United States of America”; and the Beneficiaries were “we, the people and our posterity [descendants]”. The President was the essentially the chief executive or CEO of the trust, the Congress its “board of directors” and the Supreme Court the arbiter for the trust to prevent the employees (federal official officials and employee) from exceeding the powers granted to it by the Trust AND to settle disputes among the Grantors (states). As in any contract in the form of a Trust, the powers and obligations of the Trustee must be explicitly states; and the Trustee may NOT grant itself any new powers. Only the Grantors can alter the Trust contract, and in our system this can be done ONLY by Amendments to the original Trust contract, in this case by the ratification any proposed amendments by a minimum of three-fourths of the Trustors or Grantors (states). All legislated acts (statutes) passed by Congress were essentially “rules” for the agents and employees of the Trustee (the federal government), as well as the residents of what became “Washington, the District of Columbia” (i.e., Washington, D.C.), the Northwest Territories and later territories, federal employees working within the various states (e.g. Post Office employees”), and federal installations on land ceded by state legislatures to the federal government (such as for forts, naval yards). And if a fort or other federal installation was abandoned or went unused by the federal government, that land reverted back to the jurisdiction of the state in which it was located, UNLESS the state legislature ceded permanent ownership and jurisdiction of that piece of land to the federal government. For everyone else living in the various states, all U.S. statutes passed by Congress are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”. As with any contract, if you agree to it, then you must obey the specifications of that contract. But if any state or individual person with any state does NOT agree to it (he or she rejects it; does not sign it), then there is NO such contract applicable to that man or woman. The PROBLEM since the 1860’s is that the U.S. government and the courts ALL make the PRESUMPTION that every man and woman HAS AGREED to every statute (Offer to Contract) and therefore those statutes apply to everyone within America (without the required “full disclosure” necessary for any contract). We have unknowingly agreed by contract to be under the JURISDICTION of the U.S. government). Further, such statutes NEVER become True Law. Instead, like ANY other contract, by our contractual agreement these statutes assume the “FORCE OF LAW”.
And as I wrote above: Several ancient Maxims of Law (which are accepted by the courts as absolute truth and need not be proved again in any court) state, “He, who does not object, consents.”; “An oath is a contract in law.”; “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”; “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” ; “They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”(sounds a lot like politicians); as former Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev wrote, “All politicians are alike; they want to build a bridge where there is no river.”); “While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.” (“The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.”)
The Constitution was a CONTRACT as a TRUST (COMPACT;) among various sovereign states that ratified it in the form of a Trust called the “organic Constitution” or “The Constitution for the united States of America” – as opposed to a revised version (called the “corporate Constitution”) for the “United States Corporation” (created in 1868) called the “The Constitution of the United States of America”. And as the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times regarding the organic Constitution, that: (a) the states, NOT the people, were the parties to this contract which created the federal government; (b) it was NOT a contract between the states and the people; (c) it was NOT a contract between the states and the federal government, which was impossible because the federal government did NOT even exist until AFTER the Constitution was ratified; and (d) it was NOT a contract between the people and the federal government for same same reason as item c. It is impossible to create a contract with a man or entity that does NOT yet exist!
In short, legislated acts (statutes) passed by Congress and approved by the President (the CEO of the Trust) did NOT apply to ordinary men and women living in the various states OR to the various sovereign states. And the ONLY way that this could happen was if that man or woman individually consented, or state through its legislature, And ALL contracts, in order to be valid require full disclosure of the terms, “consideration” (an exchange of things of equal value as determined by both parties, with rights and privileges-benefits exchangeable considered items of value), the mutual CONSENT or agreement of both parties – called a “meeting of the minds” of that particular contract. Therefore, all legislated act (statutes) passed by Congress were applicable and enforceable by the courts ONLY federal employees and agents and to the areas of land noted above under Congress’s exclusive jurisdiction; NOT to ordinary men and women living in the various states. For these people within the various states (as non-employees and non-agents of the federal government) “federal statutes were simply “OFFERS TO CONTRACT’” which each individual one could could accept (consent) or reject.
The most widely used TYPE OF LAW in the Union of these sovereign states until the 1930’s was the unwritten COMMON LAW as adopted from British Law (based on local customs and rules of the local society over the eras), which was simple for all people to understand: In essence, the Common Law can be summed up as, “Only if a man violated another man’s rights or caused injury to that man’s property, was a crime committed.” And the “property” was then defined as all of a man’s possessions, his money, his home, land and even his own physical body.” The shortened version can be stated as, “No injury means no crime committed.”
And the most commonly used COURTS were courts operating under the Common Law within a state (called COURTS OF RECORD). COURT OF RECORD is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (Revised), 1968 as:
- A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate [judge] 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] My note: a Tribunal in a true Court of Record is ether the plaintiff or, if requested by the accused/respondent, a jury of 12 local people (the accused or respondent’s “peers”) Only the tribunal (the jury) can issue orders, rule of issues of law and procedure and render verdicts. Indeed, there are numerous Supreme Court ruling which explicitly state that it is “the duty and obligation of the jury to be the sole judge of the both the FACTS and LAW of the case; disregarding all instructions of the judge to the contrary”. In fact, the administrator (usually a judge) on a Court of Record – a court operating under solely under the Common Law (see item B below) can issue NO orders, rulings, verdicts, etc. is role is simply as the organizer of the proceeding, whose role to to keep it moving in an orderly and civil manner. An should a judge issue ANY order, ruling verdict, or whatever, he can be found in “contempt of court” by the tribunal (the jury) and even fined or imprisoned
- 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] (My note: Such a court EXCLUDES legislated acts (statutes) and even attorneys. Both the accused and the accusor must “PRESENT” himself in court as a private individual man or woman; and can NOT be “RE-PRESENTED” to the court by an attorney, which converts that man into legal fictions called a “person” and a “client”. And in any major law dictionary “client” is defined as either a child; or an adult person mentally incapable of defending himself, thereby making that client a “ward of the court”. In other words, by hiring an attorney, you voluntarily declare that mentally incompetent to defend yourself and make yourself a ward of court, which ma then do to you what it wishes for “your benefit”. And even being sentenced to prison is, under law, considered a “benefit”. Prior to the 1930’s the accused often used unlicensed LAWYER, whose role was an “advisor” and “spokesman” for the accused, but all affidavits, claims, etc. had to be issued by sworn affidavits written and signed by the accused – a lawyer could NOT do these things for the accused. Today, a man can sign a contract with an attorney called a “Power of Attorney” in which that attorney can write and sign an agreement or contract with others, as specified with that “Power of Attorney” agreement WITHOUT any further approval or even notification the the client required, even over non-judicial matters such as selling one’s home, conducting his business transactions and investments and just about an other matter.
- Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [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] (My note: a court TRANSCRIPT is NOT a “an enrolled or recorded written document of the acts and proceeding of a court to be held in perpetuity. Instead a transcript, under law, is merely the notes written and kept by the Court Clerk, which need NOT be preserved after all appeals are exhausted.
- D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [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.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] (My note: It is the Tribunal – the jury – which has the power to fine or imprison someone for contempt of court; NOT the administrator or judge.)
- E. Generally possesses a seal. [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.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] (My note: this last item, a SEAL, has been and is still now considered optional. In the far past, some jurors were often illiterate and could not write their signatures on the verdict and rulings issued by the jury. Instead, such jurors would “make their mark” (often a simple “X”) on such documents, witnessed by the other jurors, who then used a SEAL as a sworn attestation that the juror’s “mark” on the document was truly that of a juror, as a substitute a that juror’s signature. In many respects it is similar to the SEAL used my “notary publics” in the U.S. by which any written, signed and dated document by a man or woman is converted into a type of “affidavit of truth” after that individual swears “oath” (itself a contract in law) in the presence of two witnesses and the notary public (all of whom must write their signatures on that date of notarization. Only then does the “notary public apply his SEAL to that document over his on signature. The “notary public” and the two other witnesses, under law, become a Tribunal (“Tri” meaning three; derived from the Latin word “Tribune”: “An officer of ancient Rome elected by the plebeians to protect their rights from arbitrary acts of the patrician magistrates,” In legal disputes in ancient Rome, initially three (3) tribunes could over-turn and void the rulings of patrician magistrates, although that number was later increased to was later
The relationship between the PEOPLE and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has been turned upside down by the Congress and affirmed by the courts over the 20, most especially the U.S. Supreme Court. And ever since the events of “9/11” September 11, 2001).
From the time American Revolution and later the ratification of the US Constitution until the 1938 Erie Railroad v. Tompkins decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Common Law was the primary law in America. This Supreme Court decision reversed hundreds by years of American legal precedent by ruling that federal courts court no longer use a state’s Common Law as the basis of their decisions. Today, virtually no courts in America will recognize the Common Law and will toss you into jail for “contempt of court” should you assert your rights under the Common Law. But as much as the Congress and courts (at all levels) have tried to eliminate the Common Law from the minds of the People – and they have nearly done so in terms of what people know about the Common Law, and even what attorneys and lower court judges know – which is next to nothing, if the people educate themselves, they can reclaim their rights and once again make government the SERVANT of the people; not their master. And even as recently as 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed:
“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
Definitions of a “COURT OF RECORD” and a “COURT NOT OF RECORD“:
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. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (revised), 1968
A “COURT NOT OF RECORD”: 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.(Note: A court TRANSCRIPT is a collection of notes of a hearing or trial which are the property of the Court Clerk’s Office as notes written a TRANSCRIPT is NOT an enrollment in perpetual memorial of the acts and proceedings of a court trial or hearing.) Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (revised), 1968
COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
- 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] (In other words, a judge acts solely as a magistrate and can issue NO ruling, orders, verdicts fines, etc. It is NOT the judge’s court; it is the Plaintiff’s court – and one becomes the Plaintiff by issuing a COUNTER-CLAIM against the judge as a private man in which you challenge his jurisdiction. Only the Plaintiff or a jury of 12 people can act as the Tribunal in a true Court-of-Record. And if the judge, against whom you filed the counter-claim, attempts to issue any ruling, order, decision or whatever, you MUST OBJECT immediately, even if he issues a ruling FAVORABLE to you. Why? Because if you do NOT object, you have just handed him back jurisdiction over you. You or the jury can issue a “writ of error”, voiding his attempt to issue a ruling, then request that the jury issue a similar ruling favorable to you. But NEVER let any ruling or decision issued by a judge in a Court-of-Record (a Common Law court) go unchallenged. If you do, you have just given him jurisdiction over you, which was the basis of your counter-claim over him._
2. 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]3. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [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]
[NOTE: A “TRANSCRIPT” is NOT an “enrollment”; a “transcript” is merely the personal record of the Clerk of the Court, whose notes are referred to as “minutes”.]
- Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [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.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
5. Generally possesses a seal. [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.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
One of my hobbies (more like a “passion”) since I was a medical student in Washington, D.C. in the early-1970’s has been U.S. Civil Battlefields – specifically battlefield tactics as they evolve during a battle – especially at sites in in Virginia and Maryland within easy driving distance of my home, in Virginia. The battles in which I specialized were: Lee’s Maryland Campaign of 1862, resulting in the Battle of South Mountain (actually at 3 nearby locations a few miles west of Frederick, Maryland) and three days later the Battle of Antietam Creek at Sharpsburg, Maryland. The other much smaller battle, but of much greater political significance took place on the banks of the Potomac River just outside Leesburg, Virginia. While truly just a skirmish, it was called the “Battle of Ball’s Bluff” – President Lincoln’s longtime and closest friend and the very popular U.S. Senator Edward Baker had resigned from the Senate to join the Union Army as a colonel. Despite his lack of any military knowledge or experience, he led this minor reconnaissance expedition (for political reasons), but foolishly chose to set up a line of battle at the edge of the bluff (rather than establishing his lines further inland). Confederate troops were initially NOT there, but Baker waited around until there were plenty! Colonel Edward Baker was killed soon after and his men fled down the bluff to the river. Most who made it to the river drowned, due their heavy packs – since the Confederates has earlier sunk all the Union boats (left unguarded) in which the Union troops originally had used to cross the river. The battle’s outcome changed the conduct of the rest of the Civil War, one example of which was the creation of the “Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War”. (An open field when I first started studying it, Ball’s Bluff is now over-run by a massive housing development, so that the original battlefield no longer exists. Mr. Ball, who owned the farm on which the “battle” –really a small skirmish – was fought, was a direct descendant of George Washington.)
Battle of Antietam Creek in Sharpsburg, Maryland, September 17, 1862
(Three days earlier was the “Battle of South Mountain” at 3 locations where there are 3 gaps 10 miles west of Frederick, Maryland: Fox’s Gap (extremely steep; leads to Boonsboro, Maryland west of the mountain which is 10 miles from Sharpsburg), Turner’s Gap (steep; just to the south; also leads to near to Boonsboro, Maryland west of the mountain which is 10 miles from Sharpsburg ) and Crampton’s Gap (furthest south and almost flat; leads to Harpers Ferry)
The VERY BEST and most detailed 2 books written on the “Battle of South Mountain” and the “Battle of Antietam Creek” are both by JOHN MICHAEL PRIEST, who happens to live in Boonsboro, Maryland – just west of South Mountain and about 10 miles north of Sharpburg and Antietam Creek. Their titles are:
1.) Before Antietam: The Battle for South Mountain
2.) Antietam: The Soldiers’ Battle
In these books, the authors writes and shows (via hand-drawn maps) where various units were on an hour-by-hour basis – and relied ONLY on ORIGINAL SOURCES. Priest used NOTHING from other, more recent books or articles was used. Only articles, diaries, letters and books written immediately after the battle by the battle’s actual participants – many of which were published in a popular magazine in the 1860’s called “Century Magazine” – were used by Priest. (These articles, written by actual participants (from privates to generals) in various battles for Century Magazine on the Civil War were later published in the 1890’s as a 3-volume set of books, now out-of-print for many years, that took me and friends many years to find all 3 volumes.) Of note: Priest’s books and the 3-volume set of 3 books of Century Magazine articles are INVALUABLE. However, these books are NOT for “beginners” – you should already know a lot about the Maryland Campaign of 1862 and the battles at South Mountain and Antietam Creek in order to appreciate their enormous value, especially if you visit the South Mountain and Antietam battlefields as I did literally hundreds of times, since they were only a 1-hour drive my home in Fairfax County, Virginia during medical school, post-graduate residency and later my medical practice. Even after I changed careers and moved to Massachusetts in the 1990’s, I still visited these battlefields at least twice a year until 2010 when I left the U.S. forever.
Most of the other recently written books on Antietam have major errors, contain the author’s speculations, rely on other recently published works for sources, seldom (if ever) use any original sources, and reach conclusions that are based on hind-sight and are often nonsense. That is why Priest’s books and the 3-volume book set (based on the Century Magazine articles) are so incredibly valuable!
But BAD THINGS happen to us all:
My ENTIRE LIBRARY, which I had contracted to have shipped to Odessa, was “lost” (i.e,, “never picked up”, “misplaced” or STOLEN). Among the thousands of books, journals, articles, etc. were: all my MEDICAL books and journals, PROGRAMMING books and journals, HISTORY books and journals (from Colonial America through the U.S. Civil War), vast collection of U.S. CIVIL WAR books, maps and journals, NOVELS, and assorted other books.
Before I moved to Odessa, Ukraine I had contracted with a company to have sent in a steel container by ship my entire library (over 1000 books on medicine, research methods, statistics, programming, novels, and over 400 books – some out-of print for 100 years, very difficult to find with some old copies found by sheer chance in small bookshops – on the U.S. Civil War, along with many maps, etc. I also had photocopies of diaries and letters form the descendants of locals still living near Sharpsburg; and photocopies of diaries and letters of surviving participants of the Battle of Antietam that were kept by their descendants – the latter items collected over a 40-year period. I also had literally thousands of photographs I had personally taken over the years, as well as copies of photographs retained by the descendants of the battles. The only other goods I shipped to Ukraine were clothes and sporting goods. (Firearms are NOT allowed entry into Ukraine, so I gave them to my brother to store them). However, ALL that I received at my Odessa apartment were about 3/4 of my clothes – presumably the rest “disappeared” into some “black hole” somewhere. And from what I could learn, the books composing my library were never even picked up by the contracting company. Luckily, I had my two laptops in my baggage on my final plane trip out of the U.S. I sued both the U.S. shipping company (I won) and Port of Odessa (I lost; case dismissed –that is the Ukrainian “justice system), but those items lost were irreplaceable – only the books (some extremely rare) and photocopied materials collected over many years mattered; the money did not.
(Of note, I gave away free as gifts to friends and neighbors my fairly new, flat-screen TV, all my furniture and anything and everything else they wanted in the house and tool shed. I had my attorney donate my car – a fairly new V-6 VW Passat with manual transmission, sunroof, etc.) to charity – NOT because I am a “great guy”, but because Ukraine charges such a HUGE fee on cars imported by INDIVIDUALS into Ukraine; and the donation was tax-deductible. But NOT my books – I was going to keep ALL of them!!!) Therefore, below are maps, etc taken from various web sites. They are a very poor substitute for my collection of maps, some detailing the movements of every company and brigade (with the time and duration of each engagement) for both the Battle of South Mountain and the Battle of Antietam.