Alan Bacon (sui Juris)
Brief in Support
Thu Jan 15 16:11:11 2004
67.74.154.22

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

The Common Law as we know it in America today had it's roots in the Magna Charta
of the year 1215. The Common Law, brought to America by the colonists, was the
Supreme Law of the Land of America and was administered by Our One Supreme
Court of the People, by the People and for the People.


Next came the Constitution for the united States of America dated September 17, 1787
which is still in effect and has never been declared void. Article I Section I states;
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." In Section 8 it states that Congress shall have power "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."

The framers of the Constitution were without a doubt referring to a Supreme Court of
Common Law that was already established and active in America and undoubtedly
intended its continuance in and for the united States of America.


The Constitution, having established that Our One Supreme Court already existed,
provided for a legislative-appellate Supreme Court and inferior courts. It is clear that the Constitution was now setting up another set of Courts called legislative courts, referred
to as inferior courts, meaning inferior to the existing Common Law Court, Our One
Supreme Court.


Article I of the Constitution did then and there give congress the authority to set up
legislative courts, inferior to Common Law courts. This is verified by Article VII of the
Articles of Amendment to the Constitution wherein it guarantees that "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 otherwise be re-examined in
any Court of the United States, than according to the Rules of the Common Law."
This being established, could there be any doubt that the court of Common Law is
"Supreme"?


This sets the Courts of Common Law separate and apart from legislative courts, such
as the San Antonio Municipal Court, Bexar County Court, Texas Supreme Court, etc.,
obviously legislative appellate courts in that any case tried in said court(s) can be re-
examined by action of appeal. This places these "courts" as one of the inferior courts
referred to in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution for the united States of America.
Even though said court(s) may have been created by State Legislature(s), our National Constitution must rule.


Note the difference in a trial by Jury in Common Law as to a trial with a jury in today's legislated inferior courts. Judges in the inferior courts instruct the jury on what they will
hear and what they will decide upon. There is no provision in Common Law for trial with
a jury. In Common Law, with a trial by jury, the jury decides everything and tries the
facts and the law.


The last words of the introduction or preamble to the Articles of the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, which has never been altered by common consent in any way or manner and
presently remains in force, state; "It is hereby ordained and declared by the Authority
aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles of the compact between
the original states in said territory and shall forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent."


The compact agreement is a federal injunction and is forever unalterable either by legislative Congress and it's legislative supreme court and it's other inferior courts or the administration.
It is protected by Article IV, Section 2, Part I of the Constitution for the united States of America which guarantees; "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges of
citizens in the several states."


Article 2 of the compact agreement states, "The inhabitants of said territory shall always
be entitled to the writ of Habeas Corpus, and of Trial By Jury, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the Common Law."



Legislative law, statutory law, is in fact an extension of maritime law.
The 1946 Administrative Procedures Act, Title 5 U.S.C., Section 559, at sentence 2,
requires the Administrative Law to be in compliance with and in conformity to the
Constitution for the united States of America and The Common Law with all its
prohibitions, restrictions, restraints and limitations imposed by its enumerated bounds
(see Amendment 9) and boundaries.


The Maritime Code otherwise known as statutory law being administered in legislative
inferior courts (as evidenced by the maritime gold braid flag in the courtroom) also acknowledges that "when brought inland beyond the High Water Mark, and/or the First
Bridge of any Navigable River; they MUST be brought into compliance with and in
conformity to the Constitution for the united States of America and subject to the
Common Law." Saving to suitors, in all cases, the Right to a Common Law Remedy,
where the Common Law is competent to give it, shall also have Exclusive Original
(Jurisdiction) Cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid made,
and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States
[Government Incorporated] 1 Statute 77, Section 9(a);


"Of all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors, in all cases,
the Right of a Common Law Remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it."
36 Statute 1161, Section 256, Part (3)."


Thus being competent, Common Law is not extending in reverse of the high water mark
and extending to the sea or the jurisdiction of maritime law or to exercise jurisdiction as
stated under Article I Section 8 wherein it declares that the inferior tribunals will "exercise exclusive jurisdiction as prescribed by Congress over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become
the seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and
all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in
any department thereof."


Legislative statutory courts themselves admitted the validity of the Common Law Court in Strauss v. Strauss, 3 So. 2nd 772 at 728 (1941) which states; "Every system of law known
to civilized society generated from or had as its component, one of three well known systems
of ethics: pagan, stoic, or Christian. The Common Law draws its subsistence from the latter.
Its roots go deep into that system. The Christian concept of Right and Wrong and Justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and
the rule by which all legal controversies are settled."


Whereas we learned that "The Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." State v.
Simon, 2 Spears 761, at 767 (1884), Justice O'Neal speaking for the Court; Taylor v.
Porter, 4 Hill, 140 at 146 (1843); Webster's definition of "The Law of the Land" at
Dartmouth, 4 Wheaton 518 at 581, 582.


In Wyly v. Collins, 9 Ga. 223, at 237 (1851) acknowledges the Common Law and the
Holy Bible from which it came, which is the foundation of the Common Law, is our God
given Constitutionally Secured Right. The 97th Congress declared the Holy Bible to be
the Word of God by Joint Resolution, Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211.


REMOVAL OF THE COMMON LAW FROM AMERICA


The People have knowledge that there are two distinct classes of Citizenship -- one
retaining all birthrights, of a separate and equal station, being of Private status and
Freeman Character and the other is a subject of and subordinate to the laws of the
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al, and one of its subdivisions, known as the
STATE OF TEXAS et al.


The New Deal Democracy, having amended the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917
in 1933 with the intent to include the people of the united States of America as enemies
of the Federal Government, has imposed War and Emergency Power upon the American People. Public officials perjure themselves as to their constitutional oath and pledge their allegiance to private corporations, known as the District of Columbia (United States),
and the Federal Reserve, (the bank and the fund), their Principals and Agents.
The STATE OF TEXAS cannot act in a de jure capacity due to its having pledged its sovereignty and all the assets of the people of the STATE to the federal government for
the unrevealed benefits of the Socialist New Deal Democracy, Public Trust, of the District
of Columbia incorporated by Act of Congress in 1876 and its subdivisions in 1933 and
many times thereafter.


The Courts of United States et al and the STATE OF TEXAS have left the constraints
and restrictions of their Constitutional bounds by operating Admiralty/Maritime tribunals
under the so called "Emergency" rather than "Courts of Law, Equity and Admiralty" as
stated in our national Constitution. FRCP 2 which combines Law, Equity and Admiralty
into one action called "Civil Action" being administered by said tribunals under Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction has totally removed from the people their remedies in
Law and/or Equity with specific intent of making unlawful seizures, judgments, decrees
and orders against the people for the purpose of taking of Private land, Private property
and the God given and Constitutionally protected rights of the people. It is clear that the legislatively created courts of our land are operating under what is intended to be secret jurisdiction and secret law known only to the attorneys and judges. Replacing the "law
of the land" with the "law of the sea", is clearly unlawful as purviewed by the contract
between the people and the government, that contract being the Constitution for the
united States of America.


The Courts of the United States et al and the STATE OF TEXAS have used their forcible entry, unlawful detainer, libel and slander, to deny the de jure People Due Process of Law, keeping the truth and knowledge of the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution for the
united States of America; Bill of Rights) from the People and the knowledge of what they
have really given up insofar as their God-given rights and liberty versus their so-called government granted privileges and liberties and further have withheld evidence in order
to support and defend their unlawful allegiance to the corporate U.S. of the District of Columbia.


The Courts of the United States et al and the STATE OF TEXAS have perpetrated a
fraud upon the American People by using "secret law" and "secret jurisdiction".
Said courts are a fiction at law and they bring the de jure people into their "secret
jurisdiction" by attempting to make a natural person into a fiction at law by fictitious
pleadings (i.e. putting their name in all capital letters and designating them as a "legally
created entity") while withholding the knowledge that a Private individual is not bound
by fictitious pleadings.


The representative government and the appellate courts, are holding the American People
under the presumption that an agreement that only requires offer and acceptance is a
contract, but in Law it is not a contract. For a bona fide contract to be binding, it requires
offer, acceptance and lawful consideration. There basically has been no lawful consideration since 1933 to bind a contract, due to the bankruptcy of the United States and because
Federal Reserve Bank Notes are obligations, not assets.


Finally, it is imperative to realize that the authority and powers of both the federal and
state governments were delegated by the people. The People did not give up their
authority and power, they merely delegated some aspects of it to the respective
governments and retained what was not delegated (see Amendments 9 & 10 of our
national Constitution). The People did not delegate to the governments the power to
violate their substantive, God given, rights. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights specifically enumerates some of those rights so that the state and federal governments would know
that they could not tread upon them. Yet, even those spelled out are being violated every
day. More importantly, the People's right to the Common Law is specifically retained
and protected by the Constitution for the united States of America.


Therefore, under the Law of Necessity, the People are speaking , through the court of the People with its authority being derived from the Sovereignty of the People, the Common
Law, the Constitution for the united States of America, the Declaration of Independence,
and the Laws of our Creator. Public notice was given by publication without contestment
of the re-establishment of Our One Supreme Court in Texas state for the purpose of
returning to the people their right to the remedies so clearly established by God's word
and the hundreds of years of human history and the history of the Common Law.


Respectfully submitted;


L.S. ___________________________________________

Alan-Eugene; Thorn-Bacon (c), (sui Juris)



With reservation of all Birthrights not to be compelled
to accept the unrevealed benefit of any implied contract,
agreement, benefit nor presumption by silent judicial
notice or otherwise.


Verification



In Witness, Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and men I
solemnly affirm, that I have read the annexed Brief in Support of the Complaint for
Damages from Constitutional Violations dated the Fifteenth day of the First month,
Anno Domini, Two thousand four; and know the contents thereof; that the same is true
of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on my
information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.


Dated this Fifteenth day of the First month, in the year of our Lord, Two thousand four.



Private Citizen, First-Class, Sign Manual,
L.S.______________________________
Alan-Eugene; Thorn-Bacon (c), (sui Juris)