Download Whereas the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states at Rule 60(b

QUOTATIONS FROM THE 1946 AMENDMENT TO FRCP Rule 60(b)
REGARDING THE ANCIENT “LEX NON SCRIPTÆ” COMMON LAW
(with additional blue clarification notes in small print by the in Law Chancellor Court Justice)
Whereas the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure claims at Rule 60(b) that the
Common Law Writs of “coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela and bills of review
and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished (as to the legendary common rights
of free inhabitants of a community of men and women) …”, that claim is reversed in the 1946
AMENDMENT, where it is stated that: “the reservation of the right to entertain a
new action to relieve a party (i.e. a man or woman, not a corporate fiction) from a (civil law)
judgment, were generally supposed to cover the field. Since the (Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or FRCP) rules have been in force (for corporate fiction “persons”), decisions have
been rendered (in the Article III “United States Court of International Trade” and in the “supreme court
of the United States”) that the use of (Common Law) bills of review, coram nobis or audita
querela (and therefore ALL Common Law writs for men and women), to obtain relief from final
(civil law) judgments (over corporate entities) is still proper, and that various remedies of
this kind still exist although they are not mentioned in the (civil law) rules (for 14th
Amendment corporate entities). … The … procedure to obtain relief from a (civil law)
judgment … is by a new and independent action (in Common Law court) to set
aside a (civil law) judgment upon those principles (e.g. truth, honor, justice and
morality) which have heretofore been applied in such an action (as relates to the
common and contract rights of men and women inhabitants). Where the independent action is
resorted to, the limitations of time are those of laches or statutes of limitations
(except where fraud is involved, as for example, in ALL civil law enforcement against the rights of people).
… “With reference to the question whether, as the rules now exist, relief by coram
nobis, bills of review, and so forth, is permissible, the generally accepted view is
that the remedies are still available, although the precise relief obtained in a
particular case by use of these ancillary remedies (i.e. ancient remedies against present day
actors wearing black dresses, and parading for the civilly dead in Law, as female priestesses of the
Gnostic Goddess, Istarte,) is shrouded in ancient lore and mystery. … “The addition of
the qualifying word “final” emphasizes the character of the judgments, orders or
proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief (from civil law enforcement); and hence
interlocutory (i.e. Common Law) judgments are not brought within the restrictions of the
rule, but rather they are left subject to the complete power of the (Common Law) court
rendering them to afford such relief from them (i.e. from corporate law false judgments over
rights of the men being treated as decedents or dead men) as justice requires.”