BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMMON LAW

The Constitution is declared to be the “Supreme Law of the Land” by the Soverign

Body of “We The People”; and as specified and enumerated therein, Ordained to

“Establish Justice”, “Ensure the Domestic Tranquility”, “Provide For The Common

Defense”, “Promote The General Welfare”, and “Secure The Blessings Of Liberty To

Ourselves And Our Posterity.”

(See: Article VI, Clause 2, and the Preamble to the United States Constitution)

The Constitution MANDATES four (4) distinct and specified Jurisdictions, to wit,

“Cases In LAW, “Equity”, “Admiralty” and “Maritime.” And are clearly, unambiguously

and undeniably set forth in Article III, Section 2:

“ Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Costitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or
which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between Citizens
of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign
States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under
such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

The mandated, specified and enumerated Jurisdictions, were clearly explained in

the Federalist Papers No. 83, to wit:

“ The judicial authority of the federal judicature is declared by the Constitution to

comprehend Certain Case Particularly Specified. These Expressions Mark The
Precise Limits Beyond Which The Federal Courts CANNOT Extend Their

1
 Jurisdiction, BECAUSE OF THE OBJECT OF THEIR COGNIZANCE BEING
ENUMERATED, THE SPECIFICATIONS WOULD BE NUGATORY IF IT DID
NOT EXCLUDE ALL IDEAS OF MORE EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY.”

The long train of abuses, usurpations and Mischiefs which affected the Colonies

are a matter of Public Record, and were accomplished by and through a “Hodge Podge

Act”, combining Admiralty with the two (2) other known and recognized, Jursidictions.

The confounding of the judicature was one of the causes of the “Declaration And Resolves

Of The First Continental Congress” of October 14, 1774. Upon the numerous grievances

set forth in DECLARATION it is noted that:

“…and Extended The Jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty, not only for
collecting the said duties, but for Trial of Causes merely arising within the Body of
The Country.”

These type of acts compounded the problems of Disunion, and although properly

Declared before the English Crown, and Parliament, fell on deaf ears. The negligence of

the body politic in England to correct the abuses, directly aided by an indolent and corrupt

judicature, resulted in the “Declaration Of The Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms”

of July 6, 1775, which upon solemn deliberation and circumspect, again Declared the

Mischief that:

“….statutes have been passed for extending the jursidiction of the courts of
admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits.”

The indignant delusions of the body politic to correct the despotic abuses and

usurpations became deafeningly clear. On July 4, 1776, upon unanimous Declaration of

the Thirteen United States Of America, “The Declaration of Independence” was issued,

Declaring numerous reasons for separating from the corrupt and despotic design of the

individuals in Government, and the necessity of exercising “Their Right” and “Their Duty”

to throw off their evil and Tyrannical designs. Among these were counted many injuries

2
and usurpations, which by necessity, had to be aided, abetted, counseled, commanded and

procure by and through the judiciary, in direct violation of the established laws. These

were submitted to a candid world:

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.”

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws
for establishing Judiciary powers.”

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

“He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction Foreign To Our

Constitution, and Acknowledged By Our Laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of
pretended Legislation.”

“From protecting them, by mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the inhabitants of these States.”

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
FUNDAMENTALLY the Forms of our Governments.”

The redundant and repetitive nature of usurpation, injuries and the mode of

accomplishment, can be noted in very recent time a direct repeat of the prior mischief of

“Extending Admiralty Jurisdiction” appears in the 1982 Ed. Of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, pg. 17, to wit:

“This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE Necessary to effect unification of CIVIL

and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE
DISTINCTION between Actions AT LAW and Suits In EQUITY, this Change
Would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION Between CIVIL ACTIONS And Suits In
ADMIRALTY.”

The founders of the duly Ordained Republic, upon sober reflection, debate and

3
reason, set forth in clear, unambiguous language, the intent and import of the Declaratory

and Restrictive Clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America. The

judicature was establilshed with extreme reserve, due to its direct and intentional

involvement in history with corrupt and barbaric practices. The Office and Powers of

Judge and Jurisdiction of the Courts, were mandate under Article III, and further,

restricted those individual Citizens holding and exercising the powers of the Office to such

things as “…SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR…”

The enumerated Jurisdictions properly qualified and restricted the Judicature to

certain specified Jurisdictions because of their proper cognizance and scope. The sobering

effect was well noted by Thomas Jefferson:

“Before the revolution, a judgment could not be obtained under eight years in the
Supreme Court (of Virginia) where the suit was in that department of the common
law, which department embraces about nine-tenths of the subject of legal
contestation. In that of the chancery, from twelve to twenty years were requisite.
This did not proceed from any vice in the laws, but from the indolence of judges
appointed by the king; and theses judges holding their offices during his will only
he could have reformed the evil at any time. This reformation was among the first
works of the Legislature after our independence. A judgment can now be obtained
in the Supreme Court in one year at the common law, and in about three years in
the chancery.”
(Paul Leicester Ford, Ed. , The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson, volume 4, page
126)

The Judicature, deservedly suspect, was observed with some scrutiny even after

the ordaining of the Constitution, and displayed its redundant nature at a very early stage

in the history of the Union of States.

“Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will
pass to destruction, to wit, by CONSOLIDATION first, then CORRUPTION, its
necessary consequence. The Engine Of Consolidation will be the Federal
Judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and the corrupted insturments.”
(Albert Ellery Bergh, Ed., The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson, volume 15 pg. 331)

The first 12 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, as

4
submitted for ratification, contained a brief but adequate description of the intent of those

framing and ratifying them.

RESOLUTION OF THE FIRST CONGRESS SUBMITTING

TWELVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Congress of the United States,

begun and held at the City of New York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand
seven hundred and eighty nine
“The Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the
Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse Of
Its Powers, that further DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES
Should Be Added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the
Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Ten of the twelve Amendments submitted were subsequently ratified, among

which was Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses set forth in Amendment VII.

“In Suits AT COMMON LAW, where the value in controversy exceeds 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 COMMON LAW.”

The “At Law” Jurisdiction was therefore mandate a RIGHT reserved by the

Citizens and States, being clearly distinguished from Equity, Admiralty and Maritime

Jurisdictions.

The cognizance of “At Law” Jurisdiction, was long established in antiquity, as are

the Principles of law upon which it operates. The Common Law was briefly but

adequately defined by Sir William Blackstone, which includes its areas of cognizance.

“This unwritten, or Common Law is properly distinguishable into three kinds. 1.

General Customs; which are the Universal Rule of the whole kingdom, and form
the Common Law, in its stricter and more usual significations. 2. Particular
Customs; which for the most part, affect only the inhabitnats of particular districts.
3. Certain Particulart Laws; which by custom, are adopted and used by some
particular courts, of pretty general and extensive jurisdiction.

5
I. As to General Customs, or The Common Law, properly so called; this is
that law, by which proceedings and determinations in the King’s ordinary
courts of justice are guided and directed. This, for the most part, settles
the course in which lands decend by inheritance; the manner and form of
acquiring and transferring property; the solemnities and obligation of
contracts; the rules expounding wills deeds, an acts of the several species
of temporal offenses; with the manner and degree of punishment; and an
infinite number of minuter particulars, which diffuse themselves as
extensively as the ordinary distribution of common justice requires. Thus
for example, that there shall by four Superior Courts of Record, Chancery,
the King’s Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer; that the aldest
son alone is heir to his ancestor; - that property may be acquired and
transferred by writing; - that a deed is of no validity unless sealed and
delivered; - that wills shall be construed most favorably, and deeds more
strictly; - that money lent upon bond is recoverable by an action of Debt; -
that breaking the public peace is an offense, and is punishable by fine and
imprisonment; - all these are doctrines that are not set down in any written
statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon immemorial usage, that is
upon Common Law for their support.”
(Blackstone’s Commentaries, Section II, pp. 33, 34.)

The congnizance and authority of the Common Law as stated in Kent’s

Commentaries, i., p. 471, is well worthy of note and consideration.

“The Common-Law includes those Principles, Usages, and Rules Of Action

applicable to the Government and Security of Person and Property, which
Do Not Rest For Their Authority upon Any express and positive
declaration of the will of the legislature.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, was formed upon the

Serious deliberation of the Statesman and People of that day; and with a personal

view of the Prior Mischiefs, fully intended a Remedy, for themselves and their

posterity. The extent of the specified and enumerated Jurisdiction of “At Law”

i.e. “At Common Law”, was discussed in the conventions of the States prior to

the Ordaining of the Constitution, and included such statements and common

understandings as:

Iredell: “It is evident that an officer may be tried by a Court of Common

Law. He may be tried in such a Court for Common Law Offenses,
Whether Impeached Or Not.”

6
 (The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The
Federal Constitution, Johnathan Elliot Edition, volume 4, pg. 37)

McLaine: “Notwithstanding the mode pointed out for Impeaching and

trying, there is not a single officer but may be tried and indicted At
Common Law.”
(The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The
Federal Constitution, Supra, volume 4, pg. 45)

The Common Law is the very fountain source of Substantive and Remedial

Rights, if not our very Liberties.

(See: Stephen, A Treaties On The Principles Of Pleading, Introduction, pg. 23;
Hemingway, History Of Common Law Pleading As Evidence Of The Growth Of
Individual Liberty And Power Of The Courts; 5 Alabama Law Journal 1.)

The Common Law is our heritage and Birth-Right, and not subject to the

delusions and arbitrary misconstructions of any person, natural or fictitious. The

individual Citizens holding and exercising the Powers of Government, being bound

by Oath, and by their own word and signature, to uphold the specific performance

set forth in the Express and Conditional Contract as Ordained and Established by

“We The People”, does not leave “Suits At Common Law”, and its separate,

distinct, specified, and enumerated Jurisdiction to the discretion of any Officer,

Agent, or Agency of Any Branch of the De jure Government.

“The Constitution recongnizes the distinction between Law and Equity, and
it must be observed in Federal Courts.”
(Bennett vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)

The Common Law is based upon Principles established through the course

of human history, and society. It includes such basic principles as:

“EVERY JURISDICTION HAS ITS BOUNDS” (See: 3 Coke On Littleton 220)

7
 “EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW.” (See: 1 Story’s Commentaries On Equity
Jurisprudence ) 64; 3 Wooddesson’s Vinerian Lectures 479, 482)

“WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT THERE IS A REMEDY.” (See: 1 Term Reports

512; Coke On Littleton 197, b; 3 Bouvier’s Institutes of American Law, n. 2411;
4 Bouvier’s Institutes of American Law, n. 3726)

“LET THE PRINCIPAL ANSWER.” (See: 4 Coke’s Institutes 114; 2 Bouvier’s

Institutes of American Law, n. 3586)

“A Judgment given by an improper Judge is of no moment.” (See: 11 Coke’s

Reports 76)

“THE ORDER OF THINGS IS CONFOUNDED IF EVERY ONE PRESERVES

NOT HIS JURISDICTION.” (See: 4 Coke’s Institutes Proem.)

“TO A JUDGE WHO EXCEEDS HIS OFFICE OR JURISDICTION NO

OBEDIENCE IS DUE.” (See: Jenkin’s Eight Centuries Of Reports, 139)

“HE WHO CAN AND OUGHT TO FORBID, AND DOES NOT,

COMMANDS.” (See; 2 Rolle’s Reports 17)

The Rights, Privileges and Immunities of CITIZENS are preserved and protected

under the Mandates of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.

(See: Corfield vs. Coryell, 6 U.S. 546, 550)

The Constitutionally Secured RIGHT to the COURT “AT LAW”, i.e. “SUITS AT

COMMON LAW”, like unto other Rights, Priviledges and Immunities of Citizens, is not

dependent upon an act of the Legislature, nor subject to abrogation by any other

Department, Officer, Agent or Employee, of the Government.

(See: Medina vs. People, 379 U.S. 848; Miranda vs. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491;)

To assume by any fiction of law, or abuse of procedure, that the Common Law, is

without effect, is to subvert the very foundation and principles of the Constitution of the

United States of America.

(See: State vs. Simmon, 2 Spears 761; Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Mill. 140, 146; Ex parte

Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108)

8
 It is further to be noted that it is outside of the Jurisdiction of the Court to restrain

the obvious meaning of the Constitution.

(See: Cook vs. Iverson, 122 N.M. 251)

“To ascertain the scope and meaning of the Seventh Amendment, preserving Trial
By Jury in Suits At Common Law where the value in controversy exceeds Twenty
Dollars. RESORT MUST BE HAD To The Appropriate RULES OF COMMON
LAW established at the time of the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment in
1791.”
(See: Dimmick vs. Schiedt, 55 S. Ct. 296, 293 U.S. 474)

“If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give
meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be
excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and
indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise
expressions be denied any significance whatsoever? For what purpose could the
enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to
be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common
than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by recital of
particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor
qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and
mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging
either the authors of the objection or the authors of the Constitution, WE MUST
TAKE THE LIBERTY OF SUPPOSING HAD NOT ITS ORIGIN WITH THE
LATTER."
(See: James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 41)

The enumeration of Rights set forth in the Constitution, is not meant to disparage

others retained by “We The People”, and upon Ordaining and Establishing the De jure

Government, endowed it with Powers and Limitations, and properly Declared and

Restricted those exercising the Powers to the specific performance set forth therein.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principle than that every act of a
delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is
exercised is void. No Legislature act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can
be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his
principle; that the servant is above his master; that representatives of the people
are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do
not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

9
 Nor does this conclusion by means suppose a superiority of the Judicial to
the Legislative Power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to
both, and that where the will of the Legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in
opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the Judges ought to
be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their
decisions by the Fundamental Laws rather that by those which are not
fundamental.”
(See: Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 78)

The Court “At Law” is clearly a matter of “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” and

Public Policy to “ESTABLISH JUSTICE.”

10