If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Steven Wayne Pattison, ©2011

King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, uniting the two kingdoms under one monarchy

(Nov. 9, 2011) —Editor’s Note:  The following essay is a continuation of the ideas presented in Part 1 of this series.

The major systems of law in European history were Roman law, feudal law, canon law, civil law, English common law and the Napoleonic Code. The use of international law in the twentieth century was for the purpose of the banks having control over trade. Napoleonic Code is the laws of Louisiana and Roman Civil Codes titled here in our Country as ‘United States Codes’ which are what every State of the Union is using, making them all de facto, a point which will be covered later.

Today there is nowhere to run to escape what is happening to our Country because the banklords control all the money of the other countries through the IMF. If you don’t get involved now, our Country will continue down the path of corruption under the current Conspiracy. Even the Congress of the United States reports the same facts of our destruction within its Congressional Findings:

(a) Findings Relating to Federal Income Tax- Congress finds the Federal income tax–

(1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public;

(2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry;

(3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times;

(4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase;

(5) lowers productivity;

(6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers;

(7) is unfair and inequitable;

(8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens;

(9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy;

(10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and

(11) impedes upward social mobility.

The following is documented information leading to the fact we have to collectively act to restore what we once had, our Freedom:

The Articles of Confederation were the first constitution governing the 13 original colonies

The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643

The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity. And forasmuch as the natives have formerly committed sundry Insolence and outrages upon several Plantations of the English and have of late combined themselves against us: and seeing by reason of those sad distractions in England which they have heard of, and by which they know vie are hindered from that humble way of seeking advice, or reaping those comfortable fruits of protection, which at other times we might well expect. We therefore do conceive it our bounder duty, without delay to enter into a present Consociation amongst ourselves, for mutual help and strength in all our future concernments: That, as in nation and religion, so in other respects, we be and continue one according to the tenor and true meaning of the ensuing articles: Wherefore it is fully agreed and concluded by and between the parties or Jurisdictions above named, and they jointly and severally do by these presents agree and conclude that they all be and henceforth be called by the name of the United Colonies of New England.

Things have not changed much, have they?

They knew they had to join forces to help one another against foreign influence and corruption as President George Washington warned us about during his farewell speech. His whole speech was a warning against the ‘Political Parties’ that were being manipulated just like today with foreign influence and corruption which also controls the Media.  An example is the Federalist party that became the Whig party; their scheme is covered later in this document.  There was also Jefferson’s democratic republican party. President George Washington’s farewell speech even included mention of the problems that emerged with the American Civil War. Today it is all about a book written approximately in 475 B. C., meaning “Before Christ,” titled ‘The Art Of War’ which is all about dividing and conquering your enemy.

Washington’s farewell speech:

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

This control over all Political Parties is still going on today!

The Colonies of New England in 1643 knew, just as Ronald Reagan warned us on 27 October 1964, known as – “A Time For Choosing” when he stated:

We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind.

Full Transcript in part states:

Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future.

When will you get that ‘uncomfortable feeling’ and get involved? You need to Choose:   Will it be Freedom or Slavery for the rest of your life? This is not rocket science but a simple conspiracy where you get to choose either to be a Freeman or Freewoman, a sovereign under Common Law, or a slave under Roman Civil Codes because the people who made all of this happen did it without lawful authority. They never destroyed the lawful governments, so they are all still in place and could be restored with very little effort with lawful money of, for and by the People, not the banklords.

You will have to figure out what the truth is for yourself and your family starting with which law applies to you. The following is part of the last paragraph of a Law Book from 1871 whose cover page addressed itself to the ‘ALUMNI OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF COLUMBIAN COLLEGE.’ The book was being used to educate the students of law, newly called ‘Attorneys’:

When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles – interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those “indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled.” And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties (emphasis mine).

If our Founding Fathers used common law, don’t you think we should also? Were you taught anything about ‘common law’ in any schools you attended? The ‘Congressional Records’ from 1941 report the “Subversion of Textbooks in American Public Schools,” and there is no evidence that the history books were ever corrected by anyone. Please go to the Articles of Confederation website and answer these questions. Why is the following part of what they wanted, “preserving and propagating the truth”? Was the truth of our history being changed?

Why is the term “Jurisdiction” used so many times?

Things to ponder – Do a search within this webpage for the word ‘jurisdiction’ to find the following:

“A judgment would be null, if the judge had not jurisdiction of the matter.”

“There is nothing in the constitution of the United States to forbid or prevent the legislature of a state from exercising judicial functions but a state legislature cannot annul the judgments, nor determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” NOTE: The only time the state legislature would want to argue a case against the ‘courts of the United States’ would only be when the ‘courts of the United States’ did not have jurisdiction in the defined borders of their Union state.

“Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.”

“It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may wave the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213.”

Have you unknowingly waived your privilege by going to a court where they use something other than ‘Common Law’? Go to this webpage and do a search for ‘common law’ to find the following:

LIBERTY OF SPEECH – “The greatest latitude is allowed by the common law to counsel.”

“It is a maxim of the common law, that a right never dies and, as far as contracts were concerned, there was no time of limitation to actions on such contracts.”

“LOCUS REI SITAE. The place where a thing is situated. In proceedings in rem, in real actions in the civil law, or: those which have for their object the recovery of a thing; and in real actions in the common law, or those for the recovery of land, the proper forum is the locus rei sitae. 2 Gall. R. 191.”

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.

Missouri was admitted to the Union in 1821 as the 24th state

An example of one Union state that ‘adopted by statute’ common lawMissouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, Laws in Force and Construction of Statutes – Section 1.010:

Common law in force — effect on statutes.

1.010. The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, but no act of the general assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that it is in derogation of, or in conflict with, the common law, or with such statutes or acts of parliament; but all acts of the general assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof.

(RSMo 1939 § 645, A.L. 1957 p. 587)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 645; 1919 § 7048; 1909 § 8047

If you do any real research about ‘James the First’ you will learn why it was made prior to the fourth year of his reign! It was the year that their Law started to change to Roman Civil Codes. It was also one of the reasons for many to leave the country for America.

3. The phrase “common law” occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars says that article, “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The “common law” here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554.

Section 2 of Article III of theConstitution for the United States of America you will find the judicial Power listed:

Section. 2 – The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Please note the distension of “Citizens thereof meaning one of the Union ‘States’ vs. ‘foreign States, Citizens or Subjects’.)

The term “Common Law” is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554 which has to mean that the term “in Law” in ‘Section. 2’ above can only mean ‘Common Law’ for there was no other law in our Country at that time and place then ‘Common Law’.

The Laws of the United States applies only to a person as defined in their Codes and only if the person is within their jurisdiction. For more information, please read the first paragraph in the Introduction of the book posted here which states, in part:

There have grown up in the history of nations only two great systems of law, the civil law of ancient Rome, and the common law of England. All the most civilized nations in the world are governed by either of these two great schemes of justice. Though the civil law and the common law have much in common, yet in many important particulars they are the opposites of each other. In the course of his studies, the student of law finds so much said, in an incidental way, about the civil law, that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice, that it is important, at the outset of his walks over the fields of the common law, to give him some account of the civil law, and point out in what it differs essentially from the common law. This is a matter of much importance to every student who aspires to a comprehensive and enlightened knowledge of jurisprudence (emphasis mine).

The above was a law book used to teach attorneys and has very important information you should be aware of such as this statement:

…that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice…

Yes the conspiracy started out as a ‘Scheme’ to misinform the attorneys of the real reason for Common Law! Doesn’t this tell you that today’s attorneys have been misled? Now for more facts on how and when they started to change our Common Law to Roman Civil Codes – ‘PREFACE’ where it states:

The love of innovation induced the State of New York, some years ago, to abrogate common-law pleading, and introduce a code of procedure for the regulation of litigation in her courts; and notwithstanding the lamentable confusion and uncertainty, and the greatly increased expense which has thereby been brought into the administration of justice in that State, other States have followed in her track of barbaric empiricism. Mr. Justice Grier has, from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, rebuked the folly of abolishing common-law pleading, and substituting the common-sense practice, as it may be called, in its stead. “This system, (says that able judge,) matured by the wisdom of ages, founded on principles of truth and sound reason, has been ruthlessly abolished in many of our States, who have rashly substituted in its place the suggestions of sciolists, who invent new codes and systems of pleading to order. But this attempt to abolish species and establish a single genus is found to be beyond the power of legislative omnipotence. The result of these experiments, so far as they have come to our knowledge, has been to destroy the certainty and simplicity of all pleadings, and to introduce on the record an endless wrangle in writing, perplexing the court, delaying and impeding the administration of justice.” This strong condemnation is more than justified by the experience of the New York courts, as may be seen in the chaos of the reports of the code practice in that State. And the evil effects of the code on the administration of law in New York has been signalized in a recent letter from Mr. Charles O’Conor, published in the Albany Law Journal. It is stated in that letter, as the effect of the decisions of the courts, that because of the mixture of law and equity by the code, a case may begin as a common-law case, with a jury impanneled to try it, and if, at the close of the testimony, a case in equity instead of a common-law case, is proved, the judge may dismiss the jury and try the case himself, as chancellor. And the confusion in practice is increased by the want of logical skill in the lawyers trained in the code practice. “All the lawyers (says Mr. O’Conor) who have been admitted to practice in this State for the last twenty years are conversant with the code, and, of course, are not experts in the old common-law practice and pleading. Most of them are entirely ignorant of it, and you may imagine that the code could not easily be displaced by any attempt at reaction. The courts of the United States do not recognize the code, but adhere to the old practice, with its settled distinction between law and equity. This circumstance often leads to much confusion, as you may see illustrated in some reported decisions of the Supreme Court. It is truly laughable, to one conversant with both systems, to see the blunders into which lawyers of great ability, who have come to the bar within the last ten or fifteen years, sometimes fall in framing a declaration, plea, or subsequent pleading at common law in the circuit court of the United States (emphasis mine).

They changed the Laws in the State of New York without any delegated authority by, of and for the People inhabiting the State of New York. The reason for changing from Common Law to Roman Civil Codes was to do away with our sovereignty, because Roman Civil Codes were rules for persons who were subject to the government of Rome.  Soon thereafter, all persons inhabiting all of the Union States became subjects to the Codes.

Now back to this webpage to continue the search for ‘common law’:

4. The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson’s Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362.

Everyone needs to use Common Law because it is still in force. Everyone using Common Law will have ‘Standing’ as ‘Freemen’ and ‘Freewomen’ so that they can protect their Unalienable Rights. Unalienable means “The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.”  But our ‘Unalienable Rights’ over time were stolen from all of us. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but please continue reading.


Editor’s Note:  The conclusion of this essay can be read here.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.