Common Law Community Training Manual
Establishing the Reign of Natural
Liberty:
The Common Law and its Courts
Issued by The
International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (Brussels)
What is
assembling is the first court in history to bring judgment against the Vatican
and the Crown of England as institutions. But our Court also signals the dawn
of a new notion of justice: one defined by the people themselves, and
especially by the historic victims of church and state, to bring about not only
a judgment on their persecutors, but a new political and spiritual arrangement
to undo the systems responsible for intergenerational crimes against humanity
- from the founding Charter of The
International Common Law Court of Justice, September 1, 2012
History was
made on February 11, 2013, when the first Catholic Pope in history resigned from his office
during peacetime in order to avoid arrest for protecting and aiding child
raping priests.
Barely two
weeks later, the same Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, was found guilty by the
International Common Law Court of Justice for Crimes against Humanity ,
including child trafficking. And the Arrest Warrant that he had anticipated,
and which provoked his resignation, was issued against him on February 25.
Evading
justice inside the Vatican, Ratzinger is presently an international fugitive
from the law – and a living example of the power of Common Law courts to
successfully prosecute so-called “heads of state”.
The lawful verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice was a “shot
heard around the world”, and has spawned efforts in twenty one countries to
establish similar popular courts of justice to reclaim the law from the wealthy
and their compliant governments. (see www.itccs.org)
This Manual
provides instruction and training to those of you who have moved from words to
actions. We speak to those who not only recognize the permanent war being waged
against humanity by a global corporate tyranny, but who are actively engaged in
dismantling that murderous system at its source so that justice can be made
real in a reclaimed world.
You are part
of a growing movement to create a new, liberated society within the shell of
the old by first allowing the law to act for all people and not a clique of
judicial specialists and their friends. That new society is emerging through
every act of courage and integrity by we who know what is at stake, and that
is, our children and the future of our species.
Why
we are Taking Action: Freeing Ourselves by Remembering the True Law
“Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in
chains.”
That fact
has altered little over the centuries. But the chains of oppression over much
of our species have been forged through the weapons of violence and ignorance,
and they can be undone.
Long before
any rulers held sway over humanity, men and women established customs and laws
among themselves to ensure their peace and liberties as free, self-governing
people. They did so from an inherent recognition of a Natural Law of Equality
or Divine Law whereby no one has any right to dominate or rule over others, to
seize more of creation than another, or to own any part of a world given
equally to all people.
It is the
Divine Principle of Creation that every child born is endowed with unalienable
liberties that no authority, law, government or religion can diminish or
abolish. Any power that attempts to do so is tyrannical and illegitimate, even
if it operates according to its own laws – for such tyranny is a denial of the
natural order and an attack upon divinity and humanity.
Two great
principles summarize this Natural Law:
1. All things exist and are held in common. By the state of
nature, no one has any more of a claim to the earth than another, as noted by a
founder of modern law, Thomas Hobbes:
“I
demonstrate in the first place, that in the natural state of men (which state
we may properly call the state of nature) all men have equal right unto all
things” (Leviathan, 1651)
2. The Law does harm to no-one. (Actus Regis Nemini Facit Injuriam) Arising
from the Ten Commandments and God’s law to do no harm to one’s neighbour, this
principle forms the basis of modern law.
John Stuart
Mill articulated this principle in On
Liberty where he argued that, “The only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others.” (1869)
An equivalent
idea was earlier stated in France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen of 1789 as, “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which
injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has
no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the
enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”
This Natural
Law exists to maintain the natural peace and equity between people and is their
shield and protector against unjust rule, rather than a force over them. Within
the ancient traditions of tribal communities, especially in the Anglo-Saxon
world, this Law evolved into what became known as the Customary or Common Law,
or the Law of the Land. It has strong echoes in the customs of indigenous
nations all over the world.
Here is a
basic summary of the nature of True or Common Law versus arbitrary law.
Natural
Liberty and the Basis of Common Law Courts: First Principles
1. Every
man, woman and child is born and is by nature free, equal and sovereign, and
possesses an inherent knowledge of what is true and right. Accordingly, no-one
can be subordinated to another or to any external authority, since every
person’s inherent wisdom and liberty makes them complete and sufficient creations
in themselves, within a wider community of equals.
2. This
personal sovereignty is a reflection of the wider Natural Law, whereby all life
by nature is indivisible and placed in common for the survival and happiness of
all. In any just society, this commonality endows all people with the
unalienable right to establish among themselves their own governance, and
defend themselves against any tyranny or violence, including that inflicted by
external authorities. Any authority that rules unjustly and arbitrarily,
without the free and uncoerced consent of the people, has lost its right to
rule and can be lawfully overthrown. “Unjust
government is not government but tyranny” – Plato
3. This
Natural Law gives rise to customary Common Law whose purpose is to protect the
inherent liberties and sovereignty of men and women in a community by
maintaining equity and peace among them. The Common Law derives its authority
from the people themselves, and from the capacity of the people to know what is
just and to judge right and wrong for themselves. This capacity is expressed in
a jury system of twelve freely chosen people who are the ultimate judge and
authority under Common Law and its courts.
4.
Historically, Common Law arose in England after the 11th century Norman
Conquest as a bulwark in defense of the people against the arbitrary rule of
self-appointed elites, especially monarchs and popes. The authority of these
elites was derived unnaturally, from warfare, violent conquest and the theft of
the earth, rather than from the consent of the community and its basis, the
divine law of peace and equality. This elite rule arose most strongly in the
Roman Empire and its descendent, the Church of Rome, under whose beliefs “god”
is a dominator and conqueror (“domine“),
and all people are “subjects” of the Pope.
5. Such a
conquest-based rule of papal and kingly elites gave rise to a legal system
known as Civil or Roman Law, and the belief that men and women are not endowed
with the capacity for self-rule and wisdom. All law and authority is therefore
derived externally, from statutes devised and imposed by a ruler, whether a
pope, a monarch or a government. This system developed from Aristotelian
philosophy and Roman property law in which creation is divided and human beings
are treated as chattels and the possessions of others, and are thereby devoid
of inherent liberties. The people are thus in every sense enslaved, cut off
from the world given freely and in common to all. This slave system ranks and
categorizes all people, and grants restricted “freedoms” (freithoms, or slave
privileges) that are defined and limited through statutes issued by rulers.
6. Common
and Civil (Roman) Law are therefore fundamentally opposed and are at war with
each other. They cannot be reconciled, since they arise from two completely
different notions of humanity and justice: Common Law knows life as a free gift
given equally to all, while under Civil Law, life is a conditional privilege,
and humanity is a managed slave populace. Accordingly, governments operate in
practice according to Civil (statute) law and denigrate or ignore Common Law
altogether through the rule of unaccountable judge-dominated courts.
7. The most
extreme form of elite-based Civil/Roman Law is what is called Papal or Canon
Law, which defines the Church of Rome as the only legitimate authority on earth
to which all other laws, people and governments are subordinate. Canon law is
self-governing and completely unaccountable to anything but itself. Behind its
front of Christian rhetoric, Roman Catholicism is a neo-pagan cult based upon
the late 3rd century Roman Emperor-worship system known as Sol Invictus, in
which one sovereign entitled “God and Master” (Deus et Dominus) rules heaven and earth:
specifically, the Pope. This tyrannical cult has not surprisingly caused more
warfare, genocide, conquest and murder than any power in human history, and
continues to constitute the single greatest threat to Common Law and human
liberty.
8. The
Church of Rome was the first and is the oldest corporation on our planet: a
legal entity designed for the protection of tyrants, which nullifies the
individual liability and responsibility of the elites for any crime or conquest
they perpetrate. From Rome and the Vatican Incorporated has spread the
contagion that now threatens to destroy our planet and our lives, as
unaccountable corporate oligarchy everywhere subverts liberty and the health of
our planet by subordinating all of life to profit and power.
9. At this
very moment of corporate conquest and its subjugation of humanity, a
counter-movement is arising to reassert the divine purpose and its operation
through the Common Law, and to restore the earth and humanity to their natural
being as a common body. This movement is foretold Biblically and in prophecy as
the time when all people are returned to their natural equality, devoid of all
divisions, privileges and oppression, in order live in harmony with creation
and one another.
10. This
restoration of humanity is a divine purpose, and begins by actively
dis-establishing all existing authority and institutions derived from Roman
civil law, and replacing them with a new governance under Common Law
jurisdiction. The creation of that new Natural Law authority among a liberated
humanity is the fundamental purpose of the Common Law Courts.
How
Do We Use the Common Law?
The truth is
that throughout everyday life, people everywhere use and rely on Common Law to
live and work together. It is simply the inherent way that people conduct their
affairs together. Liken it to the roots that bind together human communities by
unconditionally upholding the life, dignity and wellbeing of every man, woman
and child. These roots are especially necessary and foundational in the face of
tyrannical powers that seek to subvert such natural freedom.
The Common
Law’s firm horizontal guarantees of mutual respect and protection are a
permanent threat to the efforts by arbitrary rulers to harness men and women
into the unnatural and vertical arrangement known as the State. That is why
every government and religion seeks to annul the Common Law with their own
authority and statutes, in order to reduce free peoples everywhere to the
status of regimented, obedient tax paying wage slaves who serve a ruling
clique.
To extend
our everyday reign of Common Law into all areas of life means to challenge the
arbitrary rule of those cliques, and of all State level regimes. But the very
fact that it is the Law of we, the vast majority of humanity, means that it
only needs to be consistently practiced by enough of us for arbitrary authority
and dangers to crumble.
We use the
Common Law by simply employing and relying on it, in all spheres of life. And
that means, first, by establishing functioning Common Law Courts with absolute
and ultimate jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives and communities.
Matters
before a Common Law Court
Traditionally,
law in the European tradition falls into two general categories: civil and
criminal law. The former deals with disputes between individuals – often called
“Tort” offenses – or issues of negligence which cause harm. Criminal law deals
with acts of intentional harm to individuals but which, in a larger sense, are
offences against all people because they somehow threaten the community.
Arising as a
defense against absolutism and state or church tyranny, the Common Law
traditionally has dealt with Criminal Law matters that “crown” or “canon law”
courts refuse either to address, or do so in a restricted manner, including
murder, rape, warfare and other crimes against the community. But civil matters
of personal disputes may also be brought into a Common Law Court, which after
all claims universal jurisdiction over all legal matters within a community.
Indeed,
because Common Law is rooted in the jury system, what better forum can there be
for the settling of civil matters between individuals than a trial before one’s
own neighbors?
For our
purposes, however, the major focus of litigation before our Common Law Courts
will be on Criminal Law and matters involving serious threats or crimes made
against people, animals, communities, and the environment.
As in any
lawful system, the burden of proof in any such litigation brought before the
Common Law Court will be on the plaintiffs – those bringing the lawsuit – and
normal Rules of Evidence will apply. For example, allegations against a party
cannot be made in court without there being a basis in provable facts, such as
primary documentation that is certified by an independent party, or by
producing eyewitnesses to the alleged crime.
Another
crucial Rule of Evidence is the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, as in “No,
I wasn’t there, but I heard
about what happened”. This is an especially relevant rule when it comes to the
commission of serious crimes, such as murder, genocide or rape.
In short,
any allegation must be backed up with provable facts, and must be made by one
who was a direct participant in or an eyewitness to the event.
For our
purposes, it must be noted that in the case of especially monstrous, corporate
crimes committed by governments or other powers, such as wars of aggression,
genocide or human trafficking, normal rules of evidence are less stringently
applied. This is because of a realistic understanding that crimes committed by
entire societies or regimes are of a different nature than crimes by isolated
individuals. A different set of norms regarding intent and provable evidence
applies.
In the words
of the chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, Robert
Jackson,
“No regime that seeks the extermination of entire groups of people generally
retains written proof of their intent to commit this crime. Considering the
murderous nature of their regime, there is no need, since such extermination is
not considered a crime. Nevertheless, even such a system seeks to fog and
dissimulate the evidence, especially during wartime … The proof of crimes
against humanity generally lies not in documents but in the witness of
survivors, in mass graves, and in
the implied proof of the intent to commit these crimes contained in the
everyday and institutionalized laws, attitudes and norms of the murderous
regime.” (our emphasis)
Implied
intent is a legal concept especially relevant and specific to litigation
involving genocidal regimes, including governments and churches whose world
view and laws consider other groups to be unworthy of life or equal rights,
such as the groups that were tried and sentenced in the first case of the
International Common Law Court of Justice concerning the genocide of indigenous
peoples in Canada by church and state. (www.itccs.org)
Laws such as
the Indian Act of Canada, which impose a different set of laws on a racially targeted
group, or the Roman Catholic “canon law” called Crimen Sollicitationas, which condones and
facilitates the concealment of child rape within the church, indicate a clear
implied intent to commit and abet criminal acts.
That is, it
is unnecessary to prove the individual intent to harm children by Catholic
priests, since under their own self-governing rules called “canon law”, every
priest is systematically required to harm children by aiding those who do so if
he is to retain his job and ordination. The collective
guilt of these clergy as a whole is implied and clear, just as it
was concerning all of the servants of the Nazi regime.
Thus, while
normal due process requires that the prosecution prove that the accused
committed an act and did so with deliberate intent, such an intent may also be
assumed to exist by the larger context of a crime, especially when that crime
is perpetrated by entire organizations or regimes.
Ascertaining
the truth is always laborious, but ultimately the process is best guaranteed by
a body of jurors than single adjudicators. Common law juries, and not
individual judges, are invariably a better guarantee against the abuse of Rules
of Evidence and just procedure in a courtroom.
Self-governing
judges are notoriously prone to corruption and political manipulation, and when
appointed by the very governments under criminal investigation, are obviously
unsuited to the task of rendering a fair judgment. In fact, under legal
procedure, such state-appointed judges have no jurisdictional competence to
rule on the criminality and guilt of their employers.
Judges
routinely waive just procedure and rules of evidence, and are authorized to do
so by statute law. In Canada, “crown” appointed judges even have the power to
alter or destroy court records, silence one party in a dispute, and ignore due
process altogether!
The whole
point of establishing a jury-run Common Law Court is to prevent such a
manipulation of the law and justice by unaccountable parties or vested
interests. It is not accidental that a Founding Father of the American
Republic, John Hancock, declared in 1777,
“If we
have not Courts that are established and maintained by the People, rather than
by bribable Judges, then we will have no Republic … Our Constitution and our
Nation will rise or fall according to the independence of our Courts.”
Establishing
and Maintaining Common Law Courts
The Common
Law’s First Principles establish its general legitimacy and lawfulness. This
valid system gives rise to Courts with the power to protect the people as a
whole by prosecuting and indicting any persons and institutions that threaten
the community.
The mandate
to establish such Courts is derived from the sovereignty of the people as a
whole, and not from any particular political system or government. Common Law
Courts are therefore universal,
not constricted by customary borders or laws, and are jurisdictionally
competent to adjudicate any issue or grievance. Common Law Courts are not
subject to and do not recognize any other legal or moral authority, immunity or
privilege, like those routinely claimed by heads of churches and states.
Enjoying
universal jurisdiction because of its rootedness in the Natural Law, Common Law
Courts can be established in any country or community, and not only within
nations with a specifically common law legal tradition, such as England, Canada
and America.
Common Law
Courts are established when any number of men and women come together to judge
a matter of concern to them and to their community. Thus, such Courts are
invariably and naturally linked to political movements, “town hall gatherings”
and Tribunals of Conscience that unite citizens and give direct voice to their
concerns and demands. The Court is thereby the expression of that voice.
The Court
itself is established by the direct will and vote of the people as a whole, who
elect Citizen Jury of at least twelve people, a Citizen Prosecutor to conduct
the case on behalf of the people, a presiding Adjudicator whose job is strictly
advisory, and a Sheriff and group of Peace Officers to enforce the summonses,
warrants and verdicts of the Court.
Additionally,
the community may appoint local magistrates versed in the law known as Justices
of the Peace (JP’s), who traditionally have the power to summon juries and
issue warrants. The JP may also initiate the formation of a Common Law court.
All of the
participants in a Common Law Court must present their own case in all of the
Court proceedings, since to allow another to “re-present” them would constitute
a surrender of their natural rights and sovereignty. This applies both to the
plaintiffs and the defendants involved in any matter before the Court.
There are,
accordingly, no professional lawyers or permanent presiding judges in a Common
Law Court system.
There is no
restriction on the power of a Common Law Court to access any person, place or
thing, nor any limitation on the duration or rights of the Court. The Court and
its Magistrate can issue Public Summonses that are binding on any person or
institution, and enforceable by the Court Sheriff, who has an unrestricted
right to detain any person named in the Summons and bring them into Court.
The final
verdict of the Common Law Court Jury is final and not subject to appeal, simply
because a reasonable and non-coerced group of citizens can come to the truth of
any matter on the basis of the evidence alone, possessed as they are of an
inherent knowledge of right and wrong. The truth is not mutable. A defendant is
either innocent or guilty; the truth is not subject to revision or
reconsideration, since then it is not true.
However, if
it can be proven beyond any doubt that the Court’s verdict was made unlawfully,
was unduly influenced, or occurred on the basis of incomplete or faulty
evidence, a Common Law Magistrate can re-open and re-try the case with the
normal Jury and Court officers.
In the same
way, the sentence of the Court is also final, and is enforced not only by the
Court Sheriff but by all citizens. For the Common Law arises from and is the
direct responsibility of all people, as are all of its procedures. The verdict
really is a declaration of the people that they will govern themselves
according to their own democratic law and decisions.
There is no
restriction on the power of a Citizen Jury to impose a sentence on any person,
group or institution. The Court Adjudicator or Magistrate has no power to
alter, influence or direct the original verdict or sentence of the Jury –
simply to advise the Jury on legal procedure and points of law.
Finally,
upon issuing its final verdict and sentence, the Common Law Court jury is
automatically concluded and its members are released from their duty. No Court
is maintained without the conscious consent and participation of the people
themselves.
Again, there
is no professional, permanent caste of either lawyers or judges in a Common Law
Court system, but rather elected and temporary Court officers.
Legal
Procedure and Court Protocol
Common Law,
being derived from Natural Justice, bases its legal procedures on the
centrality of Due Process:
the three-fold right of anyone to be notified of the charges being brought
against him, to see the evidence in such a suit, and to be tried and judged
before his own peers.
No
legitimate trial can proceed nor can a conviction be rendered if the accused
has not been given these rights, and afforded the chance to freely defend
himself in a court of law.
Such rights
are based on these fundamental doctrines of the Common Law:
1. It is
presumed that the accused is innocent, not guilty;
2. The
burden of proof of the accused’s guilt rests not upon the defendant but the
plaintiff, who must convince a jury of the guilt of the accused beyond any
reasonable doubt, and
3. The
accused cannot be detained without due process but must appear promptly before
a Court, according to the principle of Habeas
Corpus (Latin for “produce the body”).
Both sides
in a dispute are given equal time to file their statements and evidence, make
motions to the Court, and respond to arguments. But to avoid “vexatious
litigation” designed to simply harass or disrupt an adversary – which can drag
out and impede justice and due process itself – the Court normally sets a
strict time limit on pre-trial proceedings, after which the trial must
commence.
The
pre-trial period is designed to allow both sides the opportunity to present
their evidence and arguments to one another in order to seek a settlement prior
to a Court appearance. This presentation is usually referred to as “Examination
for Discovery” or Voir Dire
(“to see and to say”), where either party can demand any relevant evidence or
document from the other.
If
Examination does not produce a settlement of differences, then the Court is
convened and a trial begins.
The general
procedures and protocols of a Common Law Court are summarized in the following
outline, which must be followed by anyone seeking to accuse and try other
parties.
Step
One – Compiling the Case
A Statement
of Claim must be produced by those bringing a case, known as the Plaintiffs.
Their Statement sets out in point form the basic facts of the dispute, the
wrong being alleged, and the relief or remedy being sought.
Next, the
Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim must be accompanied by supporting evidence:
documents and testimonies proving their case beyond any reasonable doubt. This
evidence must be duly sworn by those not party to the dispute in the form of
witnessed statements; and it must consist of the original documents themselves,
and not copies.
As well,
anyone whose testimony is used in this body of evidence must be willing to come
into Court to testify and affirm their own statement.
Step Two – Seeking the Remedy of
a Common Law Court: Filing a Notice of Claim of Right
After
gathering his case, a Plaintiff must then seek the aid of a Common Law Court
and its officers. Such a Court can be brought into being by publishing a Notice
of Claim of Right (see
Appendix B, “Court Documents”), which is a public declaration
calling for the assistance of the community in the asserting of the Plaintiff’s
right under Natural Justice to have his case heard through the Common Law, by
way of a jury of his neighbors and peers.
Such a
Notice can be published in local newspapers or simply notarized and posted in a
prominent public location, like a town hall or library.
Step Three – Forming a Common Law
Court
Within 24
hours of the issuing of such a Notice of Claim of Right, any twelve citizens of
a community can constitute themselves as a Common Law Court and its jury, and
must then appoint the following Court Officers from their ranks:
- a Court
Adjudicator, to advise and oversee the Court
- a Public or Citizen Prosecutor
to conduct the case; this person is normally the Plaintiff himself or someone
he authorizes to advise but not represent him
- a Defense Counsel to
advise but not represent the accused
- a Court Sheriff, either
elected from the community or delegated from among existing peace officers
- Bailiffs, a Court Registrar and a
Court Reporter
It is
assumed that people with knowledge of the Common Law and legal procedure will
act in these capacities. And, as mentioned, a Common Law Magistrate or Justice
of the Peace may also initiate this formation of a Common Law Court.
Step Four – Swearing in and
Convening the Jury and Court Officers: Oaths of Office
Upon the
appointment of these Court Officers, the Adjudicator (a Justice of the Peace or
a comparable Magistrate) will formally convene the Court by taking and
administering the following Oath of Common Law Court Office to all of the Court
officers:
I (name)
will faithfully perform my duties as an officer of this Common Law Court
according to the principles of Natural Justice and Due Process, acting at all
times with integrity, honesty and lawfulness. I recognize that if I fail to
consistently abide by this Oath I can and will be removed from my Office. I
make this public Oath freely, without coercion or ulterior motive, and without
any mental reservation.
After taking
this oath, the Jury members, Court Counselors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs and Reporter
will then convene and receive instructions from the Adjudicator concerning the
case. The Adjudicator is not a presiding Judge or Magistrate but an advisor to
the Court, and has no power to influence, direct or halt the actions or the
decisions of the Jury or other Court officers, except in the case of a gross
miscarriage of justice or negligence on the part of other Court officers. Thus,
the Court is self-regulating and dependent on the mutual respect and governance
of all the Court officers and the Jury.
Step Five – Pre-Trial Conference
The
Adjudicator brings together both parties in a pre-trial conference in an
attempt to settle the case prior to a trial. If a settlement is not achieved,
both parties must then engage in a mandatory Examination of Discovery, in which
the evidence and counter-evidence and statements of both sides will be
presented. After a period of not more than one week, this pre-trial conference
will conclude and the trial will commence.
Step Six – Issuing of Public
Summonses
No person or
agency may be lawfully summoned into Common Law Court without first receiving a
complete set of charges being brought against them and a formal Notice to Appear, or Writ of Public
Summons. Such a Summons outlines the exact time, date and address
when and where the trial will commence.
The Public
Summons is applied for by the Plaintiff through the Court Registrar. The
Summons will be issued under the signature of the Court Adjudicator and
delivered to the Defendant by the Court Sheriff within 24 hours of its filing
in the Court Registry by the Plaintiff. The Sheriff must personally serve the
Defendant, or post the Summons in a public place and record the posting if the
Defendant avoids service.
The
Defendant has seven days to appear in Court from the date of service.
Step Seven – The Trial Commences:
Opening Arguments
After an
introduction by the Adjudicator, the trial commences with opening arguments by
first the Plaintiff or Prosecutor, and then the Defendant. The Adjudicator and
both Counselors will then have the chance to question either parties for
clarification, and to make motions to the Court if it is apparent that the
proceedings can be expedited.
Note: Step Seven can
still occur even if one side, usually the Defendant, is not present in Court
and refuses to participate. Such a trial, being conducted “in absentia”,
remains a legitimate legal procedure once the Defendant is given every
opportunity to appear and respond to the charges and evidence against him. An In absentia trial will
commence with the Plaintiff presenting his opening argument followed by his
central case. The Court-appointed Defense Counsel will then be given the chance
to argue on behalf of the absent Defendant, if that is the wish of the latter.
It is often
the case that a non-response or non-appearance by the Defendant can result in
the Adjudicator advising the Jury to declare a verdict in favor of the
Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Defendant has tacitly agreed with the case
against himself by not disputing the evidence or charges, and by making no
attempt to appear and defend his own good name in public.
Step Eight – The Main Proceedings
Assuming the
proceedings are not being conducted in absentia and the Defendant is present,
the main proceedings of the trial then commence with the Plaintiff’s
presentation of the details of his evidence and argument against the Defendant,
who can then respond. The Plaintiff may be assisted by the Citizen Prosecutor.
After his
presentation, the Plaintiff is then cross-examined by the Defendant or his
advising Counsel.
Following cross-examination, the Defendant presents his case, with or without
his advising Counselor, and in turn is cross-examined by the Plaintiff or the
Citizen Prosecutor.
Step Nine – Closing Summaries and
Arguments to the Jury and final advice by the Adjudicator
After the
main proceedings, the Adjudicator has the chance to further question both
parties in order to give final advice to the Jury. The Plaintiff and then the
Defendant then have the right to give their closing summary and argument to the
Court. The Adjudicator closes with any final comments to the Jury.
Step Ten – The Jury retires to
deliberate
The Court is
held in recess while the twelve citizen jury members retire to come to a
unanimous verdict and a sentence, based on their appraisal of all the evidence.
There is no time restriction on their deliberations, and during that time, they
are not allowed contact with anyone save the Court Bailiff, who is their guard
and escort. The Jury’s verdict and sentence must be consensual, non-coerced,
and unanimous.
Step Eleven – The Jury issues its
unanimous verdict and sentence
The Court is
reconvened after the Jury has come to a verdict. If the jurors are not in
complete unanimity concerning the verdict, the defendant is automatically
declared to be innocent. The Jury spokesman, chosen from among them by a vote,
announces the verdict to the Court, and based on that verdict, the final
sentence is also declared by the Jury.
Step Twelve – The Court adjourns
and the Sentence is enforced
Following
the announcement of the Verdict and Sentence, the Adjudicator either frees the
Defendant or affirms and authorizes the decision of the Jury in the name of the
community and its Court, and instructs the Sheriff to enforce that sentence.
The Adjudicator then dismisses the Jury and formally concludes the trial
proceedings, and the Court is concluded. The entire record of the Court
proceedings is a public document, accessible to anyone, and can in no way be
withheld, altered or compromised by the Adjudicator or any other party.
A Note on Common Law Enforcement: It is understood
that every able bodied citizen is obligated and empowered by Natural Law to
assist the Court Sheriff and his Deputies in enforcing the sentence of the
Court, including by ensuring the imprisonment of the guilty, the monitoring of
his associates and the public seizure of the assets and property of the guilty
and his agents, if such is the sentence of the Court. This collective law
enforcement is required in the interest of public safety, especially when the
guilty party is an entire institution or head officers of that body.
A Note on Appealing Common Law
Court Decisions:
Under the doctrine of Natural Law, in which every man and woman is born with an
inherent grasp of right and wrong and of justice, it is understood that a jury
of twelve citizens, when given the complete evidence and facts of a case, will
arrive at a just and proper verdict. The truth of that verdict must stand and
is not subject to re-evaluation or dispute, except in the case of a gross
dereliction of duty or non-consideration of evidence. Therefore, the verdicts
of Common Law Court juries are not subject to appeal or revision, since the truth
is not mutable or reformable.
This
solidity of a verdict is also required by the Common Law doctrine and custom of
Stare Decisis, meaning “the decision stands”, whereby the precedent decisions
of previous Court verdicts have binding authority. Without Stare Decisis, the
law is subject to the whims and political interference of rulers and despots.
In the words
of Black’s Law Dictionary,
The doctrine
of stare decisis states that legal decisions are binding and shall not be
reversed. “The decision stands.” That is, once a court has entered its judgment
upon an issue, it shall not reverse itself. This
is in fact the foundation of legality in the common law system – and is one of
the principal differences between common and civil law. (our
emphasis)
Verdicts,
Enforcement, and Convicting Rulers and Institutions
Every legal
system operates according to its own worldview and essential purpose. In the
case of Civil or statute law, the contending interests of individuals waging
war with one another in a courtroom define the process and aims of the Court.
This system serves whoever has the money or influence to present the most
convincing case, usually before a single magistrate who is part of a
self-governing and unaccountable judicial clique.
The law,
under this elite-derived system, is a private weapon to wield against another
person or group over commercial interests, not an avenue of justice for all or
of the common good.
In the
Common Law, contrarily, the Court is defined not by contending individual
interests, but by the needs of the community as a whole, and by justice as
defined by those who have suffered from the lack of it. A bedrock of collective
morality shapes how the Common Law operates, according to a simple issue: Will this legal decision and precedent
best serve the community as a whole, and those within it who are the most
vulnerable or who have suffered or been victimized, or who may be?
Men and
women have a natural tendency to resolve their differences and mediate disputes
among themselves, when non-coerced and left to themselves to apply their own
natural sense of right and wrong. Despite this, the State has under threat of
force violently conditioned people to automatically deny their own judgment and
defer to external authorities whenever they are in dispute or they seek
justice. And so a long “relearning of freedom” is needed for Common Law to
become a functional part of human life once again.
Fortunately,
we have found that the very act of publicly declaring and establishing the
supremacy of the People and their Common Law has sparked that process of
relearning freedom in the hearts and minds of growing numbers of people.
Sparked, but not secured. For the greatest impediment to the efficacy of Common
Law courts lies in the fears and doubts that seize citizens when they are
presented with the power to be the law, and not have the law be done to them.
“Taking the
law into your own hands”, we have been taught wrongfully is a violation of
civil order and tantamount to “anarchy”. In reality, for citizens to judge
legal matters for themselves is the highest civic virtue and the cornerstone of
true democracy, according to the Athenian law maker Solon. The latter even
believed that citizens should be fined or reprimanded for shrinking from a
public controversy or from their inborn capacity to be lawgivers.
At the heart
of that personal responsibility for the law is the capacity of citizens to
judge a lawsuit for themselves as sworn jurors, and impose a verdict and
sentence in such a suit. The jury system has always been the purest expression
of the Common Law and its capacity to empower the people themselves to defend
traditional liberties and ascertain the truth of a matter.
To render a
fair and reasonable verdict, anyone simply needs to know all the facts and the
evidence, and consider it all soberly, without threats, influence or coercion.
The more people who gather to determine the truth of a matter, the more likely
they will come to a just and truthful verdict. It tends to be the case that
individual bias or prejudice, which is always present and undeniable within a
jury, becomes through the jury process counterbalanced and absorbed into a
broader collective truth imposed by the natural reason and fairness among jury
members.
Enforcement
The big and
thorny issue, of course, is not whether men and women can come to a Court
verdict, but rather, how their decision can be enforced, and effective in their
community. This is especially an issue when the verdict is imposed against
heads of church or state, or even entire institutions, as in the February 25,
2013 verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ)
concerning Genocide in Canada. (www.itccs.org)
To use that
case as an example, the moral weight of the verdict was clearly the strongest
weapon in the arsenal of the Court, and created the conditions for the
enforcement of the verdict against the thirty officials of church and state
named in the indictment.
For one
thing, the February 25 verdict – which sentenced all the defendants to public
banishment, twenty five years in prison and the loss of all property and assets
– directly helped depose not only Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, but the most
powerful Catholic Cardinal in Rome: the Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio
Bertone, who also resigned while in office after the ICLCJ verdict was
pronounced.
Ratzinger
and Bertone know about international law, even if others don’t. They understand
that the verdict of the ICLCJ carries a recognized legitimacy under the Law of
Nations and the public right to form Tribunals of Conscience when governments
and courts refuse to address a matter. And the Vatican also knows that the ICLCJ
verdict can be entered into other nation’s courts and used for the issuing of
arrest warrants against proven war criminals like church officers. And so the
resignation of these ostensibly “untouchable” church leaders in the spring of
2013 is simple proof of the power of independent, common law court verdicts.
A court
verdict, after all, is a binding order carrying with it the full force of the
law, and whoever ignores or subverts such a verdict, and the Court’s orders
arising from it, is guilty of an indictable crime.
In the
Appendix to this Manual, we have reprinted all of the Court documents related
to that first ICLCJ case of Genocide in Canada. The Court Order and Arrest
Warrant dated March 5, 2013, can be acted on by any sworn agent of the ICLCJ or
whoever such an Agent appoints. Any citizen, in short, can assist in the arrest
of Joseph Ratzinger, Tarcisio Bertone and the twenty eight other officials of
church and state found guilty of Crimes against Humanity by the ICLCJ.
Such
enforcement of the law by citizens themselves is generally recognized in most
countries, under the precedent known generically as “the Right of Citizens’
Arrest”. In Canada, for example, under a law known as the Citizens Arrest and Self-defence Act
(2012), citizens can detain anyone who either commits a crime or is even
suspected of having done so, or who poses a threat to their own or others’
safety: like, for our purposes, a child raping priest. This power of Citizens
Arrest has in fact been broadened under this new Canadian law, from what it was
previously. (see : http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2012_9/FullText.html)
In theory,
then, the enforcement of Common Law Court verdicts by any citizen is not only
perfectly legitimate and lawful, but is guaranteed even under the laws of
countries dominated by Civil, statute law. But power, as we know, is not only
about laws and theory, but ultimately involves naked force: the capacity of one
group to impose its will upon another.
Hugh
Grotius, a sixteenth century pioneer of international law, said that legal
principles acquired power only when backed by cannon fire. So besides its legal
and moral weight, what “cannons” will back up and enforce the verdicts of our
Common Law courts? Especially when the fire power of those we are sentencing
and arresting is apparently so much greater than ours?
Another
great pioneer, the Chinese general Sun Tzu, wrote millennia ago that in any
conflict, power is not ultimately what you have materially but rather
psychologically; and the superior firepower of a much bigger enemy can always
be negated with the right, unforeseen maneuvers. (We’ve reprinted forty of Sun Tzu’s most relevant
teachings in Appendix C).
Those rulers
indicted by the ICLCJ are men and women garbed by the illusory robes of their
offices, and they are guarded by other men and women who, like the rulers
themselves, are motivated primarily by fear. That fear is their greatest
weakness, and can be easily exploited by even a small group of people, as
anyone who has occupied a Roman Catholic church learns very quickly.
The fact
that laws guard the rich and the powerful is not as important as the reality
that any functional law rests upon its moral and political legitimacy. Once
such legitimacy is weakened or gone, the laws and hard physical power of a
state or church begin to crumble. Once public confidence in a ruler wanes,
internal divisions appear in the ruling hierarchy, and usually a “palace coup”
occurs and the regime falls. We are witnessing precisely such developments and
such a collapse of legitimacy within the Roman Catholic church today, in the
manner of events prior to the deposing of any dictatorship.
And so the
short answer to the question, how do we enforce our verdicts in the face of the
power of the enemy, is simply, we do as Sun Tzu teaches, and strike at the
weakest, not the strongest, part of that enemy.
The weak
point of any institution, especially a church, is its public image and its
source of money. Threaten either, and the entire institution must respond to
the smallest of enemies. We have proven that in practice. And the very fact of
our smallness gives us a freedom and flexibility to strike at such big targets
when and how we like: a power that is denied to big institutions.
A Common Law
Court verdict like the one of February 25 is a wedge between the credibility of
an institution like the Vatican and the rest of the world. Clearly, by striking
at that credibility – a weak link in the church’s chain – we are maneuvering
around the obvious strong points of that opponent and hitting them where they
have no defense: the fact that as an organization, they officially protect and
aid child rapists and human trafficking. And it was precisely by doing such a
strategic maneuver that on August 4, 2013, the Vatican was declared a
Transnational Criminal Organization under international law. (www.itccs.org,
August 3)
As such a
criminal body, the Vatican can now be legally disestablished, its officers
arrested, and its property and wealth seized, not simply under Common Law but
according to the Law of Nations. (see
The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, November
2000, articles 5, 6 and 12: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/treaties/CTOC/#Fulltext)
So while it
isn’t normally possible to immediately detain heads of states or corporations
after a sentence is passed against them, such an arrest does follow naturally
as their credibility and protection diminishes. Their overt power tends to
crumble as the law and public condemnation works around their strong defenses
and undermines them, like water flowing around a wall or a rock.
The point of
any Common Law Court verdict, after all, is not to target or imprison mere
individuals, but to stop any threat to the helpless and to the community: to arrest
such threats so they do not reoccur, primarily by ending the institutional
source of those threats. And our chief means to do so is the moral weight of
our evidence and verdicts combined with the capacity of many people to enforce
those verdicts.
Common
Law Sheriffs and Peace Officers
That brings
us to a key aspect of the Court: its police arm, without which it cannot
function.
The tradition of Common Law sheriffs is an old one in the English speaking
world: men or women appointed from the local community to detain those harming
others, bring them into town or “shire” courts for judgement, and enforce that
court’s sentence. In the United States, that tradition is still alive and
embodied in locally elected sheriffs who are granted considerable power within
their communities.
The role of
the Common Law Court Sheriff is fourfold: to provide security for the Court, to
deliver Court Summonses and Orders to Appear, to detain and physically deliver
to Court those summoned who evade a Court Order, and finally, to enforce the
final sentence of the Court, including by jailing and monitoring the guilty.
The Sheriff
does not perform these duties alone, but with deputies and other agents he
appoints to assist him. Such a “posse” is another pejorative term that actually
refers to an important traditional custom of mobilizing all the able bodied men
in a community to stop anyone who has committed a crime. The word “posse” comes
from a Latin term “pro toto posse suo” meaning “to do the utmost in one’s
power”.
According to
one writer,
All
persons who were the victims of a crime in Anglo-Saxon England were expected to
raise their “hue and cry” and apprehend the criminal; and upon hearing their
cry, every able-bodied man in the community was expected to do the “utmost in
his power” (pro toto posse suo) to chase and apprehend the accused as a
“posse”.
-
1215: The Year of Magna Carta by J. Danziger et al (2003)
The custom
of electing community peace officers like sheriffs, in other words, arose from
the belief that everyone in a community had the obligation to police and
protect themselves and their children. The Court Sheriff is thereby the servant
of the people, taken from among them, answerable to and recallable by them, and
not an external force over them.
Part of the
power of such a Sheriff is that he can deputize anyone to assist him, including other police officers and
agents of the very institutions being named and tried in Common Law courts.
This is an especially important action and tactic
during this, the early stages of the development of our local Common Law
courts, since it uses the very strength of the system we are opposing against
itself.
To give an
example, if a Common Law Court Summons or Arrest Warrant is to be delivered
against a church or government official, the Court Sheriff will first deliver a
copy of it to the local, existing police agency along with a Deputizing Notice
placing those police under the jurisdiction of the Common Law. (See Court Documents, Appendix B). As such, the police are
then obligated to assist the Sheriff and must take the same Oath of Common Law
Office as the Sheriff.
If those
issued such a Notice deny or dispute it or refuse to take the Oath, they are
then ordered to stand down from their position and to not interfere with the Sheriff
in his duties. If they agree with the Notice, either directly or through their
silence or non-interference, such police agencies are tacitly abiding by the
Common Law action, and the normal protection around criminals in high office is
suddenly nullified.
Such a
remarkable encounter is in effect an enormous tug of war between two contending
legal systems: a battle of wills, played out in full public view as an enormous
“teaching moment”. Our aim
is to create and encourage such a creative confrontation and moral conflict at
every level of official society.
This is the
bigger and crucial point of that particular confrontation between Court
Sheriffs and Civil law policemen, which must always be visible and televised to
the world as it occurs: that it is a chance for the people to learn directly
that those policemen and soldiers who provide the muscle for the system are not
exempt from the authority of Common Law, and
must ultimately make a choice concerning who and what they serve.
The moral and propaganda value of publicly posing such a question is
inestimable.
On those
occasions when this tactic has been tested in Canada and elsewhere, the results
have always been the same: the police back off and do not interfere. Time and
again, neither the RCMP nor the Vancouver police have interfered with
protestors who peacefully occupied Catholic or Protestant churches responsible
for the death of Indian children. On one occasion, a senior police sergeant
even stated that if the church had committed such crimes and were served with a
Court Order, he’d be duty bound to enforce such an Order and help arrest those
responsible!
Again,
quoting Sun Tzu, to defeat an enemy one must know them; and such knowledge can
only be gained through constant contact. “Provoke
them to learn their responses. Prick them to test their strength and weakness.
Do not outfight them but outthink them.”
Common Law
peace officers return power to the people by making them their own police
authorities. In so doing, they challenge the very basis of the status quo and
its elite-based rule, by undermining those unaccountable “armed bodies of men”
who constitute the final and ultimate power of the State.
The Common Law, in short, is a seed of fundamental social and political
transformation, not simply a weapon of self-defence for the oppressed.
On
Citizens’ Arrests
The right
and necessity of citizens to detain suspected or actual criminals has long been
recognized under both civil and common law.
For example,
as mentioned, under a recent law in Canada, The Citizens’ Arrest and Self
Defense Act (2012), the right of citizens to perform arrests and detain
suspects on their own has been broadened to include not only people caught
endangering the community or harming others, but anyone suspected of crimes, including
known offenders.
Under the
same common law custom of pro toto posse suo (see above) that empowers any
group of adults to unite and stop those causing harm, the right of Citizens’
Arrest is not restricted or negated by a higher authority because of the
recognition that any man or woman has the competence and obligation to see and
directly halt wrongdoing in their community.
The
procedure for performing a Citizens’ Arrest is as follows:
1. One must
first either witness a crime, or recognize a suspected criminal or known
offender, or even have a reasonable suspicion that such persons pose a danger
to others. Such a suspicion must be based on probable cause and not simply a
“feeling” or prejudice about someone.
2. One must
then inform the suspect or offender that he or she is being placed under
Citizens’ Arrest under the right of Necessity to Defend, which obligates the
arrester to detain the suspect or offender. The arrester must state who they
are and why they are exercising the power of arrest by stating the cause of
action.
3. The
offender or suspect must then be detained and held for trial in a common law
court, if they turn out to have committed a crime or pose a danger to others.
The amount of force used in the arrest must be a reasonable response to the
suspect’s behavior.
Citizens can
normally hand over those they have detained to an authorized Common Law peace
officer or a Sheriff of the court. The arresters must be willing to appear in
court and give sworn testimony concerning their actions.
The crucial
importance of the power of Citizens’ Arrest is that it trains and empowers
citizens to take responsibility for policing their communities and for the law
itself. It moves democracy from theory to action.
Broader
Consequences of the Common Law Court:
A
World made New
Our first
real step towards independence from England was the establishment of our own
Republican courts, right under the nose of the Brits. We set up a different
legal system of our traditional Brehon laws, even while under military occupation.
And we had to defend that system in arms. So you can say that once we started
living under our own laws, everything else had to follow, right up to becoming
a new nation.
- Joe MacInnes, Republican veteran of the
Irish Civil War (1974 interview)
For what you
call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying the
conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But
over and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and
reduce us to poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders
judgement on rich and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who
will thus turn the world upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies
- Gerrard Winstanley, The True Levellers’
Standard, Surrey, England, 1649
For the
people themselves to sit in judgment of historically “untouchable” rulers like
popes and heads of state, and to render an enforceable verdict on their crimes,
is a revolutionary act. And such a revolution has begun, with the February 25,
2013 verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice.
We cannot shrink from or deny the profound consequences of taking such a
necessary historic step. Rather, we must recognize that the new judicial system
in our hands is in fact a doorway to a transformed world, in which the land and
its wealth and society as a whole is reclaimed by all people, and brought into
harmony with Natural Justice through a great social levelling.
Many
traditions and prophecies foresee such a time as now as a judgment upon the
corruption and injustice of the human world. Biblically, such a moment was
known as the Jubilee, when all human laws and divisions are abolished, and
society, like nature during a fallow year, is allowed to rest from warfare,
corruption and injustice.
In truth, we
recognize this historic moment not only as a condemnation of what has been, but
primarily as a transformation into what is coming to be: a reinventing of
humanity according to the simple principle that no law or authority shall ever
again cause anyone to rule, harm or dominate others.
The aim of
Common Law is to re-establish direct relations of mutual aid among people by
placing justice and the law within their reach again. And that devolution of
power will simultaneously disestablish all hierarchical institutions of state,
business and church which control and mediate human life as a power over
people.
A process so
profound and revolutionary can only be enacted from the grassroots, by many
people who have relearned freedom and use it to take action in their own
communities to govern themselves as their own judge, jury and police. On the
basis of this good renewed soil, a great harvest will one day arise in the form
of new and local Republics of Equals, in harmony with itself and all Creation.
The Common Law is a catalyst and a means towards achieving this political and
spiritual end.
For now, as
we struggle to give birth to the Courts that are like a great plow breaking
open the dead soil of the status quo, we must never forget that much of what we
have been taught will betray us, for we have been raised as slaves to think and
operate under laws that serve the few. Everything must be rethought and retried
according to the two great Principles of Natural Law: All things are placed in common for
the good of all; and therefore, the law shall cause harm to no-one.
Our
principles are firm, but our methods and tactics are supple. We must
audaciously try ever new ways to expose, indict and stop the criminal
institutions and corporations that are killing our planet, our children and our
sacred liberties. And together, we must learn from every mistake and defeat,
and generalize the victories and wisdom we gain into clear precedent,
throughout this long redemptive struggle that will span many lifetimes.
The
conscience born into us is our lamp during this journey and our best
instructor, as is our great heritage of Natural Law and Reason, passed down to
us so that a free and independent humanity may never perish from the earth.
Armed with this truth, this knowledge and this sacred purpose, go forth and
take action! You have a world to win back.
……………………
The Law
is the public conscience. And the Common Law is but common reason.
- Sir Edward Coke, 1622
Appendix
A. Sources and Resources
Bouvier’s
Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier, (1856) Legal Maxims, by Broom and Bouvier,
(1856) A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, (1893) Black’s Law
Dictionary, by Henry Campell Black, (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions, 1933-1990)
Maxims of Law, by Charles A. Weisman, (1990)
See also O.
W. Holmes, The Common Law (1881; new ed., ed. by M. DeWolfe Howe, 1963, repr.
1968); T. F. Plucknett, Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed. 1956); H.
Potter, Historical Introduction to English Law and Its Institutions (4th ed.
1958); A. R. Hogue, Origins of the Common Law (1966); R. C. van Caenegem, The
Birth of the English Common Law (1973); J. H. Baker, The Legal Profession and
the Common Law (1986); R. L. Abel and P. S. C. Lewis, ed., The Common Law World
(1988).
Further
publications of aspects of the International Common Law Court of Justice and
its procedures and principles will be forthcoming, issued by the ICLCJ Legal
Advisory Board.
B. Examples of Common Law Court
Documents
1. Notice of
Claim of Right – To be publicly issued in order to convene a local Common Law
Court
PUBLIC
NOTICE OF CLAIM OF RIGHT
Issued by
_____________________________________ on _______________________
in the
community of ____________________________.
I,
____________________________________, give public notice of my personal claim
of right and of lawful excuse to convene and establish a common law court under
my liberty as a flesh and blood man or woman; and I do hereby call upon the
support of all competent men and women to assist me in this lawful right.
I further
give public notice of my personal claim of right and of lawful excuse to
convene and establish as part of such a court a jury of my peers, consisting of
twelve men or women, to judge a matter affecting the wellbeing, rights and
safety of myself and my community, that matter being the following:
(Description
of issue, statement of claim and parties named)
I further
give public notice that the said jury of my peers claims the jurisdictional
competence to judge this matter and issue a sentence and verdict within the
said common law court established to render such a judgement, based upon proven
and irrefutable evidence presented within its court.
I hereby
publicly call upon and request the support of my community to establish this
common law court and its jury of twelve men or women, to be sworn to act in
such a capacity for the duration of the court proceedings, according to Natural
Law and the rules of evidence and due process.
I make this
public claim of right freely, without coercion or ulterior motive, in the
interest of justice and the public welfare.
_________________________
Claimant
_________________________
(witness)
___________________________
Date
2.
Deputizing Notice issued by Court Sheriffs to other peace officers
NOTICE
AND WARRANT TO DEPUTIZE
ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE OF THE COMMON LAW
COURT OF JUSTICE
AND THE JURISDICTION OF NATURAL
LAW AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
To all Peace
Officers and Law or Statute Enforcement Officials:
This Public
Notice is issued to you as a lawful warrant by the Common Law Court of Justice,
placing you under the jurisdiction of the Court and Natural Justice, and
deputizing you as its officers.
Upon your
taking the appended Oath of Common Law Court Office (below), you are empowered
to act as the lawful agents and protectors of the Court and its proceedings,
and to serve and enforce its writs, warrants, summonses and court orders on any
and all persons and corporations named by the Court.
If you
choose not to take this Oath of Office, you are compelled and ordered by the
Court and by Natural Law to refrain from interfering with the actions of other
Officers so deputized and empowered to act for the Court.
If you
resist, disrupt or impede the actions of the Court or its Officers you can and
will be charged with criminal assault and obstruction of justice.
Issued on
_________________________ in the Community of
________________________
by the following Legal Agent or Sworn Peace
Officer or
Sheriff of the Common Law Court of Justice:
___________________________
(signed)
(stamp of
the Court)
Oath of Common Law Court Office
To be issued
to any sworn agent of the Court or to all persons or law enforcement officers
deputized by the Court or its Sheriffs
I,
________________________, being of sound mind and clear conscience, do hereby
swear that I will faithfully and justly execute the office of an agent of the
Common Law Court of Justice according to the best of my abilities.
I understand
that if I fail in my duties or betray the trust and responsibilities of my
office I will forfeit my right to this position and can be dismissed.
I take this
solemn oath freely, without coercion, reservation or ulterior motive, according
to my conscience as a free man or woman, and as a citizen under the authority
and jurisdiction of the Common Law.
______________________________
signed
______________________________
date
court stamp
3. Documents
in the first case of The International Common Law Court of Justice, Docket No.
022513-001, In the matter of The People v. Joseph Ratzinger, Elizabeth Windsor
et al. (Genocide in Canada)
(See
attached hard copy documents and at www.itccs.org)
C. Strategy and Tactics: Forty Key Lessons from Sun
Tzu
1. One
skilled in battle summons others and is not summoned by them.
2. One
skilled at moving an enemy Forms and the enemy must follow; Offers and the enemy
must take.
3. Form the
ground of battle before engaging an enemy, on terms favourable to you. Then
shape the ground to deceive the enemy, with actions that fit the enemy’s own
mind and action. Thus you form victory before battle by standing on the ground
of no defeat.
4. Victory
is not achieved by the physical destruction of an enemy but by their
demoralization, which is accomplished by maneuver. Do not repeat successful
maneuvers with the same enemy or they will recover and adapt to your tactics.
5. War is
only a means to a political end, not an end in itself.
6. Knowing
the enemy and knowing yourself: in every battle, no danger. Not knowing the
enemy and knowing yourself: one defeat for every victory. Not knowing the enemy
and not knowing yourself: In every battle, certain defeat.
7. Defend
and one is insufficient. Attack and one has a surplus.
8. The
victorious army is first victorious and then does battle. The defeated army
first does battle and after that seeks victory.
9. It is the
nature of warfare that swiftness rules. Everything will be won with swift
action at the right moment, or lost without it.
10. Only
fight an enemy if a position is critical; only move if there is something to
gain.
11. Do not
respond to the ground your enemy has prepared for you, but instead, shape their
ground. Then they have no alternative but to be led by you, as if it was their
own idea. This is skill.
12. Hide the
time of battle from an enemy, and make what he loves and defends your first
objective. When near, manifest far; when able, manifest inability, so as to
confuse him.
13. Let your
plans be as dark as night, then strike like a thunderbolt with utter surprise.
Prior to such a surprise attack, feign weakness and offer the enemy a truce, to
lull his defenses. The unexpected attack always negates the superior strength
of an enemy.
14. If I do
not wish to do battle, I mark a line on the earth to defend it, and the enemy
cannot do battle with me. I misdirect him.
15. Respond
to aggression by creating space, so as to control the actions of the aggressor.
Resist and you swell the attacker. Create room for the aggressor and he will
dissipate.
16. When I
am few and the enemy is many, I can use the few to strike the many because
those whom I battle are restricted.
17. Use
order to await chaos. Use stillness to await clamor. At the right moment, not
acting is the most skillful action. This is ordering the heart-mind.
18. It is
not necessary to exercise your strength. Instead, rest in your sufficiency.
19. Every
sage commander acts from his own ground of strength, which is formed solely by
the completeness of his being. He accepts his nature and remains himself, which
brings the power to discern clearly. The clarity and the will of the commander
forms the ground of his entire army; and clarity comes from an honest and a
humble heart.
20. The
commander must never issue ambiguous orders.
21. The
victorious commander does not win victory by conquering an opponent but by
creating the larger view that includes both sides. Outthink, do not outfight,
your enemy.
22. Always
carefully discern the enemy’s purpose. True knowledge of the enemy comes from
active contact. Provoke them to reveal themselves, assessing their nature and
responses. Prick them and know their movements. Probe them and know their
strength and deficiencies.
23. An enemy
can be subdued without battle once you understand the relationships and
combination of things that constitutes its power. This skill of understanding
exceeds one hundred victories in battle.
24. Power is
found not in solid things but in the constant flow of relationships, which are
never still. The power of a squirrel to cross a river on a log lies neither in
the squirrel nor the log, but in their momentary combination. That combination
is its power.
25. To
employ the skill of understanding an enemy’s power, one must be formless, like
water. The water moves from high to low; your army’s movements are determined
fluidly, according to the state of your enemy. Thus is your power not fixed,
and it is without permanent form, to reflect and capture the power of your
enemy.
26. Never
reinforce error or a defeat, but let your understanding move fluidly with each
new experience. There is never a final or definitive outcome to the army that
moves like water.
27. Being
without permanent form and fluid in your movements and tactics, you compel your
enemy to defend against you at every point. He is thereby dissipated and
weakened, and kept ignorant of your purpose while forced to reveal his condition
to you.
28. By this
means of formlessness, you can form the strongest enemy to the ground you have
chosen for it, on the terms of your victory. But without foreknowledge of the
ground itself, none of this is possible.
29. Hostile
ground heightens your focus. Cut off from home support, you take nourishment
from the enemy. Such supply lines cannot be severed. Use the threat surrounding
you to stay united and sustain your army.
30. Place
your soldiers where they cannot leave. Facing death, they find their true
strength and cannot be routed. When they cannot leave, they stand firm and
fight.
31. Extreme
situations cause your troops to respond from profound sources of inner power.
Training and commands cannot accomplish this. Dire circumstances automatically evoke
it, unsought yet attained. The right relationships unleash enormous power
greater than the individual parts.
32. If an
enemy occupies high ground, do not engage him; if he attacks from high ground,
do not oppose him.
33. If a
mightier enemy pauses though enjoying an advantage, they are tired. If
divisions appear in their ranks, they are frightened. If their commander
repeatedly speaks soothing reassurances to his army, he has lost his power.
Many punishments indicate panic. Many bribes and rewards means the enemy is
seeking retreat.
34. Bind
your own army to you with deeds. Do not command them with words.
35. Engage
an enemy with what they expect, so that what you allow them to see confirms
their own projections. This settles them into predictable patterns of response,
distracting them from your actions while you wait calmly for the extraordinary
moment: that which they cannot anticipate or prepare for. Use the extraordinary
to win victory.
36. Be in
this manner invisible and unfathomable to your enemy. To be thus without form,
first be so orthodox that nothing remains to give you away. Then be so
extraordinary that no-one can predict your action or purpose.
37. Thus, in
battle, use a direct attack to engage, and an indirect attack to win.
38. Ride the inadequacies of your enemy. Go by unpredicted ways. Attack where
your enemy has not taken precautions and avoid where they have.
39. Do not
confront the enemy in their strength, but at the points of their weakness.
Seize something the enemy holds dear. Their strength is then rendered useless;
they must stop to listen and respond. Likewise, whatever you love makes you
vulnerable. Prepare yourself to relinquish it.
40. Being
thus prepared and awaiting the unprepared is victory. Thus it is said, “Victory
can be known. It cannot be made”.
In summary:
– Know your enemy and know yourself
– Subdue the enemy without fighting
– Avoid what is strong. Attack what is weak.
These three
great Principles are tied together like braided strands of hair.
…………………
There is but
one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the Law of our Creator,
the law of humanity, justice and equity. That is the law of Nature and of
Nations.
– Edmund Burke, 1780
For hard
copies of this Common Law Court Manual, write to itccscentral@gmail.com.
Donations for these copies can be through the ITCCS paypal system at www.itccs.org.
Copyright
for this Manual is held by The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and
State in Brussels.
Permission
is granted to reproduce, use and quote from this Manual in whole or in part for
strictly non-commercial purposes.
Copyright
@ITCCS2013
From The International
Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State @ http://itccs.org/the-common-law-and-its-courts-a-community-training-manual/
For more information
about common law see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/common%law
- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
Hope you like this
not for profit site -
It takes hours of work every day by
a genuinely incapacitated invalid to maintain, write, edit, research,
illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest
Like what we do? Please give anything
you can -
Contribute any amount and receive at
least one New Illuminati eBook!
(You can use a card
securely if you don’t use Paypal)
Please click below -
Spare Bitcoin
change?
Images – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Artists-impressions-of-Lady-Justice,_(statue_on_the_Old_Bailey,_London).png
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/215/5/4/Too_Little_Justice_by_GraffitiWatcher.jpg
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/339/c/a/Metallica_And_Justice_for_All_by_roelworks.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Common_law_world.png
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/276/9/0/liberty_and_justice_for_all_by_o85cur3d-d301j76.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3566/3667268173_5f000f56ff_b.jpg
And see
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and
links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search
engines and helps spread your info further! This site is
published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual
article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction
for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, - if you give attribution to the work &
author. Please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with
this or a similar notice).
Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or
mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web –
but remember attribution!
If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible
worlds…
