Educational Purpose

 

One I'm not talking to the opposition. This commission is an "independent" commission created to oversee the taxing agency of the state. They were created as a quasi-judicial body.

 go administrative (quasi-judicial) or judicial, OR they can go judicial after the decision of the commissioner on the case, i.e. going administrative doesn't preclude judicial but judicial precludes any administrative process.

What IS Common Law?

Many people do not know what “common law” truly IS.

Common law is not something static, some set of laws that never changes.

Common law is constantly changing!

Common law is judge-made law.

It is the sum total of all unreversed appellate court decisions … as opposed to legislative enactments or executive orders.

Every unreversed appellate court decision, including decisions rendered today by our highest courts, creates new common law.

Misunderstanding about what common law IS causes unnecessary confusion, frustration, and failed attempts to get justice.

Unreversed appellate court decisions (common law) give every one of you the power you need to control judges.

Some people think there are “common law courts”, i.e., courts exclusively dealing with common law when, in fact, every court can rely on common law in addition to statutory law and executive orders in rendering its decisions.

Common law is the sum total of all unrepealed appellate court decisions, from those rendered by judges in Merry Olde England right up to decisions rendered yesterday or even today on the benches of our highest courts.

This vast body of common law has been growing since we declared Independence in 1776.

Sadly, some growth has been away from common-sense decisions of our earliest courts. The recent rise of “collectivist thinking” by appellate justices and law school professors (who instill their nonsense in young law students who later sit on benches in our highest courts) is undermining the old-fashioned common-sense common law that guided our earliest courts and gave our nation its birth.

For example, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is a case wrongly made part of our common law when decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. It holds that the God-given rights of us individuals are secondary to the “judge-invented” rights of corporations. Corporations are not people! Corporations do not have inalienable rights. This case sneaked by the American people. It “invented” the ignorant idea that corporations are entitled to God-given rights. The impact of this case destroyed the power of your vote. It undermines your ability to control politicians whose campaigns are supported by massive donations from massive corporations. We the People cannot compete in politics with massively wealthy corporations. Yet, this case remains part of our common law today.

Citizens United is just one of many cases polluting what was once our common-sense common law.

Misunderstanding about what common law truly IS has allowed politicians and high court justices to re-write and re-invent what once was a sacred set of common-sense Principles codified in those early common law cases that we inherited from England and faithfully followed by our courts for the first few years of our nation’s infancy.

The common-sense common law Principles that launched our nation are being hidden from you, while willful misunderstanding about common law continues to empower the rich to rob you of rights once held sacred by wiser judges of long, long ago.

If you wish to rein in the power of today’s courts that wander from the common-sense concepts of early English decisions and the common-sense concepts of our own early appellate court decisions, abandon your misconception about what common law truly IS.

Learn the truth!

Then teach others how to empower themselves with case-winning knowledge and fight together as a united force for Justice in our courts!

Get your Key to the Courthouse!

MAKE AMERICA WISE AGAIN.

Jurisdictionary®

Also, furthering this discussion of "unauthorized practice of law," every state should have a UPL board setup to investigate claims of UPL. The odd thing is nowhere in Ohio code or on the Ohio State Supreme Court website is there a definition of what unauthorized practice is. In Ohio the Supreme Court publishes "seminar materials" from the seminars held every 4 yrs or so to train attorneys on the subject and you can learn a lot about what is and what is not considered unauthorized practice from reading through things like these.

For state representatives, the only organization they can turn to in Ohio is the Legislative Service Commission. They can't give a legal opinion, but they can write a report summarizing how certain laws have been challenged and what courts have decided in regards to those challenges. If your state rep blows your off with such a response, try respectfully demanding they submit your question to your state's legislative service commission for a legal summary.

And, the head of every state department is authorized to request an opinion from the state AG when it comes to clarifying carrying out their duties. If you have a state official who simply will not give you guidance on exactly what activity falls under their enforcement authority or not, try demanding that they seem to be unable to make a determination about how to carry out their duties and respectfully request that they request an AG opinion on it. Maybe you'll get something interesting out of it.

I need help with CPLR 1101(b) certificate in a New York Supreme Court case.Case: .I moved to waive court costs, fees, and expenses (poor person status). The judge denied my motion and said I had to:give notice to the County Attorney under CPLR 1101(c), andfile a certificate under CPLR 1101(b) from an attorney saying my case has merit.I fixed the notice problem and filed a new motion in January 2026. In a Decision & Order dated Jan 16, 2026 the judge said my new motion still “lacks a Certificate pursuant to CPLR § 1101(b),” denied the fee waiver again, and ordered that my case will be dismissed if the fees are not paid within 120 days.Questions for anyone familiar with NY practice /  civil‑rights cases:In practice, what exactly counts as a CPLR 1101(b) certificate for a pro se plaintiff? Does it have to be a full retainer, or will a one‑paragraph letter/affirmation from any admitted attorney or legal‑aid lawyer do?Has anyone successfully handled or gotten around this 1101(b) requirement by:getting a legal‑aid / clinic lawyer to sign a narrow “this case is not frivolous” statement;using a law‑school clinic letter instead of a private attorney; orconvincing a judge to waive/relax 1101(b) after showing documented attempts to get a certificate but no lawyer would sign?If you know of any NY cases or examples where a court granted poor‑person status without the 1101(b) certificate, or where an appellate court said a judge went too hard on this requirement, please share citations or experience.Goal: I want to stop the court from dismissing my case just because I’m poor, either by satisfying 1101(b) in the smallest possible way or by giving the judge a solid legal/strategic reason to waive or relax it in my situation.