A Ban to Civil Law Jurisdiction

The System of Government for the Union and the Individual States is a “Republican” Form:

As one writer points out and is applicable here: “It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.”  Fundamentally, a republic respects the rights of the individual, contrasted from a democracy that follows the majority or will of the people.

“The United States is a republic rather than a democracy.”  Corpus Juris Secundum,  United States  I, A, Section 2, Nature and Status;  “. . . and to the republic for which it stands, . . .”,  pledge of alliance.

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison, Federalist Papers, #10

Understanding The Rule of Law:

The rule of law is a phrase that has been traced back as early as Aristotle.  It is contrasted to the phrase, “rule of man”.  The phrase is combined and articulated as the rule of law, not the rule of man.  Our legal profession is teaching that the laws passed by the legislature in all cases is the “supreme” law of the land and is the rule of law.  The masses obediently accept the faulty definition without complaint, until some start to examine the meaning of the rule of law.

The rule of law is both known and certain having a legitimate authority.  It is found consistent with the fundamental principles of our Constitution and our republican system of government established by that social contract.  The rule of law was meant to bind down “wayward tendencies” of government to the fundamental principles.  Contrast this with the civil law jurisdiction and its volumes of books with a multitude of rules and regulations that change with the political atmosphere.

The rule of man is the absence of the rule of law.  It is a society in which one person, or a group of persons, rules arbitrarily.  The rule of man can be found in democracies and dictatorships.  What we are living with today, is by definition, the rule of man and the lawyers are in control.  Only that law which is passed in pursuant to the fundamentals of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (Article VI)

Civil Law Jurisdiction Special Appearance:

The jurisdiction of this proceeding has been challenged and unless either this court or its attorney can factually support their opinion showing jurisdiction.  Until that is done, this court can not move foreword.

The petition for  redetermination filed by the Tax Commission is flawed.  No where in my letter to Ben McAfee can be found language used to support the statement of Angie Hillas that I have disputed the balances.  Not true.  Irrespective of the attempts of this court and the Tax Commission to make it otherwise is false.  The Tax Commission in participation with this administrative court have violated my right to appeal.

If the judicial system accepts the civil law procedures, it must abide by all the conditions required by that jurisdiction.  One of those requirements is that the challenged individual must be a party to the action, there being a lawful contract or stipulation voluntarily entered into by the party.  This rule of admiralty within the civil law jurisdiction was clearly spelled out by Supreme Court Justice William Johnson quoting Browne, 2 vol., p. 100 “. . . that the admiralty acts only in rem, and no person can be subject to that jurisdiction but by his consent, expressed by his entering into a stipulation.”  And again from “Keble’s Reports, p. 500, quoted by Browne, it is expressly said ‘that without a stipulation, the admiralty has no jurisdiction at all over the person.'” (Ramsey v. Allegree (25, U.S. 611, [1827])

When one boards a common carrier, like an airliner, boat, bus, etc., they enter into an admiralty jurisdiction and the pilot, captain or driver is in charge and the safety of the journey is the focus.

The civil law is the legal system that gives effect to a democracy and the majority’s power is unlimited and absolute.  The civil law was one of the grievances stipulated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for the colonies.  “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: . . .”

And so it comes around again to haunt our generation with the “pretended legislation” pass by the legislatures.  This has been acknowledged by Circuit Justice Baldwin and District Judge Hopkins, as they went through the struggle between the common law and admiralty, concluding: “It is needless to combat the proposition, that the civil jurisdiction of the admiralty was more expanded in the colonies than in the mother county; . . .”  Concluding that: “It is therefore a self evident proposition, that the jurisprudence of the United States is not founded in the civil law, . . .”  (Bains v. the James and Catherine, 2 Fed. Cases No. 756 [1832])

Justice Baldwin referred to the previous case by Justice Johnson, (Ramsey, supra), as he started out with a declaration that “it high time to check this silent and stealing progress of the admiralty in acquiring jurisdiction to which it has no pretensions.”

The Common Law Takes The First Position:

The Utah State Constitution requires that the “fundamental principles” of our Republic be used as a guide in determining the various laws passed by the legislature.  Since the Constitution for the Union of States is based upon the common law, the fundamental principles are found in the common law and are also a foundation for the republican form of government of each of the States.

As articulated by Circuit Justice Baldwin, following the unanimous declaration of rights by the congress of 1774, “these principles have been adopted as the foundation on which the state and federal constitutions have been built.” (Bains, supra)  If the common law can answer the controversy it has precedence.  If there is no damage, loss of life, liberty or property and the like, this would be for the civil law, but again, the parties are brought in by their own voluntary consent.

The common law of the Union is established by the fundamental principles set at the beginning and voted on by the States.  In society, citizens must not only know the law, but also agree to obey the law.  Knowing the fundamental principles of the law mentioned before are easily understood and can be applied to all situations.  Of course there is a single fundamental law that stands in the forefront of all law, and this was recorded by Luke (6:31) “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”  To the Israelites Moses delivered a similar message in Leviticus (19:18) “. . . but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: . . .”  “The Chinese philosopher Confucius, who lived from 551–479 B.C., is said to have written, “Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us.” A Hindu text written in about the same time period, the Mahabharata, includes the phrase, “Do not unto others which would cause pain if done to you.” Similar concepts are expressed in Taoism, Buddism, Zoroastrianism and many other religions and philosophies  . . .”  (WiseGeek.org)

When the founding documents that established the Union speak of life, liberty and property, they look to the golden rule, a common standard among the various nations.  When you mention sovereignty, delegation of authority, natural right and territorial jurisdiction, the golden rule is the guide.

The majority of laws passed by the legislatures are of the civil law nature, the rule of man.  The state of Utah by it action in passing UCS 76-1-105 believes that it has abolished the common law judicial system.  This act is only a smoke screen that covers up their responsibility to provide a republican system of government, which they haven’t.

The Separation of Powers to Safeguard the Republic:

By the court’s own admission, this administrative court is a part of the executive branch, executing judicial authority which is contrary to the Utah State Constitution Article V, Distribution of Powers; “. . . no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, . . .”  The lawyers coming out of the law schools think the rest of the people are stupid.  Their arrogance offend us.

It was the intention of the Constitutional Convention to follow a tried and true structure dividing the powers of government between three independent departments, executive, legislative and judicial.  Each as a check on the other against the abuse of power and as a protection of the fundamental principles of our republic and our natural rights.

With the onslaught of the legal profession, they have taken over all three divisions.  The lawyers legislate the laws; they execute the laws; and they judge the laws.  Today we have basically a two party system, each fighting to control at least two of the divisions.  We have lost the protection that the division once provided and as a result, we have no constitution.  In destroying this separation the legal profession has in effect “obstructed the administration of justice”, another point raised by the Declaration of Independence.

The Common Law Principle of Individual Sovereignty:

Again the implementation of the civil law does away with individual sovereignty and gives way to the majority.  Natural rights play very little in a democracy and are only given credence when it serves the political climate.  An example of this abuse of authority is in the “seat-belt” law enforce in the state.  Under the police powers of the state, the state can pass those laws and write regulations which “protect” the rights of the individual or society.  Laws that regulate speed zones, direct traffic, etc. are well within the police powers, however, the failure to use a seat belt has no effect on the welfare of society.  That is if an individual fails the wear the seat belt, no harm is done to others.

Our natural right to property is fundamental to our happiness and when our property is taken by theft, legislation does not make it legal, and violates that sacred right.

Due Process:

In as much as the prosecuting parties, including the appeals court are employed by the executive department of the State of Utah, and have a common interest in the outcome of this hearing, and can not allow a decision to go against the Tax Commission, the essential guide-line of due process, being fairness to all parties, is not possible.  It is recognized that “[d]o process means that everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing to determine their legal rights.” (ABA Division for Public Education)

A Common Law Principle of Delegation of Authority:

The principle of delegation is well established in government and under that principle, the sovereign can only delegate that authority which the sovereign individual has individually and in common with the group.  One power the individual does not have, and as a group is not given birth, is the authority to take someone else’s property without their consent.  A majority in the legislature cannot change that.  Theft is theft, irrespective of whether one or many choose to enact it and the legislature cannot hide it behind the civil law.

One of the other grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence:  “For imposing taxes on us without our consent.”  By imposing the civil law jurisdiction on the state of Utah by the legislature, this group has violated the people’s sacred right to property – – our labor.

Territorial Jurisdiction of Federal Laws:

It must be remembered that all legislation is territorial in nature.  So it is with the individual states, so it is with the Federal government.  The Constitution has designed the sphere of the federal government and it is well settled law that the powers of government are limited.  Article I, Section 8, clause 17 outlines the extent of that jurisdiction as it gives “exclusive legislation” to the central government over the ten square miles known as the District of Columbia and “to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the legislature of the state[s] . . .”

There is a common law maxim that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution it is the same as a prohibition, or a no-can-do notice to the federal authorities.  The Constitution does not give concurrent or any another type of jurisdiction to the federal government within the states without the “consent” of the state.  Once a state is admitted into the Union it does so on an “equal footing” and for the federal government to try and retain some of that “territorial” jurisdiction inherent in the state’s status as a territory is done so under the color of law and usurps an authority not granted by the people.

A Common Law Principle of Federal and State Taxation:

The power of taxation is inherent in the Sovereign and when sovereignty is traced to its source, it is found in the people.  Sovereign powers of a State or of the federal government are confined only to those objects which they create or exist by their permission.  Passing the article in the Utah Constitution which allows the imposition of an income tax is not generic in operation. The power of taxation is limited and legislation passed in connection with must conform to those fundamental principle of our republic.

Is the legislature following the golden rule when it takes the property of the citizens?  The Supreme Court has in the past followed the common law when it directs that only the sovereign has authority to impose a tax on its subjects.  When it says that natural rights are not the object of any election or majority vote, it is following the established constitutional common law.

Under the rule of law, each new law acted upon by the legislature must find it support in the fundamental principles of the republic.  This is where the sovereignty of the individual is self-evident along with the authority for the individual to delegate a portion of that power to others.  And as a group of individuals forming a society can delegate those commonly held powers to a government like defense.

Federal and state taxation is subject to these fundamental constitutional principles.  If you want to solve the problem of taxation, you start with reducing the size and expenses of government.

Gallery | This entry was posted in an enemy hath done this, civil law, Constitution, Delegation of Authority, democracy, Eminent Domain, equal footing, Federal income tax, fighting terrorism, freedom, government authority, liberty, republic, Sixteenth Amendment, Socialism, Sovereignty, State Authority to tax and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s