Common Law Discussion on Walls in Our Minds Thursday Night

THE “WORD OF GOD” DETERMINED LAW

by Sharon Rondeau

Walls in Our Minds airs every Thursday from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. EDT hosted by Terry Dodd, Red Beckman and Dr. Kate

(Sep. 4, 2014) — Guest Gus Breton is speaking on the topic of common law on “Walls in Our Minds” hosted by Dr. Kate, Terry Dodd and Red Beckman on Thursday evening.

Breton lives in New Hampshire and has studied the history of common law beginning in colonial times.

Early in the interview, Breton revealed that the state of New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights, or constitution, has a provision adopted on June 2, 1784 which states, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require.”

Breton said that the constitutions of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire used the New Testament to formulate civil and criminal law on which all citizens could agree.  He said that modern “law” is based on “commerce,” not common law.

Host Terry Dodd asked Breton how much study is required by a citizen to defend himself in a court of law using common law principles, to which Breton replied, “As a defense, if you’re being accused of something, the Fourth Amendment describes that no warrant shall issue except on oath or affirmation.”

He said that “people must force the man accusing them to take the stand and accuse them” and affirmed that “a piece of paper” cannot properly lodge a complaint.  “You’re allowed to face your accuser,” Breton said.

On June 23 and 24, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) was denied the right to face his accuser in a McMinn County, TN courtroom because the stated accuser denied having made an accusation against him.  “If nobody comes forward to do that [make an accusation,], why are we here?” Breton said of that precise situation.

Fitzpatrick was convicted of extortion and aggravated perjury without an accuser, then on the sentencing date, an accuser was “found” by the parole board officer.

Breton said that government agents claim, “I did what I was told,” as a defense to having caused harm to another person.  “You cannot harm a man,” Breton said.   He said that statutes governing activities such as driving a motor vehicle, having a fishing license, etc., “are created, and there’s a really good place for those.”  However, he said that if a “trespass” is carried out by a man against another man, a hearing in a county court should be “held” by the citizen alleging wrongdoing.  “We should be able to use those rooms,” Breton said, referring to traditional courts.

“Due process involves the man being there to face his accuser,” he said.  “There’s a whole lot more to moving a case than defending yourself,” he said.

Fitzpatrick’s attorney said that all Americans’ First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances is now impaired or nonexistent based on the McMinn County jury’s decision.

At 9:32 p.m. EDT, Dodd raised the question as to whether or not common law can be used in traditional courtrooms as opposed to separate “common law courts.”  Breton said that “first-hand testimony” is essential to enforcing common law.

Breton asked rhetorically if it is possible to hold one’s own court, to which he responded that on his YouTube channel, he explains how men can resolve issues between them and declare the resolution to the magistrate, thereby avoiding lengthy litigation and attorneys’ fees.

Breton hosts a conference call on common law on Talkshoe entitled “Common Law Word Nerdz.”

He gave an example of how a Canadian family was able to have its children returned using common law principles after they were taken by child protective services for ten days.

Dodd asked Breton what the definition of a “man” is as opposed to “person.”  “A man made in the image of God has the highest standing there is,” Breton responded.  He said that a “man” can assume the role of “person,” and that the government can assign blame through that social contract.

He said that a “man” can say in court that he does not understand the “language of the legal society.”  “If you’re a person, you’re completely stuck,” he said.

“If you’re a man, you don’t use ‘terms;’ you use ‘words,'” he said.  He said that judges may use words to “trip you up,” particularly the word “you.”  “When the word ‘you’ is used…you can go back and forth with the judge, because that word ‘you’ is binding you the man to a person,” he said.

Breton again said that the plaintiff in a case “has to appear” for there to be a complaint for adjudication.

Dodd asked what would happen if a man declared himself “a sovereign.”  Breton explained that the meaning of “sovereign” is “creator.”  “The role that you are playing in that court is that of a defendant…which is to be a pinata,” he said.  “Better than that is to bring a claim in against them for bringing a case bearing false witness against you…”

“When you’re a man, it is your court,” he stated.

Breton said that a man must “file a claim” to air “a controversy,” which would involve at least two people.  Ultimately, everything comes down to a trespass,” he said.  He said that there must be “a specific claim of wrongdoing” and “a specific remedy sought by the man making the claim.”

“It has to make sense to a jury,” he said.  He then used the example of “extortion,” one of the charges on which Fitzpatrick was convicted.

Article 32 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights states that “The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.”

Breton said that “everything has to be verified” in a common law court.  He again used the example of “extortion” as an example of placing pressure on someone to take a specific action.

Dodd’s show promo contains a link to the “FreeSchaefferCox” website, which describes a young man named Schaeffer Cox as “a political prisoner.”  Fitzpatrick has also been included in that category by some.

Breton explained that a man can “move a claim” against the prosecution if there is no accuser and no wrong has been done to another.  Fitzpatrick has noted that in Tennessee’s Tenth Judicial District, there is often no accuser against the defendant; rather, the prosecution and accuser are the same party.

Breton distinguished between a “pro se litigant” and “the man” in a hypothetical court situation.

Breton’s Facebook page is here.

2 Responses to "Common Law Discussion on Walls in Our Minds Thursday Night"

  1. phrowt   Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 12:57 AM

    This is an interview that needs to be put up on everyone’s FB page and/or sent to all. Maybe even O’Rielly would get Waters to do a segment of a similar nature.

  2. gigclick   Saturday, September 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM

    After 1946, to assist “Trial Attorneys”, the government formed under “Assumption Of Law” the “Corporate Trust Law” system which also classifies us under straw man and straw women, which is a study in itself. This system puts us in position of a “trustee” in its courts when in actuality we are the “administrators” under the original written law as “free men under God”. It should be studied and Dean Clifford had a 6 part U-Tube study under “The Strawman Redemption” which is well worth your time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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