AMARILLO — I have to be brought into a military court. My status has to be determined. Then, if I've committed a crime and there's civil law like the war crimes code (unintelligible) then they can bring me into a civil court. I have that right given to me as a combatant, which the supreme court says they have to give me. What these people are doing and this is a problem, is they don't make the delineation between common law, that charge that she (Rohr) got? Would it stand in common law? If it would stand in common law, even if it's codified, she's still guilty guilty.
It's like a lot of the people in here. there's a lot of people that could or may or may not. I don't know. But the common law; When the legislature did away with it, they provided the avenue for engaging the jury. It determines whether you commute the crime, not the jury. That was the purpose of common law int the first place. She should have asked for a common law jury and made a threshold issue of it ten it would have forced the higher court to deal with it That's where she screwed up.
Q: She and some others cited something called “natural law?”
A: Thats common law basically. Thats your right where you go before your peers as a jury and you say 'Okay, I am going before the grand jury want them to indict me under common law.' In other words, did I violate the precepts of the common law.
Q: Are there people who are misidentifying themselves as members? ..
A: No. Everybody that is a inhabitant; see, you look up 181093 you'll find out that everybody in texas who is a inhabitant is a Texan. AKA Texian? You're a member of the national group. The national group was incorporated onto the declaration of Independence which states that the people shall constitute a ffee and independent nation and makes everyone a member of the national group. Abbot came out and stated in a letter he doesn't represent the people of Texas in a national group.