Print this page
  The Original Writ is a mandatory element of Western and Common Law since the 13th Century and remains the founding instrument of any suit before a “curia” or court. In accordance with the founding charters and grants that first introduced and still underwrite the legitimacy of the system of justice based around the forum of “courts”, a valid cause of action (suit) commences only after a sworn petition of complaint is received, adjudicated as having merit and then an “Original Writ” is issued to the respondent in the name of the sovereign, and sealed under an authorized great seal along with certified copy of the original petition of complaint and indictment. In the United States, an “Original Writ” is called a “True Bill” or “Original Bill”.  
     
  Origin of Original Writ  
  The Origin of the Original Writ corresponds to the creation of the legal concept of “writ” and the invention of the system of justice based around the forum of curia or “courts” first introduced through the now lost (or destroyed) Charter of Westminster in 1275 under King Edward I of England and Wales (1272 – 1307).
 
  The function of an Original Writ and the original foundational procedures by which all valid court actions are supposed to have been conducted from the very beginning unto the present day is well demonstrated in the Charter of Wales of 1284, also now falsely known as the Statute of Wales (1284).
 
  The central role of the Original Writ as the foundation of commencing any “cause of action” is perfectly outlined in Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries Book III (Private Wrongs) Ch XVIII “Of the pursuit of remedies by action and first, of the Original Writ”:
  
  THE most natural and perspicuous way of considering the subject before us, will be (I apprehend) to pursue it is the order and method wherein the proceedings themselves follow each other; rather than to distract and subdivide it by any more logical analysis. The general therefore and orderly parts of a suit are these; 1. The original writ: 2. The process: 3. The pleadings: 4. The issue or demurrer: 5. The trial: 6. The judgment, and it's incidents: 7. The proceedings in nature of appeals: 8. The execution.
  
  FIRST, then, of the original, or original writ; which is the beginning or foundation of the suit. When a person hath received an injury, and thinks it worth his while to demand a satisfaction for it, he is to confider with himself, or take advice, what redress the law has given for that injury; and thereupon is to studious to avoid, where those of any other might be had. (P273)
  
  …ORIGINAL writs are either optional or preremtory; or in the language of our law, they are either a praecipe, or a si te fecerit securum e. The praecipe is in the alternative, commanding the defendant to do the thing required, or shew the reason wherefore he hath not done it f. The use of this writ is where something certain is demanded by the plaintiff, which is in the power of the defendant himself to perform; as, to restore the possession of land, to pay a certain liquidated debt, to perform a specific covenant, to render an account, and the like: in all which cafes the writ is drawn up in the form of a praecipe or command, to do thus or shew cause to the contrary; giving the defendant his choice, to redress the injury or stand the suit. The other species of original writs is called a si fecerit te securum, from the words of the writ, which directs the sheriff to cause the defenant to appear in court, without any option given him, provided the plaintiff gives the sheriff security effectually to prosecute his claim g. This writ is in use, where nothing is specifically demanded, but only a satisfaction in general; to obtain which and minister complete redress, the intervention of some judicature is necessary. Such are writ of trespass, or on the case, wherein no debt or other specific thing is sued for in certain, but only damages to be assessed by a jury. For this end the defendant is immediately called upon to appear in court, provided the plaintiff gives good security of prosecuting his claim. Both species of writs are teste'd, or witnessed, in the king's own name; “witness ourself at Westminster,” or wherever the chancery may be held.(P274)  
     
  No writ, no right  
  It is a fundamental maxim of Western and Roman Law from the 13th Century model of “justice” first introduced by Edward I of England, with the Venetians and Rome to the present day that no cause can proceed within the private courts system of the Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries without first the presence of a valid writ.
  
  There is good reason for this iron-clad maxim, found in the both the provenance of the concept of writ as well as the ecclesiastical nature of adjudicating law still within the bounds of Sacre Loi (Sacred Law). As Lord Blackstone also explained from the 18th Century:
  
  For it was a maxim introduced by the Normans, that there should be no proceedings in common pleas before the king's justices without his original writ; because they held it unfit that those justices, being only the substitutes of the crown, should take cognizance of any thing but what was thus expressly referred to their judgment c. However, in small actions, below the value of forty shillings, which are brought in the court-baron or county court, no royal writ is necessary: but the foundation of such suits continues to be (as in the times of the Saxons) not by original writ, but by plaint d; that is, by a private memorial tendered in open court to the judge, wherein the party injured sets forth his cause of action, and the judge is bound of common right to administer justice therein…(P273)  
  Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries Book III (Private Wrongs) Ch XVIII “Of the pursuit of remedies by action and first, of the Original Writ”
  
  This requirement (no writ, no writ) or “plaint” as adopted under Roman Canon Law, is essential to the very fabric of the global financial and legal system as both systems depend upon court officials operating at certain times during proceedings in both fiduciary and ecclesiastical administrative capacity. Failure to adhere properly to the most basic standards of court procedure means any subsequent claims of perfected ecclesiastical sacrament is tainted and any subsequent bonds, penal sum, performance and accounting is with “unclean hands”.  
     
  The True Bill  
  In the United States, the founders made every man and women a sovereign and so did not want to replicate the idea of a "top down" system of issuing Original Writs. Instead they came up with the provision whereby a group of recognized sovereign free men and women were empanelled to then hear an affadavit or petition and then to dismiss or issue an indictment along with a true bill.  
  Thus in the American system, a true bill, or "original bill" is equivalent to an Original Writ from the bottom up.  
     
  The "modern" court system and the administrative solution  
  In 1816, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was technically bankrupted by the Rothschilds, thus causing the Estate to be put into trust, while a corporate entity was formed to enable the empire to continue to function and "technically" trade out of bankruptcy.  
  Not only did the banking families look for ways ot "maximize" the value of return on individual members of the empire as "collateral", they also looked at ways to corrupt and "streamline" the law.  
  In 1836, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act was passed, inventing the concept of the Birth Certificate from Settlement Certificates not only as a new form of identification but as a perpetual substitute to the Original Writ. The act was further refined in 1837.  
  Essentially, the argument concerning Birth Certificates as the modern substitute to an "Original Writ" was that the mother acts as both the "inventor" and "petitioner", with the application and recording process following almost identically the petition and summary process required of an original writ. The mother then "gifts" the name of the baby to the state (corporation) who then holds the name in custody.  
  By 1848, the authorities were sufficiently confident with the legal arguments surrounding the name (birth certificate) as the substitute to a genuine Original Writ that they introduced a completely new model of law that circumvented all major principles of law for the past 600 years known as the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1848 and the Indictable Offences Act 1836.  
  These acts introduced completely foreign concepts such as the "Summons" to replace the issue of the Original Writ, plus the abolishion of previous remedy and law as a means of defense.  
  The success of these arguments saw the duplication in relat5ion to Birth Certificates and "Summary Justice" spread across the world to the modern system today which is in effect a Summary of Summary Justice - or simply an absence of any true law and remedy.  
     
     
     
     
DISCLAIMER: The information produced above is for education purposes only and does not purport to be an official ruling, decision or action. Nor should the information in anyway be construed as legal advice. The use of the information is at the discretion of the reader and no liability shall be accepted in the event of its use. Always seek the advice of educated, reputable and honorable scholars of law first, before any action involving the law.
Copyright © Globe-Union-Court.Org 2012. All Rights Reserved