Liberty Tree Forum
Committee of Safety - Common Law Court
You are not currently logged in, the message will be posted anonymously.
Common Law Court
Editing Time Limit
[quote title=AssistantClerk wrote on Mon, 22 July 2013 18:45]The purpose of this Court is to establish the validity of any claim filed with the Court (CLC). The Court, then, through the Grand Jury, reviews the evidence and if "probable cause" (it appears that the accusation may be true based upon the evidence), and Indictment is presented to the Accused. The Accused, then, is given the opportunity to answer (go to court to defend his actions) before a trial (petit) jury. If he chooses not to answer, then the Unanswered Indictment is issued, as in the present matter. It is intended to void a "pissing contest" and rely on evidence and testimony, presented in a forum void of unsubstantiated allegations, name calling, and other distractions that are so common on the Internet. The entire Unanswered Indictment can be downloaded at [url=http://www.committee.org/Court/Dockett130201/Unanswered_Indictment_Docket_130201_Mortenson_Snook.pdf] http://www.committee.org/Court/Dockett130201/Unanswered_Indi ctment_Docket_130201_Mortenson_Snook.pdf[/url] The Court is not an advocate for either side in a dispute and is concerned only with making available the results of a trial, if the Accused is willing to answer, and the Unanswered Indictment, if, as in the current matter, is unwilling to answer. Those of you who are interested in freedom and liberty are automatically part of the Patriot Community. As such, you may wish to utilize your time in a productive means of problem resolution and participate in the CoS-CLC, so that the undercover operatives, agent provocateurs, and assorted informants can be cleared out of our house using trial by jury, instead of trial by press. The CLC relies upon volunteers, so if you seriously want division within the community stopped, then it becomes incumbent upon you to volunteer. Keep in mind as well that, in the future, should later you get into a dispute, then the CLC would be available to you to receive your complaint. To volunteer, go to [url]http://www.committee.org/Court/Pools.htm[/url][/quote]
Please enter the code shown below:
Get another CAPTCHA
Get audio CAPTCHA
Show image CAPTCHA
Re: Common Law Court
Thu, 07 July 2016 20:45
Both of these articles Ed Snook published the past month,are 100% false facts that can be proven as false when the actual legal case file is reviewed. Deborah Swan is still currently defending her position. Deborah's counter claim's have not been dismissed. Ed Snook's attorney James Leuenberger has committed numerous acts of fraud upon the court and perjury. Ed Snook's only argument in his frivolous law suit against Swan and Mortenson, is that Snook dropped Swan from the contract because Swan was a conspiracy theory lunatic who would call him up and claim that the government was evil. Ed Snook has filed false claims about Deborah being involved in anti government dangerous militia groups, and that the
"FBI needs to be notified about Swan's dangerous activities."
Snook has lied to the court and the consumer complaints division of the Oregon Department of Justice, and claimed that he had to cancel the contract with Swan because he could not work on Charles Dyer's case due to Swans lunatic behaviors by calling Snook to discuss "how the government was behind 911 and the the OKC Bombings." Ed Snook has lied also to the BBB by making the same false impression that Swan and Mortenson are crazy 911 conspiracy lunatics. This false claim by Ed Snook caused the DOJ to close the complaints filed. This past week, Snook contacted the BBB with the same false story, and threatened the BBB with a law suit if they do not remove the complaints filed by Swan and Morten-son,. Swan has received a copy of the DOJ consumer complaint file, and discovered that Ed Snook has admitted to the DOJ that he has spoken to the FBI about Swan and his concern with Swan's
"anti government activities."
Snook contacted FBI Agent KEn Western out of Oklahoma and FBI Agent Pool out of Washington DC. Snook requests the DOJ to report Swan to the FBI and to file charges against Swan for filing false complaints. Ed Snook also told the Washington State DOJ complaint Department to call the FBI and Chris Mortenson's military commander to file charges against Swan and Mortenson because they are dangerous to society to believe that the US Government is evil and attacks their own citizens. Snook also advises the FBI to
google Swan's name and watch some of the YouTube video that Swan has published, that are about the FBI.
Snook also advised the FBI to [i]"contact Morten son's military commander for his dangerous anti government beliefs and actions." Snook also stated that
"Mortenson is a threat to this country for being in the military while thinking the government was behind 911."
Deborah Swan has official letters written by Snook addressed to the the Oregon Dept. of Justice, the Washington Department of Justice and the BBB records. Swan also has the proof of Ed Snook has verbally admitted that he has connections with the US Government and he works with the Federal Authorities. Ed Snook claims the US Government does not like what Deborah Swan has been doing, and he is going to have his FBI connections arrest Deborah Swan very soon. When Ed Snook was asked what illegal activities is he talking about. Ed Snook said that Swan has been running around falsely accusing FBI Agents of setting people up and targeting Charles Dyer. Snook said the FBI knows who Swan is and that Snook is going to contact his federal authorities to have the FBI "bust" Swan.
Lots of outrageous behavior that totally contradicts his public image.
BTW This is posted by Deborah Swan.
Re: Common Law Court
Thu, 30 June 2016 17:06
If you could post a link it would be helpful. Thank You in advance
Re: Common Law Court
Thu, 30 June 2016 09:25
Edward Snook, owner of the US Observer has published a 2nd and a 3rd false defamatory news article about Deborah Swan and Chris Mortenson.
Re: Common Law Court
Wed, 27 April 2016 22:06
The reply from the Clerk of that Court (Gary Hunt), is as follows:
Seldom do I speak with someone who hides their very identity, assuming that they are also unable to substantiate their claims or themselves. However, in this case, and since the matter objected to can clearly be refuted, and for the sake of the community, itself a response might be beneficial to those who might be willing to accept the absurd assertion made by "Anonymous", and, perhaps, even "Anonymous" might benefit from my effort.
The Committee of Safety is not a common law court, nor did it ever claim that it was. A county is not a common law court, though the county name precedes the name of the court, to identify the authorizing body for the existence of that court. The common law court is authorized into existence by the Committee of Safety.
But, you say that they cannot do that. However, the history of this country provides otherwise. A specific example is Worcester, Massachusetts, which declared its independence from England in 1774, then went on to establish a court after forcing the judges that had been appointed by the Crown to resign (see The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence
Unlike the rash of common law courts popping up, especially around Burns, Oregon, the Committee of Safety can, and did, act as an authorizing body, absent any self-proclaimed "judge", which, historically, has no role in grand jury proceedings.
Absent any authorizing body (jurisdiction), there can be no lawful court nor lawful grand jury.
Now, what is the jurisdiction of the Committee of Safety, and any subordinate body? Well, to those who choose to come under that authority, as did all of those who filed complaints with the Committee of Safety, and its subordinate bodies.
Now being specific, did Snook come under such authority, willingly? No, he did not. However, he was given the opportunity, should he decide to stand against the charges made by the Accuser and affirmed by the Grand Jury.
So, what can the Grand Jury do, with regard to Snook. if Snook refuses to submit and answer to the charges? Not a damned thing, except lay those charges (the Unanswered Indictment) before the public, which is little different than a radio speaker making such charges -- except that the body of proof may not be given by the radio speaker, but is contained fully within the Unanswered Indictment.
Now, as to remedy. Do you begin to believe that there is remedy in the existing judicial system? If so, consider, would a court in the late eighteenth century have sustained charges against a Tory? That would be almost as absurd as believing that the constitutionally authorized court would hear a case of slander, libel, or any other charge that might be made by one "patriot" against another. It would be dismissed as frivolous, under some circumstances, and would be an expensive alternative in others.
The Committee of Safety -- Common Law Court -- Grand Jury has never pretended that any more than an Indictment can come from the Grand Jury, and that a petit jury only be empanelled, should the Accused choose to defend himself, and then, only a verdict in the matter, absent any form of punishment, could result.
Some had come to the Court seeking to have the Grand Jury pursue an Indictment against government officials. There is little doubt that the Grind Jury could, in such instance, convene and, given the proper evidence (unsubstantiated and/or frivolous assertions by 'witnesses' having no merit), could result in an Indictment. However, considering that the amount of time (hundreds of hours of juror's review of evidence, discussion, etc.) would have been wasted, since we can never expect, until such time as "enforcement" of the Indictment could be had to cause someone to stand trial and answer the Indictment, that person to even consider responding and seeking the petit jury trial, it was left to deal only with the patriot community, and in their best interest.
So, let's look in to the 'legality' of such an approached. After all, the claim was made that, "Any attempt by the CoS to pretend to be a court is overstepping it's[sic] boundaries and is in fact a fraud upon the people."
Many years ago, the first of what has become common, "People's Court" appeared on television. Judge Wapner (
) presided. It was based upon voluntary (though paid) appearances by both parties. Since then, we have seen a proliferation of such "courts". However, although legal, they are nothing more than arbitration, entered willingly by the participants.
However, they must be preceded by a claim. Whether that claim was filed in a county court, or with the arbitration entity, the claim has to precede any action. That claim in the case of the Committee of Safety - Common Law Court - Grand Jury, is made in the form of a Complaint. The Complaint is then given to the Grand Jury, along with any supportive evidence to, determine if there is probable cause, which justifies the expenditures of time to pursue justice in the matter.
If Probable Cause is determined to exist, the Indictment is then sent to the Accused, with a full explanation of what the Accused may do, and what will happen if he chooses not to answer to the Indictment.
Now, compare this process to the assertive nature of the previously discussed proliferation of Grand Jurys, they being created without any authorizing body, presided by a judge (not a part of our judicial heritage), which judge is self-appointed, and presuming authority to act, often by presenting "presentments" to courts of other jurisdictions. They also imply that punitive action may result as a consequence of the actions of the accused, by their presumed authority.
Re: Common Law Court
Mon, 25 April 2016 16:27
The Committee of safety IS NOT A COMMON LAW COURT... It is not a grand jury in any way shape or form. A Common Law Grand Jury is totally separate from the Committee of Safety and the CoS serves a specifically different role.
Any attempt by the CoS to pretend to be a court is overstepping it's boundaries and is in fact a fraud upon the people. The CoS has no authority to make a presentment, and indictment, or a true bill. It cannot put out any actions of distress or distain... nor can it do much of anything in pretending to be a common law Grand Jury...
Especially any form of enforcement... Ed Snooks has no obligation to answer the accusations as they is no lawful jurisdiction, even in Common Law.
Re: Common Law Court
Wed, 12 March 2014 13:17
2Ed Snook US Observer,
I am challenging you to please step up and let's take this into the public jury. The way you continue to say all these claims against me, then please do everyone a favor and bring your evidence you have to prove that I am all you say forward, and let's go to trial.
The problem you seem to have is that I have shared the evidence of your true colors on You Tube. As you know I have uploaded on You Tube our conversations that you also recorded, and allowed the public to hear for themselves what all happened during our phone conversations. Therefore you can not say I lied about anything. Also about the FBI conspiracy theories you continue to demonize me with, I have all the proof of the FBI unlawfully tapping my cell phones, being followed and being ransacked by a 30 man SWAT team all done without a warrant. The reason I hired you was to do what your web page said you do, and that was to expose the corruption in Stephens County against the Judge the prosecutor, the Sheriff and the FBI. Which you have not done at all. I gave you all the evidence, along with a long list that Charles put together about all the FBI's actions against himself and his family, and you have done nothing. You were not hired to write your "opinion" on why you feel like Charles Dyer is not guilty. We all already know he is not guilty. You were hired to put pressure on these departments. There are many other cases on your web page where you claim that you put pressure on corrupt Judges, District Attorney's, but for whatever reason you have not done this for Charles Dyer. Instead you protect the FBI and try to make me out as if its all in my mind, and I am a crazy lunatic. You did a 180 degree flip on me, drop me from the contract, and run to all the people with who have been working against Dyer and who have been proven to be connected to the FBI. The truth of everyone's colors are coming to the surface. Washington State Militia, the web page "Veterans Today", and many others are also writing about the same individuals, and also come to their own conclusion that this group of people around Dyer are connected to the FBI. So once again, I challenge you to bring all this proof you have about me forward and lets let the CLC be the ones to decide who is guilty and who is innocent.
Re: Common Law Court
Fri, 02 August 2013 22:06
Below is the response from the US Observer, when provided a copy of the indictment:
I am still conducting my investigation into the case of Charles Dyer, in fact we are in the process of attempting to vindicate him. I will not discuss any further than this based on the prior actions of Swan and Mortenson to harm my investigation.
The US~Observer requires a client to work on any case, however, the original client in the Dyer case, Deborah Swan has nothing to do with the case other than being responsible for paying our bill.
Chris Mortenson, like Swan has no involvement in the case other than he paid our retainer when requested to do so by Swan.
I dropped Swan as a client because she is factually a liar who files false charges against people, who refuse to buy into her conspiracy theories.
I also refused to speak any further with Mortenson because he lies, files false charges and is basically the mirror image of Swan.
Charles Dyer's mother, Jan Dyer has signed a new contract with us and is currently working with us to vindicate her son. Charles Dyer, Jan Dyer and others involved refuse to have anything to do with Swan or Mortenson.
I have more than enough evidence to sue both Swan and Mortenson, but after conducting an asset search on them I have come to the conclusion that they don't have anything to sue for, in order to pay the damages against me that they have created. I have reached the conclusion that I will be suing Motenson and Swan simply out of principle and based on their lies and defamation of myself and the US~Observer, if they continue their false and malicious attacks on myself and the US~Observer. If I sue, I will file suit in Josephine County, Oregon based on the jurisdiction Swan agreed to when she signed our original contract.
I would prompt you gentlemen to strongly consider any information you make public on behalf of Swan and Mortenson as I will not hesitate to sue anyone who assists them in defaming myself and the US~Observer. Furthermore, I also would warn both of you to be very careful in dealing with Swan and Mortenson due to the fact that they turn on people that don't agree with them and they turn in a vicious manner.
Re: Common Law Court
Fri, 02 August 2013 13:35
I am curious what the position of US Observer is on this besides silence. I never heard of US Observer till I saw this indictment and after looking at there site I would have bet they would have defended there position, interesting nothing on there site but silence. I was surprised at the names mentioned in the indictment I have heard of before.Anyways you guys keep up the good work, I see I have more reading to do also.
Common Law Court
Mon, 22 July 2013 18:45
The purpose of this Court is to establish the validity of any claim filed with the Court (CLC). The Court, then, through the Grand Jury, reviews the evidence and if "probable cause" (it appears that the accusation may be true based upon the evidence), and Indictment is presented to the Accused. The Accused, then, is given the opportunity to answer (go to court to defend his actions) before a trial (petit) jury. If he chooses not to answer, then the Unanswered Indictment is issued, as in the present matter.
It is intended to void a "pissing contest" and rely on evidence and testimony, presented in a forum void of unsubstantiated allegations, name calling, and other distractions that are so common on the Internet.
The entire Unanswered Indictment can be downloaded at
The Court is not an advocate for either side in a dispute and is concerned only with making available the results of a trial, if the Accused is willing to answer, and the Unanswered Indictment, if, as in the current matter, is unwilling to answer.
Those of you who are interested in freedom and liberty are automatically part of the Patriot Community. As such, you may wish to utilize your time in a productive means of problem resolution and participate in the CoS-CLC, so that the undercover operatives, agent provocateurs, and assorted informants can be cleared out of our house using trial by jury, instead of trial by press. The CLC relies upon volunteers, so if you seriously want division within the community stopped, then it becomes incumbent upon you to volunteer. Keep in mind as well that, in the future, should later you get into a dispute, then the CLC would be available to you to receive your complaint.
To volunteer, go to
Tue Nov 21 21:31:08 PST 2017
Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.5.
FUDforum Bulletin Board Software