Are “Common Law” Grand Juries Valid?

INTRO: With various applications of common law grand juries currently being popular, such as the case in Dixie County Florida, where Terry Trussell, formerly of Operation American Spring, is facing 14 felony charges for “Impersonating a Pubic Officer” and “Unlawful Use of Simulated Legal Process”, among other charges, now facing the possibility of the remainder of his life behind bars, or the Nevada common law grand jury claiming to have proved the “missing” 13th Titles of Nobility amendment was actually ratified by Virginia and thereby an actual amendment to the Constitution, or  National Liberty Alliance’s own “Quo Warranto” (pdf) petition to various federal judges, these issues are obviously increasing in number, and should be considered.

5) CONCLUSIONS: What is evident.


Some have claimed that Common Law Grand Juries are supported by the Constitution itself, and even cite  Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v Williams (1992), as supporting these ad hoc common law grand juries.  However these claims do not appear to have any actual truth to them.

The only place the U.S. Constitution specifically references “common law” is the 7th Amendment, where it is actually referenced to prohibit the common law practice of Courts creating law from the bench in cases where there is no written law, and does this by affirming the right to a trial by jury, thereby prohibiting government dictate of what the law is,   and minimizing a source  of tyrannous dictate.  As a result, the 7th Amendment is actually undermining that common law, rather than affirming common law practice as any sort of guiding philosophy of this country.  This is discussed further in the comments section.

In 1992, Antonin Scalia made citations to the Grand Jury in United States v Williams, and referenced a few Supreme Court cases in doing so:

Hannah v. Larche (1960): “Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history.”

United States v. Chanen (1977, citing Nixon v. Sirica, 1973): “the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

Scalia also stated: “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…”

Scalia there also indicated:

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

Of note, all of the above references are specifically to “Grand Jury” and nowhere particularly indicating “common law grand jury”, thereby not serving to validate those common law grand juries, contrary to claims.

In fact the idea of an ad hoc common law grand jury being formed entirely independently of the judicial system is undermined by Scalia’s above statement, “in the courthouse and under judicial auspices”.  These Supreme Court references in no way serve to validate “common law grand juries”, as they are currently being envisioned and formed, but rather provide cause to question their validity.

The claim is made that these common law grand juries actually have precedent in American history, which is somewhat true, but overall inaccurate.  During America’s early history, when there were municipalities or districts without any established court of their own, circuit judges would indeed travel from district to district and sometimes rely on the presentment “charges” of temporary grand juries composed of the local populace, in order to hold trials.  However these grand juries were not formed from hand-picked jurors, resulting in a stacked jury, nor did they involve claims of absolute authority above any existing courts, as is currently being done.  There is no validation for what is currently being done in America’s past, or Britain’s common law either.

Attorney Leo Donofrio, who led two of the earliest court challenges to Obama’s qualification to hold the Presidency in New Jersey and Connecticut, has also been an early proponent of using Grand Juries to pursue government wrong-doing. In fact Donofrio wrote an early article titled “The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government”, in which citizens use these Grand Juries to counter and correct government wrong-doing and corruption. However Donofrio later removed that article from his blog when a Georgia Grand Jury, allegedly inspired by Donofrio himself, indicated it had authority to confiscate people’s property, and even take their homes, which would be criminal acts.

That article is still available on the Internet “Wayback” archive site here:
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

Take note, in that article title Donofrio specifies that it is the “Federal” Grand Jury that is the 4th branch of government, not just any Grand Jury, and notably not “common law”.

Donofrio then wrote an article titled, “The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned” in which Donofrio made the following clarification of his previous discussion of FEDERAL Grand Juries:

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. And I am a true believer in the Constitution. Are you?

Here Donofrio indicates that there is no such authority for people to independently form their own “common law” Grand Jury, under the belief they might prosecute “at will”.

Unfortunately we have very extreme, ill-formed, and even dangerous beliefs held by these common law grand jury proponents, none of which are valid.

The  National Liberty Alliance indicates (pdf) indicates the source of authority for these common law grand juries is the common law itself, stating, “”The Common Law is the jurisdiction that our founders set in motion when creating the United States of America” and “Common Law is Natural Law, America was founded on Common Law.”  None of these claims are even remotely true.  This country’s original foundation in British common law, did not involve any separate jurisdiction, and that common law was not actually relied on by the Constitution, which brought the United States of America into existence, but rather is profoundly rejected by that Document.  Furthermore, “common law” is not at all the same thing as Natural Law and, in fact, the two considerations are entirely separate from one another, even by definition!  While the States originally utilized some terms, principles and practices inherited from British common law, that common law was never a founding principle of this country, and the Constitution in no way relied on common law.

” The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights”
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788
“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, Federalist Society address, Nov 22, 2008

There is a glaring irony in NLA’s “Quo Warranto” asking “by what authority” those federal judges act, and this irony involves  questioning the very authority by which NLA itself demands those judges fill out their questionnaire, and demands they provide a “surety bond”, or else provide their detailed financial statement, with the obvious presumption being that NLA itself will act entirely illegally to confiscate that bond, or those financial assets, when NLA deems they have not adhered to unspecified common law principles that do not exist, and are not a part of this country!

The Nevada “Superior Court Common Law Venue” indicates its own jurisdiction to to be “Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction”, and prominently declares ahead of its findings that, “Its decision cannot be reviewed by any other court of the land.”  Oh really? It is impossible that a grand jury formed in 2014, without any authority under law, to have any “original” jurisdiction at all, much less “exclusive” jurisdiction.  Furthermore, every single American should be disturbed by any group willing to declare itself entirely UN-contestable, above any law and court, and unable to even be questioned, much less challenged.


There is a gross misunderstanding of what the “common law” is on the National Liberty Alliance site, and by “common law grand jury” proponents generally.  The Common Law is not something sacrosanct in this country, and is NOT at all synonymous with our own understanding of Natural Law unalienable rights.

British common law is nothing more than the cumulative decisions, practices and general principles of the British courts that were never codified into law.  That’s it!

British common law, which we inherited as British ourselves, is nothing fact “common law”  nothing more than “case law”, or reliance on case “precedent”.

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

As recognized in the United States, that “common law” got its name for the laws that were derived from the various decisions made by British circuit court judges actually empowered to make the law themselves. Originally these judge-derived laws were all made locally. When these local judge-derived laws were recognized by a large number of those various circuit courts, those laws were recognized as being held in common across the land, and thereby given more weight than laws that only had local recognition. Over time these un-codified Court-decreed laws, commonly recognized across Britain, became recognized as the “common law”.

British common law is founded on Feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them.

British common law actually references the “Law of Nature”, in representing this “natural” feudal obligation to those above oneself in society, as discussed at length in Lord Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case, 1608:

This Law of Nature, which indeed is the eternal Law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any Laws written, and before any Judicial or Municipal Laws. (Coke(1608), p.196)

It hath been proved before, that ligeance or obedience of the inferior to the superior, of the subject to the Sovereign, was due by the Law of Nature many thousand years before any Law of man was made: Which ligeance or obedience (being the onely mark to distinguish a subject from an alien) could not be altered; therefore it remaineth still due by the Law of Nature. (Coke(1608), pp.197-8)

It is “natural” for persons to be subservient to those above them.  Thus the common law view of the “law of nature” is in direct and total conflict with our own “natural law”  unalienable rights, coming from “Nature’s God”, upon which this nation was founded.  In fact it by the deliberate intent to severe the common law authority of the state upon our lives, that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting any law establishing religion.

These feudal common law principles result in the doctrine of “Perpetual Allegiance,” an indelible obligation to  Crown, country and one’s superiors that can never be broken, never severed by one’s own choice, unless by death itself.   As Americans, we specifically rejected that feudal common law doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance in the War of 1812.

Under British common law, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man under authority of the divine Crown through the judiciary. The King is viewed as both head of the Anglican church and state as well.   By this,  under common law,  anyone in disagreement with the state is viewed as a hostile, with Jews being recognized as enemies with no real standing in Court, and having little assurance as to property rights.

Natural Law is recognized, by definition, as being entirely outside of man-made Positive Law.  That man-made Positive Law consists of “statute”, those laws that are codified and written down, and those things that are not codified as any singular law but still recognized as directing principle, “case law”, with this generally including what is referenced as “common law.” However “common law” is not necessarily recognized as being binding.  Common Law is a part of that man-made Positive Law, and entirely outside of Natural Law.

Natural Law and Common Law really have nothing to do with one another.

Given these facts, the claim that “common law” grand juries have some overriding authority, and are founded in American principles protecting individual rights, is a stunning ignorance demonstrating a failed understanding of both this country, as well as the issues these groups claim authority regarding.  Beyond that, such a reliance on Common Law invites the very despotism that we seek to free ourselves from. .


If such a thing were ever recognized, it would eventually result in citizen’s grand juries being formed at a whim, and “stacked” with people intending to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, resulting in presentments or indictments for things that really are not all that legitimate.   Someone might even be criminally charged for eating a pastry into the shape of a gun.

Then there’s always the old cliche, “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

Imagine the pure Hell that would be unleashed if the angry mobs in Ferguson could legitimately form their own “common law Grand Jury”, and then pronounce a true bill presentment charging Officer Wilson with First Degree Murder, overruling the previous Grand Jury, and  the Missouri State Attorney would then be obligated to follow up on that charge, by arresting and trying Wilson for his very life. This could still happen despite a Grand Jury having already resolved that there was no evidence to charge Wilson.

Why wouldn’t a grand jury formed by and from those angry mobs of Ferguson be valid? There is no special process involved in forming or validating those “common law” grand juries, and certainly everything inviting them to be “stacked” with people of whatever belief. That “angry Ferguson mob” could form their own “common law” grand jury, every bit as legitimate as any other common law grand jury.

Seriously, pause and consider if this were true,  any group of people could go off and form their own legitimate “common law” grand jury, and suddenly you yourself might have to answer to that jury’s charges in an official court of law.

Or WORSE!  If they can do their own charges (presentments), why not their own convictions too?  We might have to answer to some unknown body of people, formed under unknown terms, acting entirely outside of the legal system, perhaps not even convening inside a courthouse, perhaps with a serious grudge against us for whatever reason, and they would be able to actually put us on trial for  something, anything, perhaps having us fight in their fabricated court for our very lives!

If such things were allowed, none of us, not-a-one, would ever be safe from wild charges coming out of nowhere, or trials for our very life, liberty, and property in “no holds barred” makeshift courts in the middle of nowhere. No one would ever be truly safe.

This is not how we fix things. It is how the justice system and society itself would become forever broken, subject to mob rule, and America lost in absolute Anarchy, never to be a Republic again.


As noted previously, above, the common law grand jury proponents claim that Scalia actually supports common law grand juries, in United Stats vs. Williams  . However to assert this, these claimants themselves  must mentally impose, or replace, every instance of “Grand Jury” with  “common law grand jury”, which is nowhere indicated in the decision of the case.

Beyond that, to claim the legitimacy of the broad powers they do, these common law proponents must entirely ignore other indications by Scalia in UNITED STATES vs. WILLIAMS 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

For example,  Scalia makes several references to the investigative powers (i.e. “presentments“) of a Grand Jury acting independently of the court and prosecutor:

Scalia: “The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op. 4) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919).”

Scalia: “The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment.”

It is clear that a Grand Jury has the authority to independently investigate wrongdoing, and do so without any direction from the Court.

However NOWHERE  does Scalia, or any of the  citations provided in U.S. vs. Williams, indicate that the Grand Jury has the same independent authority to prosecute, indict and pronounce guilt.   Why is this?

There is no reference to independent Grand Jury indictments, because the Grand Jury has no lawful authority itself to summon witnesses, to demand testimony under oath, or to compel the production of evidence!

The Grand Jury has no authority beyond the action of its own body, thereby being incapable itself  of acting with any authority to compel or order others. Scalia touches on this fact by indicating:

True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e. g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972)

The authority of the Court itself must be sought for any sort of force to compel others to act, otherwise other individual’s rights would necessarily be at risk in the process.   This is to prohibit  that the Grand Jury from acting as judge, jury and “executioner” —  a kangaroo court.

Yet this is not what we see coming from these “common law grand juries”, whose first violation of legitimacy is to suppose themselves having lawful investigative power to indicate charges (presentments), when they are nothing but a body that is stacked with like-minded people to reach a pre-ordained conclusion.   This is what Terry Trussell did when he formed his own common law grand jury.   Of itself, the formation of this common law grand jury and reaching a conclusion, resolving  allegations of wrongdoing, is not a violation of law.   Such action is nothing more than what people themselves do every day when they gather together and have a common opinion. However when Trussell  tried to insert that Common Law Grand Jury into the position of the previous Grand Jury, even occupying the Courthouse, and providing its presentments to the court as legitimate, then Trussell was violating the law, by “UNLAWFUL USE OF A SIMULATED LEGAL PROCESS” and “IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC OFFICER”.

Numerous people are of the opinion that Trussell is being wrongly prosecuted, and should be free of all charges, among them Colonel Harry Riley.   Unfortunately these people do not realize the gravity of Trussell’s offenses.  The fact that Florida is a “common law state”, really does not mean what John “Darash” of National Liberty Alliance teaches it to mean.  The common law nowhere provides the sort of authority and license that is being claimed.  Furthermore, not even the Florida Constitution provides the County Commissioners the authority to empanel a common law grand jury to review Trussell’s case, despite Trussell’s supporters indicating that it does so, making their appeal nothing but poor understanding compounded by poor research, asking for a remedy that the County Commissioners have no authority to provide.

These “common law” grand juries typically make gross presumptions of authority that they do not have. We see this in the Nevada Grand Jury claiming “Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction” and that “its decision cannot be reviewed by any other court of the land”.    We see this presumed authority again with NLA’s “Quo Warranto” demanding questionnaires be answered,  bonds be provided, and threatening repercussions, even while providing unclear and inaccurate terms of what must be adhered to (the “common law”), and with those repercussions necessarily involving that “common law grand jury” acting as “judge, jury and executioner”.

None of these investigations, conclusions, charges, or even ignorant letters making demands,  pose any real legal problem, …  until they are actually acted upon, and then they  become evidence of deliberate intent to violate both the law, and person’s rights.  Being ignorant is not itself a crime, but acting on that ignorance often can be.  Conspiracy charges might even be brought against all those common law grand jury members involved.

This is serious stuff, folks, and all of it is entirely contrary to the U.S. Constitution.  Do you actually stand by that Constitution, and uphold it?

Thankfully, America does not have any such tradition providing authority for these “Kangaroo” proceedings, nor does any sane country in the history of mankind.  The reason this authority does not exist, is the protection of each of our individual rights, including you and me, and those “common law” grand jury members themselves.  Think about that.


What is clear from the evidence thus far considered regarding Grand Juries, generally, and more narrowly, the so-called “common law” grand juries:

1)  Grand Juries are not, and have never been, recognized by the legal system unless they operate “within the courthouse and under judicial auspices.”   By our own consistent history, any group acting outside the legal system, and pretending  legal authority, is operating [only] under the color of law  and is, at minimal, extra-legal  if not actually “unlawful” and “illegal”, and is recognized as a “mob” or kangaroo court.   Such groups have generally become defendants before the very Law they attempt to falsely wield.

2)  That same “common law” Case Law precedent, by which National Liberty Alliance (NLA), and other groups,  claim that these ad hoc grand juries have their authority,  is the very means by which our Constitution and laws have been subverted, relying on (common law) precedent that is progressively ever-more outside of actual law, and the Constitution itself.  Given this, reliance on that “common law” precedent cannot reasonably remedy the problems at hand.

3)  The “common law” is not now, nor has it ever been, a governing principle of this country, is not the source of our unalienable rights, even by definition, and reference to such ‘common law” cannot reasonably provide any loose body of people any sort of legitimate authority whatsoever, much less an absolute authority, as is the claim,

4)  Application of the adjectives “common law”, or “Citizen’s”, or “People’s” to an ad hoc body of people acting as if a Grand Jury,  does not provide that group with any actual legal authority whatsoever, and nowhere in history has it ever done so.

5)  Grand Juries have legitimate authority  only over that body itself. Every assertion of authority beyond that self-direction, including interactions with evidence, witnesses, oaths, and testimony, comes to that Grand Jury only via association with the established legal system itself.

6)  Grand Juries (generally) may investigate whatever they want, and may draw their own accusations of wrongdoing, and do so at-will, just as any gathering of people might do on their own.

7)   No Grand Jury, not even one empaneled within the legal system, has any absolute assurance that the legal system will recognize and act upon its charges, much less any authority to compel the legal system to act on those charges. .

8)  Grand Juries CANNOT, of their own  authority, by power held by that body itself, compel testimony, or demand evidence, demand questionnaires be answered, demand Quo Warranto’s be answered, demand provision of bond, etc.,  when this information is not provided of free will.

9)  Grand Juries, of their own authority, acting independently of any legal system, CANNOT administer an oath, compel testimony under oath, nor adjudge the material violation of an oath which that body itself had no authority to administer in the first place.

10)  Grand Juries  CANNOT “indict at will”,  and have no authority in that body itself to exact any sort of penalty in real terms.

28 thoughts on “Are “Common Law” Grand Juries Valid?

  1. Last night I listened to Sheriff Richard Mack as guest in a conference call with a Colorado group involved with enacting common law grand juries in all of Colorado’s counties.

    In the portion of that conference call which I heard, Mack was very diplomatic in not dismissing the common law grand juries outright, and spoke only of the importance of educating the County Sheriff’s in regard to their Constitutional authority and obligations “before anything else”. I got the impression that the Colorado Group was trying to enlist Mack in support of the common law grand juries, while Mack himself was trying to enlist the Colorado group in support of Constitutional Sheriffs.

    Prior to that conference call, I had read a document written in 2013 by William Taylor Reil, who stated he knew Mack personally and was the Coordinator for Mack’s 2008 “Sheriff’s Project.”

    National Liberty Alliance (NLA) “Plan” Exposed (PDF)

    In that 2013 document, Reil was of the opinion that Sheriff Mack does not support these so-called “common law” grand juries, stating emphatically, quote,

    “Sheriff Rich Mack absolutely does Not support the NLA ‘Plan’!”

    Undoubtedly this article influenced my perception that Mack might not actually support NLA’s “plan”, and that he may be being extremely diplomatic in regards to “common law” grand juries , while addressing that Colorado group.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The NLA plan is not one and the same as the Common law Grand Jury. he doesn’t, nor should he support the NLA because the NLA was a subverted organization. It was not a Grand jury, merely an organization which lends support to the process……there is a HUGE difference. That and the premice that this article begins upon is false in and of itself. We do not have in many jurisdictions a Constitutional / Lawful grand Jury process…..the prosecutor IS NOT NOR EVER was supposed to be in control of this process, but it was ALWAYS intended to be SEPERATE from government……..thus the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, not the GOVERNED’s APPOINTED PROSECUTOR…….. this is a process to be operated by the people directly… was established that way and is a cornerstone of Constitutional Government. The MAGNA CARTA in American Jurisprudence can not be denied, and is somehow ignored by people discussing this tenet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well, Tom Lacovara, welcome aboard!. Glad to see you’re reading here, however you may want to read this main article and the supporting references more thoroughly.

        What NLA promotes is the so-called “common law” grand jury, which has no basis in any history whatsoever. NLA and John Darash specifically promote their methodology for enacting those so-called common law grand juries, by their methods, and are not in any way substantially different from non-NLA common law grand jury promotions — they are all equally invalid.

        Obviously “NLA’s Plan” (to promote common law grand juries) are not the same as (not synonymous with) the actual (theoretical) implementation of those grand juries, not even for NLA itself. No one claimed the “plan” and the “common law grand juries” were the same, so it’s a strawman argument on your part.

        This may seem picayune, but the entire grand jury process is not invalidated by the the District Attorney failing to allow independent presentments from the grand jury and exerting an undue influence on the grand jury overall. It is just prohibiting the grand jury from acting independently, which makes the grand jury unable to exercise the full scope of it’s authority. As I discuss in my article, and discussed at length by attorney Leo Donofrio in an article I reference, The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government, Donofrio indicates that the false belief that Federal (not “common law”) grand jury independent presentments are improperly thought to be invalid, because of a Note 4 to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) describes such presentments as “obsolete”, which is untrue, and obviously not synonymous with “invalid”.

        Yes, it is true as you indicate, that the District Attorney or “prosecutor” are not supposed to be in control of the Grand Jury itself, although they may empanel and provide limited direction to the grand jury. However none of this at all validates the way the currently popularized “common law grand juries” are envisioned.

        This consideration has nothing whatsoever to do with the “consent of the governed” which is not meant, nor implied to be, any sort of ongoing popular polling of the masses, or else we would be under a Democratic tyranny of the majority, and two neighborhood wolves would continually vote that the neighboring sheep be served up for dinner.

        The consent of the governed happened at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and is not even what occurs with voting, otherwise our the terms of legitimate governance would be subject to the outcome of elections.

        While the Grand Jury is intended to be “separate from the government”, it is not intended to operate independent of the courts, but rather to be associated with the courts.

        If the grand juries might be separate from the courts, entirely empaneled by themselves, and operating independently, then people would be prosecuted by their neighbors for cutting the grass two early on Saturday mornings, the Ferguson mobs would convict officer Wilson of murder even after no true bill was issued by the original grand jury, and none of us would ever be safe form mob justice exercised in a Kangaroo court.

        Grand Juries actually only have a vague association with the British circuit courts, but not the common law itself. This is true because that common law consists of, by definition, the Circuit Court justices stating what the law is, and when enough of those circuit courts recognized a legal principle to be held in common, then it was deemed of higher authority, and termed the “common law”.

        Sure, those same circuit court judges over time began to also empanel grand juries, those grand juries did not operate independently of the court, and were not “common law grand juries”, and did not have anything in common with how the present day “common law grand juries” are envisioned. I am not saying this as fact, but rather the historical record indicates this, as do legal authorities such as even departed Justice Scalia.

        Finally, the Magna Carta has nothing whatsoever to do with American Jurisprudence. It was the allowance by the Crown under medieval feudal authority, of certain promises of justice offered, not to everyone, but rather only a few select barons. There was no sort of innate right to those provisions, and in fact they terms of the Magna Carta had to be confirmed by each successive monarch. The Magna Carta is only significant in the fact that there might be any expectation of justice and quasi-rights for the inferior from the superior under medieval feudal noblesse oblige (obligation). As a result of these rights being a grant of the Crown under the Magna Carta, its underlying philosophy is entirely alien to our own radical idea of innate and unalienable rights.


  2. Last night, on his Ustream show broadcast, while discussing Sheriff Mack’s conference call with the Colorado group, host Jeffrey Sisk indicated Scalia had stated that the common law grand jury is the “4th branch of government.” (Time Stamp 00:18:20 & again 00:31:20)

    This claim by Sisk is utterly false, as previously shown by Scalia’s actual opinion from Unjted States vs Williams. Scalia is nowhere referencing common law grand juries at all, but rather only the “Grand Jury” generally.

    In fact Scalia actually thoroughly undermines the validity of those common law grand juries, by indicating Grand Juries are, “. of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices.”

    Sisk has evidently not done even minimal research to verify what Scalia actually indicated, and what he was actually referencing. Instead Sisk is only parroting the claims from such groups as National Liberty Alliance (NLA), when those groups are themselves making false representations of what Scalia actually indicated, and are likely doing so to falsely empower the leadership of those groups.

    Yet both Sisk and these groups promoting common law grand juries, take no responsibility for the unfortunate outcomes suffered by those who attempt to carryout their false beliefs. In fact Sisk himself absolutely refuses to air the “other side” of the story, which is a level of ethical bankruptcy that makes Sisk virtually complicit in the unfortunate outcomes which will invariably result.


    • I have a question: Our legal system, injustice system as I like to call it, is seriously off the rails. With corruption in every corner of just about every judicial branch from village courts to the supreme court, just how are we supposed to fix what broke? If there is no system in place to hold courts responsible, and each protects the other against the people, what do we do other than to be good little chickens and lay our own heads on the chopping block and wait for freedom?

      Your article completely side steps any of the recent reports that the original republic was put aside in the 1860’s, that we are now ruled by a corporation with principles and shareholders overseas, that our injustice system operates within the auspices of British Admiralty Law and has nothing to do with dry land on this continent except by consent. Have you heard any of these claims, what is your position and what basis do you use for claiming to be an expert on any of this?


      • Paul. I agree entirely with your appraisal of the current dysfunction and corruption of our legal system. However your representation of our history that brought us to this condition is inaccurate.

        My article did not address claims of the federal government’s incorporation obviously because that was not anywhere close ot the subject of this article. However I have addressed these issues in various discussions on forums and in radio broadcasts. The issues that you bring up such as incorporation, shareholders overseas, and British admiralty law are falsehoods without any basis in fact whatsoever. I have heard these claims, and much more beyond them, and investigated them thoroughly. I have challenged the claimants on-air to provide concrete proof of any one of these, and they never do so, invariably leaping to yet another claim which they likewise do not provide any evidence for.

        In regard to the claim that the federal government was incorporated, this is a rather pointless claim, as no authority or immunity would be gained by that alleged incorporation that the federal government did not already legitimately have without incorporation.

        The claim that the Organic Act of 1871 incorporated the federal government is typical of these claims. Even cursory examination of only the first paragraph of that Act reveals that it applies only to the “municipal” government of the District of Columbia, creating a “body corporate for municipal purposes”, with this fact also being emphasized in the margin notes. When claimants are confronted with this obvious references, some have gone on to claim that it is some sort of secretive “municipall corporate government”, of the the Congress had changed the meaning of the word “municipal” to apply to the several States, neither of which are supported by evidence, or even remotely plausible.

        In fact the sovereign citizen community is notorious for never providing evidence for these wide-ranging claims they make, as well as having a very poor understanding of this country, its principles, and the fundamentals of the legal system itself.

        The important point here is that our government was not overturned by some sort of blueprint secretely put in place making these actions secretively legitimate, there’s no “second Constitution”, and we don’t operate by any sort of super-secret corporate charters, but rather our government was overturned by good old-fashioned corruption that increased progressively over time. In fact many who currently support these illegitimate actions by the federal government, do so by claiming these actions are supported by “law”, when no law can overturn the limitations on the federal government still applicable in the Constitution, and there’s no law that actually does so. What these persons actually mean by “law”, is the belief that judicial precedent establishes and validates those federal actions as legitimate, when the Courts do not have that authority, and specifically are prohibited from writing law from the bench.


      • As there doesn’t seem to be an option to rebut, IE no reply button, I will put my reply here.

        What about the original 13th amendment, that in fact was ratified through legal publication by the state of Louisiana long before the 14th amendment was renumbered to the 13th amendment and the 14th re-classified all people as subjects of the corporation.(in 1864 I believe) I know the original 13th exists because I have a copy of it as it was presented by the State of Louisiana.

        Though I agree with you on the organic act of 1871, the usurpation of the country actually started with the re-construction acts in the early 1860s. Still the government the act of 1871 created was presented to the people as the law of the land which was entirely untrue.

        My original question still stands, if the only place we can call the government out is within their own corrupt judicial system, how do we get remedy and put things back on track. It would seem you are saying grand juries are not the answer but are not providing an answer of your own.


      • Paul,

        First the organic act of 1871 did not incorporate the federal government4, nor did it create a government that it presented to (all) the people, but rather it created a governing board for only the District of Columbia, which was obviously not the law of the land, and did not affect anyone but residents of the District of Columbia. Congress simply delegated its constitutionally assigned authority to govern the District of Columbia to that board, and unfortunately this freed up Congress to write laws directly applied to all of us, when Congress deliberately has (still) no such legitimate Constitutional authority at all.

        Claims that the “original” and “missing” Thirteenth Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) was ratified are false, and it was not “in fact” ratified by a sufficient number of States. The false claims of full ratification are based upon reports from a couple States that they had begun writing legislation in support of that Amendment under the presumption it had been fully ratified by the necessary states, even though those States themselves had not ratified the Amendment. At one time ratification was short by only one State, but then got much further from that as time passed and the total number of States increased. However there was no deadline for the ratification, so who knows, it might one day be ratified. Let us hope not.

        What’s fascinating is that the poor communications which one might expect in the early 1800’s and during the lead-up to a war (War of 1812) (1812) resulted in many States being uncertain about the ultimate ratification of the Titles of Nobility amendment. The State of Virginia did not act to ratify the amendment, but nonetheless believed it had been ratified by the necessary 3/4 of the States, and included it in the Virginia State Revised Code of 1819, nine years after Maryland’s first ratification of the Amendment. Yet the inclusion of the TONA amendment in Virginia’s Revised Code, or any other State’s publishing, is by no means “prima facie evidence” that it was actually ratified, contrary to some claims.

        The turmoil surrounding this Titles of Nobility amendment ultimately led to a clarification of the ratification process in law enacted on April 20th, 1818 — 1 U.S.C. sec 106b.

        The TONA is actually the result of heightened fears that the Napoieonic Wars that were enveloping the entirety of Western Europe and eventually even Russia in war, would spread to these United States. The War of 1812 is actually an offshoot of the Napoleonic Wars. However the TONA amendment was specifically triggered by concerns over only ONE (1) individual, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. Napoleon’s younger brother Jerome had married a woman from Baltimore by the name of Betsy Patterson, who was dismissively referred to as the “Duchess of Baltimore”. In 1805 Betsy Patterson bore Jerome a son in England, and had requested aristocratic recognition from France for that son. The fear was that this child would one day enter American politics as a citizen, and then overturn the country.

        The TONA was foolish overkill, going way beyond what the existing protection against titles of nobility in Article 1, Section 9 already did, by allowing foreign governments control over this country, by stripping the citizenship of anyone who received even a small, insignificant gift from a foreign government; they did not even need to receive a title of nobility.

        Overall, the TONA amendment does nothing for us now, as attornies, judges, and others are not titles of nobility. The honorific “Esquire” is not a title of nobility, and does not even recognized as indicating the ability to practice law. The BAR is not a foreign organization, does not stand for “British Accreditation Registry”, and is not a foreign power.

        As far as our current condition, any formalized process from within the system cannot possibly remedy the institutionalized and bureaucratized corruption that afflicts all 3 branches of the government, and this also includes elections.

        There are only two remedies that might fix these problems. The first is State Nullification, however given that the States are equally habituated to and participating in the federal corruption, this is unlikely to be effective at all.

        The only other remedy is provided in the Declaration of Independence, and indicated elsewhere by many of this nation’s founders: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        There is no simple solution here within the system. We need to educate ourselves, not with the bogus fabrications promoted by Sovereign Citizens and others, but with the real facts and history, and then we need to join together in sober, resolute, and definitive action, or we will forever be the generation that lost Liberty for ourselves and all posterity.


      • Hi T.J., thank you for your time and thorough responses. I agree, the only option left, if we cannot find enough non-corporate sheriffs to take the country back one county at a time, is to head to Washington with pitchforks and torches.

        I have been hearing lately of a group that may have a bad rap but might make sense. Before you completely discount my words as utterly ridiculous, the Republic for the united states is sill alive and firmly assert they have given the governors of the union the option to return to state sovereignty and stop the land grabs by the BLM and other bureaus, and were ignored. They also state that as they were ignored, it behooves them to re-activate the original republic and boot DC and their purported democracy out on their butt. They maintain they have already acquired the support of the 34 states required for recognition by the UN as a formal government, and have already gained that support, and cannot be stopped because they are simply re-seating the original republic as it was in the beginning of time. For right now, they are re-seating vacated positions with interim people to insure there is a lawful form of national government in place should the US Corp melt down. Thus avoiding being taken over by another country or the UN.

        What do you think of their efforts, if anything, as I would prefer their option to a bloody battle that would invariably be a part of ‘throwing off’ our oppressive government.


      • Paul,

        Which “group” are you talking about, specifically? Is it a particular group with an official name?

        As far as the first portion of the theory, that the Governors of the several states have the “option” to return to state sovereignty so as to re-active the Republic, those States and their Governors have always had sovereignty and the obligation (not “option”) to uphold it, and had the ability to assert that sovereignty at any time, but instead over time have become inured to federal handouts of the State’s own money while assuming State authority. I don’t know who this group is that is seemingly giving the “option” to the State Governors, but they have always had it, and no document or amendment ever took sovereignty from the States. They have always had the ability and legitimate authority to stop, and entirely shutout the BLM and other federal agencies acting within the State.

        The second portion of this group’s theory, that 34 states are needed for recognition by the U.N. as a formal government, it sounds to me that they are relying on some U.N. policy of recognizing a government within the United Nations itself, even as some want Palestine recognized. Those 34 states (lower case “s”) would be nations already recognized as separate nations by the United Nations. The various States of the Union are not, to my knowledge, recognized as being sovereign separately, but I have never, even now, seen any search results evidencing such U.N. recognition — as if it would be relevant.

        I have heard this claim made before of obtaining U.N. recognition made by various sects of the Sovereign Citizen movement. Sometimes the claims included the authority to depose Obama, other times it involved the authority to nullify federal action or law, or claiming U.N. validation for a self-proclaimed screwball judge within this country, or to gain authority for the release some incarcerated individual by an absolute but non-existent U.N. authority.

        As far as I have yet found, there is no validity whatsoever to any of these claims whatsoever, and they are just more false Sovereign Citizen nonsense, which is nothing but a Cancer to every effort to educate AMericans with real, valid facts so as to recover this country’s legitimate government, and regain our Liberties.

        Overall, I don’t understand how it might be even a remotely intelligent idea, having any good basis at all, to rely on the authority of the United Nations to assert a sovereignty that the States already have, particularly given the fact we are now fighting to resist the impact of United Nation’s claims of a globalist authority in every State of this sovereign nation! Such claims are coming from people who don’t understand our condition, nor how these problems came about, and instead imagine that our enslavement was accomplished by some official process under a valid authority, and therefore these Soveriegn Citizens have imagined the need to fabricate (from thin air) an equally valid authority and process by which it might be undone,

        This has the failed understanding and corrupt logic of the Sovereign Citizen community written all over it — and it has no basis in fact..


      • Tom (RTR),

        Well, no, the grand jury really has nothing to do with the “Common Law”, which you capitalized, thereby indicating the formal concept. The only way grand juries, those of recognized legitimacy, might have anything to do with common law, is if that phrase “common law” is used loosely for any legal tradition we inherited from the British, which even judges are inclined to do for convenience purposes, but it’s really not a valid representation.

        That Common Law is actually nothing more than circuit court judges writing laws from the bench, unilaterally decreeing “what the law shall be”, When enough of those circuit courts recognize a particular legal principle, it was viewed as being held in common, and therefore having more weight that other laws — the Common Law.

        On rare occasions those circuit courts might have empaneled a grand jury body local to a case, but doing so had nothing whatsoever to do with any common law itself,, and that resolve of those grand juries was not the common law, nor done by any common law ideal. Those grand juries were not independent, but were formed in association with and under authority of that circuit court.

        There is quite literally zero historical precedent for the currently envisioned common law grand juries, formed without any association with any court or legal system, and these in actuality are nothing but Kangaroo courts, populated by prejudicial jurors inclusion to reach a preordained and directed conclusion. These courts only use “common law” as a false attempt to elevate and valdiate their own actions, when they are nothing more than those Kangaroo “hanging courts” that appeared in the unsettled regions of this country.

        The idea that this Common Law is in any way sacrosanct in this country is extremely ignorant, as well as objectionable. As opposed to Britain, the laws in this country are intended to be written by a legislature that is directly answerable to the people, and not from any court judge, which are empowered only to apply the existing law to the case at hand. Yet those who mistakenly sanctify the Common Law, elevate a system that is inherently tyrannous and deliberately rejected by this nation’s founders, in no way embodying any principle of this country, or anything sacrosanct governing principle at all, except perhaps Feudal concept of “noblesse oblige” wherein the commoners are obligated to the dictates of the elites.

        In fact the 7th Amendment to the Constitution references that common law, but not to elevate it, and rather only to invalidate that common law. Rather than the Court dictating what the law shall be, in instances where there is no existing law, i.e. “In suits at common law” the defendant is entitled to a jury of his peers, In other words, the 7th Amendment says we have the right to not have our guilt, the law, and our society itself, dictated by the judges of an elitist court, but rather determined by a jury of our peers. Quite clearly the founders recognized the common law practice to be inherently tyrannous, and there was nothing sacred underlying it.

        The only reason the common law was ever recognized in this country, is in instances where we had no applicable law of our own. There are innumerable court cases referencing the common law and specifically doing so only after indicating that we ourselves had no applicable law to cover the consideration at hand. However even then there was often no agreement on what that “Common Law” even indicates, as it is nowhere written down, and has no consistent principle. Hence State courts have ruled one way when applying the common law to something such as citizenship, and been overturned by other State courts considering the very same terms, and applying a wholly different governing principle as being the applicable common law.

        Perhaps the most egregious abuse of the common law in this country’s history was,by Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray in United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which Gray argued that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and natural born citizen of the United States under the terms of British common law, …. as if we ourselves had no governing principle of citizenship in this country after 110 years of existence. This corruption and hubris are amazing. In actuality, even only considering the legislation made at the same time the 14th Amendment was ratified (30 years prior to the case), the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the 1866 U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised both defining who is, and is not, a citizen. Yet Justice Gray ignored this.

        The unfortunate reality is those who are mistakenly elevating “Common Law’ to being a sacred principle, do so without really understanding it, and instead only having read the seemingly overriding authority of that common law in various U.S. cases, mistakenly interpreting this to involve some profound principle, even one sacred to this country, when there’s nothing at all profound about the common law, much less involving any principle inherent to these United States. Such a belief is just ignorance compounded by failure to do anything even remotely resembling due diligence.

        The irony here is that while reference to the British Common Law actually involves elevation of elitist dictate, the current attempt to employ “Common Law” to validate a Grand Juries is actually involving populism utterly devoid of every guiding principle as well, essentially Communist populist philosophy and ugly mob rule, yet at the same time this crew rejects the courts in this country decreeing what the law shall be! That is a level of stupidity that has no defense whatsoever.

        It’s a level of absurdity and ignorance that no one can just make up, but which requires a high degree of rabid emotional adherence precluding all rational questioning typically associated with cultism. And it’s why none over at RBN have the chestnuts to discuss the issues with me on-air — they insist on an echo chamber wherein their Faith, which they amusingly label “Truth”, is to be unchallenged and untested.

        As a result, it is impossible to over-emphasize the extreme degree of ignorance of those promoting these misnomered “common law grand juries”. This very ignorance is why we’re losing, not only our rights, but this country as well.

        While I can entirely sympathize with the frustration felt due to the corruption of our Courts, not to mention the entirety of the federal government, it is not a rational response to answer that corruption with our own corruption of those fabricated common law grand juries. This is doing nothing but guaranteeing the downfall of this country by turning us into a 3rd World justice system.

        I view those promoting these common law grand juries, and other vapid “sovereign citizen” theories, as not only an obstacle to intelligent discussion, but also as being every bit as much the enemy as the globalists, Marxists and crony-Corporatists now corrupting the country. That really is the bottom line.

        Tom, by the way, you may not recall this, but you and I actually were talking on Facebook, and then spoke for over an hour on the phone when you were traveling to Bunkerville, but were waylaid due to problems with your truck.


      • Are you a citizen of the USA Inc., the state you reside in or a National of the land or ?


      • Ri-chard, when you travel from your home state to another do you have to get a visa, or apply for citizenship in the new state? No, of course not.

        This country never recognized citizenship as coming from a single State.

        A citizen of one state was a citizen. of all states, and a citizen of the United States of America.

        This is true because Article IV in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution each have a “Full Faith & Credit” clause.

        We have always all been citizens of the United States of America. Surprise!

        No, the U.S. federal government is not incorporated,.


  3. The Florida Supreme Court “History” web page has an interesting discussion of that State’s history as a common law State, and gives some insight into Britain’s past, and the common law overall:

    Unlike the Civil Law system, Common Law reflects the Anglo-Saxon peoples’ intense and unique preoccupation with custom and precedent. The early Anglo-Saxons seldom relied on written laws, in part because the people — and even their kings and queens — often could not read or write. As a result, Anglo-Saxon law tended to be developed case by case. And each important new case was thought to establish “precedent” that would be followed in the future.

    This case-by-case approach resulted in many unique characteristics of the Common Law system, which are still apparent today in Florida. For one thing, the rulings of judges and not the acts of the English Parliament were the main way new laws were created for many centuries . In fact, for the bulk of English history, Parliament existed mainly to raise taxes requested by the Crown, not to make laws.

    Evidently, if one despises corrupt Justices dictating law from the bench, then they really should not be elevating the “common law” to some sacrosanct foundation of this country.


    • Common Law before the name of the constitution was changed from FOR to TO does not allow and BAR members. It is Common Law of the people.
      All Sheriff’s will have to take a new oath to the Constitution FOR the united States.The current oath all Sheriff’s have taken does not exist In Law, At law. It’s a fraud perpetrated on them and all Peace Officers and the Military.


      • Ri-chard,

        Apparently you missed my previous reply HERE, in which I provided a compilation of your unsupported claims in posts, and responded to your claims about the Constitution. Specifically:

        1 ► The Constitution has no name AT ALL, and therefore there could not be any sort of “name change” involviung the alteration of “FOR” to “TO”. What you are reading is merely the unofficial addition of titles to that Document in online postings and printings, and these might include “”FOR”, “TO” and even “OF, and all be equally legitimate and referring to the SAME singular document.

        2 ► The “Common Law” has nothing to do with the Constitution at all, nothing whatsoever, and therefore that Constitution has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing BAR members, which are not titles of nobility.

        3 ► That Common Law is NOT the “Common Law OF the people” but rather the BRITISH Common Law “FOR the people”, with the BRITISH Courts dictating what the law shall be, when no law has been made by the Houses of Lords and Commons. It’s rather ironic you object to Lawyers because of your mistaken belief the BAR is British, but then go and elevate British Common Law to being sacrosanct, as well as a principle of this country and Constitution, when it is most certainly NOT! IN FACT, the 7th Amendment was written to ensure our right to a trial by jury in the absence of any applicable law, rather than engage the tyrannous Common Law practice of the Court dictating what the law is.

        4 ► Sheriffs obviously will NOT have to take a new oath, as there is no Constitution titled “FOR the united States”. Furthermore this country is not the “united States” (lower case “united”), but rather has long been the “The United States of America”, as indicated by Article I of the Articles of Confederation which indicates that shall henceforth be the “stile’ of this country’s naming.

        You’re entirely wrong on all counts.


  4. Recently my assertions about “common law grand juries” were challenged by the the reference to common law and the right to a grand jury in the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    As recognized in the United States, that “common law” got its name for the laws that were derived from the various decisions made by British circuit court judges actually empowered to make the law themselves. Originally these judge-derived laws were all made locally. When these local judge-derived laws were recognized by a large number of those various circuit courts, it was recognized as being held in common across the land, and thereby given more weight than laws that only had local recognition. Over time these un-codified Court-decreed laws, commonly recognized across Britain, became recognized as “common law”.

    7th Amendment: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

    The whole purpose of the common law reference at the onset of the 7th Amendment, is to establish that the consideration is to be “at common law”, thereby indicating it involves a consideration where there is no applicable written law to reference. As with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the intent of the 7th Amendment is to protect an individual right which a tyrannous government is likely to transgress upon. In the case of the 7th Amendment, the purpose is to prohibit the Courts from declaring “what the law is”, thereby prohibiting a black robed supremacy making laws, and instead leaving the consideration in the hands of a jury of one’s peers — the people themselves.

    The Founders were so adamant that this authority remain in the hands of the people, rather than the Court itself, to decree what the law shall be, that the 7th Amendment particularly specifies, towards the end, that “no [finding of] fact (i.e. conclusion by a jury) shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court”.

    The current claims by these “common law grand juries” that their decisions are above challenge from any Court, comes entirely from a failure to understand this section of the 7th Amendment. The 7th Amendment’s prohibition of any Court overturning that grand jury finding, is not regarding just any jury decision, but only in those cases that are “at common law”, where there is no applicable statutory law to determine the case. Unfortunately these “common law grand juries” mistakenly believe that every consideration by them is under that “common law” simply by virtue of the name they themselves apply to that grand jury, whether the issue itself is recognized under written law, or not, which is a further corruption on their part.

    The overall purpose of the 7th Amendment is to prevent the Courts themselves from making law. Contrary to the claims being made, the 7th Amendment actually undermines common law practice, to protect the rights of the people, rather than elevating that common law itself.


      • Mister Lacovara,

        I’m somewhat curious what triggered you to come here and provide us your comments.

        You arrived and posted 5 comments over a 10 minute time period. In those comments you made numerous claims and statements, but provided not even one shred of evidence to support your indications.

        In the past I’ve read your so-called “thesis” on your web site, and did so at your insistence.. What I read was claiming to focus on the 14th Amendment, yet made very little discussion of that, with the entirety of that writing being nothing more than a collection of wildly diverse fringe beliefs, none of which involved any supporting reference. It quickly became evident that you’re unaware that a thesis involves the methodical argument of a position, with the inclusion of wide-reaching supporting evidence. What you presented was no thesis at all. However i was impressed that it was not scribbled in multi-color crayon.

        If you recall, I wrote you a lengthy email response to your “thesis”, motivated by the objectionable manner in which you demanded i read it, and I also copied John Stadtmiller, owner of RBN Radio. As it so happens, unbeknownst to me, a close friend of mine was visiting Mr Stadtmiller’s home that very day, and upon receipt of my email, Stadtmiller commented, verbatim, “Someone just handed Lacovara his ass!”, to which my friend asked only one thing: “Is his name TJ?”

        Now, in this comment, you imply that I’m some sort of Communist, however yet again you offer no indication why anything I’ve argued might have possibly led to that indication.

        Then you go on to claim I’ve provided “lies”, however, yet again you fail to provide any reason for your slander, like some juvenile delinquent. Your disagreement (without cause) does not constitute my having lied, unless you’re on the near side of pubescence. I’m quite certain that everything I’ve written here is true, accurate, and unlike your own claims, supported by numerous authoritative references.

        Tom, any time you’d like to take me on, I’m game. I would be happy to go on live broadcast with you to discuss these issues, however I would do so only if an objective 3rd party was in control of the broadcast, as you have a poor reputation regarding self-restraint and objectivity.

        I have only one question at this time, Mr Lacovara: have you the chestnuts?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ri-chard, it’s not about what I “believe” or you believe, but rather what that common law actually is.

      As I indicated in the article, there are widespread misperceptions about what the common law is. One of those schools believes the common law is some sort of sacrosanct guiding principles, which spread from the religious principle of the Bible, onto this country, and here the equivalent of “Natural Law”. This school also generally believes that the Magna Carta is common law, and also having to do with our natural law rights as well, which is only partially true, as the Magna Carta entirely reflects British Feudal-monarchical law, and the only rights anyone had was by the allowance of the Crown, as were provided by the Magna Carta itself. National Liberty Alliance and its leader John Darash, is a great example of this school’s ignorance.

      Ri-chard, It is evident from your comments that you are from this school, and you really need to educate yourself further, preferably not from the same poisoned well.

      The common law is nothing more than British judges declaring from the bench what the law shall be. There’s nothing sacred about it all, and no governing principle to it beyond what is generally feudal principle of the government telling the serfs what they better be doing with their lives. The common Law has nothing to do with this country’s principle, other than we inherited for a time, given the absence of our own laws, at the start of this country.


      • Nope……its about the ideological belief that you are not a Communist but that you actually do support an Administrative law replacement over the rightful Law of the Land…and the Constitution is a CONTRACT and therefore its EXACT TITLE absolutely does matter, to assume otherwise is the belief, that negates FACTS. Which we were overthrown and a Communist Citizenship/Jurisdiction/Government with the forced unlawful implementation of the 14th Amendment –

        Liked by 1 person

      • RTR, Tom, there you go again making spurious accusations such as “Communist” without providing any rationale for your claim. You seem to be in the habit of adopting beliefs without them having any actual foundation.

        “Administrative law” is a term commonly applied to those courts that are not the exercise of the common judicial process, but rather applied by such Executive agencies as EPA, FDA, etc. Those true Administrative Law courts are so egregious because the presume the legitimacy of the executive agency’s authority, and are exercised by judges who are appointed by those agencies, paid by those agencies, and operating in disregard of the Constitution’s limits, therefore only proving the semblance of Procedural Due Process, but in actuality having no Substantive Due Process whatsoever. If you are going to use the term “Administrative Law” in some other capacity, as you have done, then you need to define your terms, and explain why your self-created definition might somehow be more valid than the recognized definition.

        No, the Constitution is not any sort of “CONTRACT” at all, as a CONTRACT is a legal document in which parties agree to the authority and responsibilities of each other. The Constitution does no such thing. The Constitution is actually a COMPACT made between the sovereign States, creating the fiction of the federal government under limited, enumerated powers. The federal government is in no way a signatory to the document, and has no authority to determine its own powers.

        The U.S. Constitution has no sort of “EXACT TITLE” whatsoever; there was no title provided at the head of any one of the Constitution’s drafts, nor any title provided on the final ratified Constitution.

        The Preamble’s reference indicating “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” does not provide any title either, and only references the “Constitution” that is that document itself, and indicates its applicability being “for the United States.”

        The use of “FOR” in the phrase “Constitution FOR the United States” is appropriate at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, because it was not yet adopted and applied to those States. However upon the Constitution’s ratification the replacement of “FOR” with “OF” in the phrase “Constitution OF the United States” is from that point now a valid and accurate description — and still not pretending to be any sort of absolute title. The only quasi-title for that document is “Constitution”, and even that involves no absolutism.

        The claim that the document’s name is “Constitution FOR the United States”, and that any other reference to the document might be referencing some other separate and clandestine document, is nothing but ignorant sophistry without any rational basis whatsoever. Your assumption otherwise is actually what is attempting to “negate the facts”, disregarding the fact and history of this country – thereby being both an ignorant and destructive mythology.

        Tom, the foundation of your “thesis” in analysis of the 14th Amendment is fundamentally ignorant in believing the corruption of that document might stem from such references as “born”, or “subject” and “citizens of the United States”, when the actual corruption of the 14th Amendment occurred 30 years after its ratification, in the Supreme Court case of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Gray subverted “jurisdiction” from being complete and total “political jurisdiction”, to being mere jurisdiction of law, which has no basis in citizenship whatsoever. I detail the historical, factual basis to this in “Ending Birthright Citizenship”.


  5. Ri-chard’s Theories

    The persistent resident Sovereign Citizen (generally) known as Ri-chard, has been submitting a series comments to the site filled with a mishmash of misplaced beliefs. I have previously advised Ri-chard that if he wanted his comments to appear on the site, then he needed to provide arguments with proofs for his claims, and not just a series of unsubstantiated claims.

    Although Ri-chard has consistently failed to provide any evidence at all in support his claims, I have decided to air some of Ri-chard’s comments, with these consolidated (and somewhat condensed) into a reasonably coherent format from the series of his recent submissions, due to my belief that the general reader would benefit from hearing these claims (albeit unsupported) and seeing them addressed. (Any highlighted text is my own doing, for the benefit of the reader.)

    Ri-chard wrote:

    The original constitution our Founding Fathers provided us read “Constitution FOR the united States of America”. This is the supreme Law of the Land for the continental United States. This constitution does exist, but the people don’t know of it so they can reactivate it. In essence, it is only dormant and the people need to bring it forward from its dormancy. However, many people do not know of this.

    Their constitution does not exist In Law, AT Law. Their Constitution is fiction. They cannot and will not identify themselves as our servants unless they take an oath to the Constitution for the united States.

    The Constitution of the United States is just as much a fiction as saying there is a law that you must fill out a 1040 form. You cannot not find the law anywhere either.

    This is where all fraud began when they change the title. .Again their constitution title does not exist in law at law. Prove that fact wrong.

    First, to exist in law, or to be law, the text must be written in a codified form. The Constitution is not written in any sort of codified form. For instance, there is no punishment for not taking an oath of office, nor indication of any impact for not having done so. While the Constitution is the law of the land, it is not written in any sort of statutory, enforceable form.

    -Ri-chard, perhaps their Constitution title does not exist in law, or at law, but then again, neither does your own. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution (there is only one) was drafted without any title at allNONE! The Constitution on display in the National Archives has no title whatsoever, and simply begins with, “We the people”; see for yourself. The Constitution was originally referenced by those founders as the “Federal Constitution”, obviously to distinguish the reference from the various State constitutions.

    In fact the references to Constitution “of” and “for” the United States are equally valid and accurate, given that the Constitution is a compact made by (“of”) the various united States, and that compact was made “for” the propose of forming the federal government. Neither title has any official capacity provided by the founders, as the founders did not give the Document any title at all. There is no sort of clandestine conspiracy of words at play here requiring the use of your DIck Tracy Decoder Ring.

    The idea that changing the preposition between “of” and “for” would somehow change the varsion of the Constitution that is at play is extremely ridiculous, and screams a difficulty understanding not only the law, but the English language itself. Furthermore, every individual making these claims should have figured this out on their own when they ere unable to find the two alleged documents for comparison purposes. The reality is this claim exists, and goes entirely unchecked, because many prefer the contrived conspiracy to the reality of history.

    Given the above factual and accurate recognition, your claim that “their Constitution” does not exist in law is both false and irrelevant. Also you’re claim that “their constitution” does not exist, is not fact at all, but rather a misleading falsehood. In ;fact “your constitution”, as you claim the title to be, does not exist either. If you wish to claim there are two separate Constitution’s, then you need to provide proof of the existence of two separate and distinct applicable Constitutions for (and of) this country, and only then demonstrate the difference in the titling. However, as is consistent with Sovereign Citizen claims, you fail to provide any proof at all, lacking evidence of both the existence of two documents, and proof of the different titles. .

    Ri-chard wrote:

    You cannot have true State Common Law if people selected to administer it have sworn to the Constitution OF the United States. This title does not exist in law at law.

    They must take a new oath to the Constitution FOR the united States or they still serve the Royal Crown and the rest of the cabal. This has nothing to do with British judges as they – as BAR Member – cannot practice their law in the states common Law Justice system. As Common Law is not recognized by the BAR in their courts..

    There is no sort of “true State Common Law” at all. Even where States have recognized that common law, and even applied it, that common law did not originate from the State itself, but rather from Britain. In all the references to the common law, it is implied with those reference that the indication is to British common law.

    If you review all references to the common law in both State and Federal court decisions, that common law is only referenced after the court first establishes that their is no existing State or Federal law applicable to the consideration at hand. That common law obviously does not come from the States.

    Furthermore, as I discuss at length in this article, that common law is not a founding principle of this country, and is quite definitely not synonymous with our own natural law principle. Quite often that common law is at odds with our founding principles and governing philosophy.

    The recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia indicated in a November 22, 2008 speech to the Federalist Society, “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now..”

    Given this, and contrary your claim, any application of State common law that might have occurred, has no possible relevance to THE Constitution, much less any oath sworn to that Constitution. While the Constitution is the law of the land, most certainly the common law is not the law of this land!

    Ri-chard wrote:

    Have you educated yourself yet. Common Law by the Constitution FOR the united State does not allow British or BAR member Judges. Judges are selected by the people of Land not by those of the Sea/Royal Crown,

    These BAR members are foreigners not citizens of the States. They do not exist under the original constitution. They have no authority over the people .

    There is no such thing as “Common Law by the Constitution”, regardless of how you title it, as discussed in my preceding response, above. The Constitution and common law do not now, and have never had anything to do with each other. In fact common law principle and practice is often quite in conflict with this country’s founding principle, which is why the 7th Amendment breaks from common law practice, and secures as our right to have a jury of our peers, rather than have the court decree what the shall be. The 7th Amendment does not guarantee us common law, but rather secures the right to be free of government’s imposition of that comnmon law upon us.

    We do not use British judges in our courts.

    This country is not governed by Maritime law and no one pretends it is except Sovereign Citizen flunkies.

    There is no singular over-arching BAR association, and what Bar Associations (plural) that do exist have nothing whatsoever to do with Britain or the British. Of the fifty states, only 32 States have mandatory membership in a Bar association to practice law in the jurisdiction of that State. Where there is mandatory membership in a Bar Association to practice law in a State, that Bar association is a private organization unique within that State, and given a sort of monopoly to license the practice law in that State, and this all has nothing whatsoever to do with Britain or the British.

    Contrary to your capitalization of the term “BAR”, it is not an acronym, does not stand for “British Accreditation Registry”, and does not have anything at all to do with the British. or Britain.

    My Father graduated first from Yale and then Harvard Law. I was born in my Father’s second year of Harvard Law. My father went on to practice law, and was a member of the Bar Associations (plural in Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as other States. While practicing law in this country, my father traveled to other countries using an American passport, as an American citizen. My father has never been a foreigner to this country, being born in Connecticut, and has always been a Citizen of these United States, and never a citizen of any other country. Your claims about the Bar association and citizenship are silly, astonishingly ignorant, and extremely objectionable.

    To those reading these comments: I hope that this exchanged has helped you recognize how thoroughly ignorant these and other beliefs are, and what a severe threat these beliefs represent to the recovery of legitimate governance in this country. These ignorant beliefs are in truth a Cancer, and every bit as much a threat to this country’s existence as are the Progressive Globalist-Marxist beliefs now intent on this country’s destruction.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sovereign Citizen is a term created by the government and is an OxyMoron. Either you retain the Constitutional Jurisdiction which is resident status of your Nation State, OR you are a Federal Communist 14th Amendment Debt slave / subject. You CAN NOT BE BOTH.And there is NO SUCH REAL THING as a Sovereign Citizen. You only out yourself for your ignorance/or subservience to this Fraud.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It’s really irrelevant where the term sovereign citizen originated, and quite sophomoric to imagine it was fabricated by “the government”. The term “sovereign citizen” applies to a large collection of convoluted beliefs largely involving the soreign authority of the individual, but not necessarily, and invariably involving devout adherence to beliefs about government and our history with a disturbing disregard for actual facts.

        The several states in this country have never been recognized as “Nation States”, and in fact from the moment of their independence, and recognition of the end of the Revolutionary War in the Treaty of Paris, that collection of states has been recognized as the “United States of America”, as per Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation.

        The 14th Amendment did not make slaves of us,, and only your own ignorant reading of that amendment and this country’s history does so. The Constitution does not rationally have any sort of “jurisdiction”, but rather only has application to the terms of the federal government’s legitimacy, and the relationship of that federal government to the several States. Nothing I have written has in any way undermined the terms of that relationship, nor afforded the federal government any further authority beyond what is stipulated by the Constitution, making your repeated reference of “Communist” nothing short of jackassery on your part. You can do better, if you put some discipline to it.

        Overall, these unsubstantiated wide-ranging beliefs, that invariably fail to recognize no legitimate authority for government even within the terms of the Constitution, amount to the sovereignty of the individual (Sovereign Citizen) by a backdoor methodology, even when these beliefs explicitly disavow any association with sovereign citizen theory up front. John Darash/Vidurek of National Liberty Alliance is conspicuous in this regard, particularly when his own personal actions are taken into account.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s