Usufruct Claim



  1. remember; 'trial by jury' or 'trial by judge' should be considered for each specific matter/case brought to court

    in this case, a 'trial by judge' would be a better choice since you will be hard-pressed to find a 'jury of peers' who are able to comprehend the applicable law let alone understand or accept the claim as true

    the 'judge' knows the law and must abide according to the obligation of the office

    the most difficult part is properly moving, holding and keeping one's court so that the matter is adjudicated under common law in a court of man


      At above website, notice what it says about the "judge", excerpted below:

      "This writer concludes, from the definitions below, that a
      court of record is a court which must meet the following

      1. generally has a seal
      2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
      3. keeps a record of the proceedings
      4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
      5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

      Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal.
      The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully
      empowered jury (not paid by the government) "

    2. True.

      When a jury of peers is required and convened, the 'judge/magistrate' is independent of the tribunal (seat of judgment; judicial assembly) and acts as a mere witness to the proceedings, and; is the one responsible for making sure the established 'rules of court' are followed by both the claimant and the wrongdoer.

      However, as I wrote earlier, the moving party (prosecutor) making claim may choose to have the one magistrate be in the judgment seat if said prosecutor believes he/she is more competent in the relating law and/or adjudication of a matter under the rules of common law.

      One may not find 'peers' who are competent or able to do either in a specific matter.