Definitions, Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, Ministerial, Judicial, Chambers

By John Marsing of www.TorahLawform.com

Tags: Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, Ministerial, Judicial, Chambers, Tzur

Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Stare Decisis and Res Judicata Analysis................................................................................................................................1
In Summary........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
More Detailed References.....................................................................................................................................................3
MINISTERIAL.....................................................................................................................................................................3
JUDICIAL............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
CHAMBERS......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTERLOCUTORY........................................................................................................................................................4
STAYING PROCEEDINGS............................................................................................................................................4
BAIL................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
RES JUDICATA.................................................................................................................................................................... 5
RES.................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
CONCURRENT..............................................................................................................................................................6
STARE DECISIS..................................................................................................................................................................6
PETITION............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Biblical References on the word Judge and my commentary................................................................................................7

Introduction
The intent of this document started off to compare the differences between Res Judicata and Stare Decisis. I’ve
know about these terms for a long time, but could not fully appreciate what they meant because in my mind the
sound the same. With the help of Jack Smith’s teaching and e.g. understanding the differences between private
and public or the differences between the court and this court I feel I have achieved clarity on these words. In
this document I have included other terms to help support my understanding.
I am going to assume that you have in depth knowledge of the UCC and Jack Smith’s teaching on the matter.
Therefore I’m not going to go into detail about e.g. the three step administrative process.
All the legal definitions come from Bouvier's 1846 4th Edition Law Dictionary and my comments have been
injected with words that are in italics.

Stare Decisis and Res Judicata Analysis

Let’s start off with a small definition of the two terms in questions
1) Stare Decisis means “to abide or adhere to decided cases”; go here for a full definition.
2) Res Judicata means “The decision of a legal or equitable issue by a court of competent jurisdiction”; go
here for a full definition.

http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 1 of 7
One of the great ways to learn something is by having contrast. When I first saw these two terms (way back
when) I couldn’t see the contrast as they sound the same to me. This is the point of this article…what is the
difference between these two Latin legal terms and is it really significant?

Stare Decisis
Breaking stare decisis down, start with the second word decisis first because it’s the simplest. Decisis is Latin
for decision (also settlement, agreement). This is pretty obvious because you can see the etymological
connection. Stare in Latin means stand. Therefore the definition given above “to abide or adhere to decided
cases” seems quite reasonable.

Res Judicata
Breaking res judicata down, again we will start with the second word first. You can etymologically see from
judicata that we get the word judicial, judgment or adjudicated. Res is Latin for property or the thing or mater
in question i.e. the thing being decided on1. Remember the ultimate determiner in adjudicating a mater is to ask
the question who has title to the property (res).

Stare Decisis and Res Judicata Combined

First off, if my analysis is correct, you need to determine if there is necessarily a sequential order to help one
understand these two legal terms? The definition for Stare Decisis implies something has already happened …
“to abide or adhere to decided cases” So the question is, what has already been decided?
How about this scenario. If you have been dealing with your adversary in private and have settled the matter
(the res) with the three part administrative process then the case has been settled. As far as adjudicating is
concerned it’s a done deal and it’s past tense.
Following the teachings of Jack Smith, we know you’re not done yet .
What you need is a public notice from a judge. we need a notice of your case in the public while the private
remedy itself remains private. You need a determination from a judge in public to recognize what has already
happened in private. You need him to review the “case law” that has already happened.
Do you get it?
We normally think of “case law” as something like Ashwander Vs. TVA, by why isn’t my three-part
administrative remedy done in private and communicated to the judge in chambers (i.e. in private) also case
law? Just because the public doesn’t know about the substance of my private case doesn’t diminish the fact that
it’s still case law!
When you go to the judge you petition him to make a determination of your record in an ministerial capacity
(not judicial as this has already occurred in private where you and your adversary (who is in default) have
already adjudicated (judicata) the mater (res) 2. What is he going to make a decision on? Your record (the
administrative process) and your adversaries record (or lack thereof).

1
What is resident, is it res-ident? Isn’t it the identification of the property? But how can the state own a sentient living man? It can’t
but it can and does only the straw man and it does have an identification be it the public Soc. Sec.# or the private bond numbers
associated with said Soc. Sec. # and the account numbers for the private asset accounts.
2
Mat 18:16, Joh 8:17, 2Co 13:1, 1Ti 5:19
http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 2 of 7
Res Judicata Definition and My Commentary
practice. 1. The decision of a legal or equitable issue (regarding a thing i.e. property i.e. res), by a court of
competent jurisdiction (if a mater has been done decided by two competent parties, i.e. those who have a
right to contract, in private then the private court, which takes precedent of those (this) public court has
already “judicated” i.e. adjudicated the mater i.e. res=property.

In Summary
We need to be concerned about public and private i.e. the court this court and the case law that both produce and
finally what is the sequential order of Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.

More Detailed References

MINISTERIAL
1. That which is done under the authority of a superior (if you and your adversary have already adjudicated the
mater (your three part administrative process and his default which you have pre-stipulated) then the two of you
are the superior authority 3 ); opposed to judicial; as, the sheriff is a ministerial officer bound to obey the
judicial commands of the court(which court? Your court which was held in private…the private courts take
precedent of those (this) public court). 2. When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he
may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can
only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment (I would assume that which
he determines is equitable which is going to be strongly determined by which of the two parties is acting like the
creditor and which is acting like the debtor ) . See 2 Fairf. 377; Bac. Ab. Justices of the Peace, E; 1 Conn. 295;
3 Conn. 107; 9 Conn. 275; 12 Conn. 464; also Judicial; Mandamus; Sheriff.

JUDICIAL
1. Belonging, or emanating from a judge, as such.
2. Judicial sales, are such as are ordered by virtue of the process of courts. 1 Supp. to Ves. jr., 129, 160; 2
Ves. jr., 50.
3. A judicial writ is one issued in the progress of the cause, in contradistinction to an original writ. 3 Bl.
Com. 282.
4. Judicial decisions, are the opinions or determinations of the judges in causes before them. Hale, H. C. L.
68; Willes' R. 666; 3 Barn. & Ald. 122 4 Barn. & Adol. 207 1 H. B1. 63; 5 M. & S. 185.
5. Judicial power, the authority vested in the judges. The constitution of the United States declares, that "the
judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the
congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." Art. 3, s. 1.
6. By the constitutions of the several states, the judicial power is vested in such courts as are enumerated in
each respectively. See the names Of, the several states. There is nothing in the constitution of the United
States to forbid or prevent the legislature of a state from exercising judicial functions; 2 Pet. R. 413; and
judicial acts have occasionally been performed by the legislatures. 2 Root, R. 350; 3 Greenl. R. 334; 3
Dall. R. 386; 2 Pet. R. 660; 16 Mass. R. 328; Walk. R. 258; 1 New H. Rep. 199; 10 Yerg. R. 59; 4 Greenl.
R. 140; 2 Chip., R. 77; 1 Aik. R. 314. But a state legislature cannot annul the judgments, nor determine
the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; 5 Cranch, It. 116; 2 Dall. R. 410; nor authoritatively
declare what the law is, or has been, but what it shall be….

3
see Deu 19:15: "...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established".
http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 3 of 7
CHAMBERS
practice. When a judge decides some interlocutory matter, which has arisen in the course of the cause, out of
court, he is said to make such decision at his chambers. The most usual applications at chambers take place in
relation to taking bail, and staying proceedings on process.

INTERLOCUTORY
This word is applied to signify something which is done between the commencement and the end of a suit or
action which decides some point or matter, which however is not a final decision of the matter in issue; as,
interlocutory judgments, or decrees or orders. Vide Judgment, interlocutory.

STAYING PROCEEDINGS
1. The suspension of an action.
2. Proceedings are stayed absolutely or conditionally.
3. - 1. They are peremptorily stayed when the plaintiff is wholly incapacitated from suing; as, for example,
when the plaintiff is not the holder, nor beneficially interested in a bill on which he has brought his action; 2
Cr, & M. 416; 2 Dowl. 336; Chitty on Bills, 335; 3 Chitty, Pr. 628; or when the plaintiff admits in writing,
that he has no cause of action; 3 Chit. Prac. 370, 630; or when an action is brought contrary to good faith.
Tidd's Prac. 515, 529, 1134; 3 Chit. Pr. 633.
4. - 2. Proceedings are sometimes stayed until some order of the court shall have been complied with; as,
when the plaintiff resides in a foreign country, or in another estate, or is insolvent, and he has been ruled to
give security for costs, the proceedings are stayed until such security shall be given; see Security for Costs; 3
Chit. Pr, 633, 635; or until the payment of costs in a, former action. 1 Chit. R. 195; 18 E. C. L. R. 64.

BAIL
practice, contracts.
1. By bail is understood sureties, given according to law, to insure the appearance (only debtors, i.e. the
strawman, appear in court so that they can give testimony) of a party in court (which court, the private
court or their (i.e. this) public court?). The persons who become surety (the sentient living man who has a
legal partnership with the strawman) are called bail (something that the sentient living man created with his
property i.e. his finger prints and mug shots which are equivalent to his signature). Sometimes the term is
applied, with a want of exactness, to the security given by a defendant, in order to obtain a stay of execution,
after judgment, in civil cases., Bail is either civil or criminal.
2.- 1. Civil bail is that which is entered in civil cases, and is common or special bail below or bail above.
3. Common bail is a formal entry of fictitious sureties in the proper office of the court, which is called filing.
common bail to the action. It is in the same form as special bail, but differs from it in this, that the sureties
are merely fictitious, as John Doe and Richard Roe: it has, consequently, none of, the incidents of special
bail. It is allowed to the defendant only when he has been discharged from arrest without bail, and it is
necessary in such cases to perfect the appearance of the defendant. Steph. Pl. 56, 7; Grah. Pr. 155; Highm. on
Bail 13. …

RES JUDICATA
practice.

http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 4 of 7
1. The decision of a legal or equitable issue (regarding a thing i.e. property i.e. res), by a court of competent
jurisdiction (if a mater has been done decided by two competent parties, i.e. those who have a right to contract,
in private then the private court, which takes precedent of those (this) public court has already “judicated” i.e.
adjudicated the mater = property = res.
2. It is a general principle that such decision is binding and conclusive upon all other courts of concurrent
power. This principle pervades not only our own, but all other systems of jurisprudence, and has become a rule
of universal law, founded on the soundest policy. If, therefore, Paul sue Peter to recover the amount due to him
upon a bond and on the trial the plaintiff fails to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, in consequence
of which a verdict is rendered for the defendant, and judgment is entered thereupon, this judgment, till reversed
on error, is conclusive upon the parties, and Paul cannot recover in a subsequent suit, although he may then be
able to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, and that the money is due to him, for, to use the language
of the civilians, res judicata facit ex albo nigrum, ex nigro album, ex curvo redum, ex recto curvum.
3. The constitution of the United States and the amendments to it declare, that no fact, once tried by a jury, shall
be otherwise reexaminable in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. ….
4. But in order to make a matter res judicata there must be a concurrence of the four conditions following,
namely:
1. Identity in the thing sued for. (the thing is res, identity implies res-ident)
2. Identity of the cause of action; if, for example, I have claimed a right of way over Blackacre, and a final
judgment has been rendered against me, and afterwards I purchase Blackacre, this first decision shall not
be a bar to my recovery, when I sue as owner of the land, and not for an easement over it, which I claimed
as a right appurtenant to My land Whiteacre.
3. Identity of persons and of parties to the action; this rule is a necessary consequence of the rule of natural
justice: ne inauditus condemnetur. (what is this? Sounds like natural law)
4. Identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made; for example, an action by
Peter to recover a horse, and a final judgment against him, is no bar to an action by Peter, administrator of
Paul, to recover the same horse.
Vide, Things adjudged.

RES
property. Things. The terms "Res," "Bona," "Biens," used by jurists who have written in the Latin and
French languages, are intended to include movable or personal, as well as immovable or real property. 1
Burge, Confl. of Laws, 19. See Biens; Bona; Things.

CONCURRENT
Running together; having the same authority; thus we say a concurrent consideration occurs in the case of
mutual promises; such and such a court have concurrent jurisdiction; that is, each has the same
jurisdiction.

http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 5 of 7
STARE DECISIS
1. To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a
precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the
courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle.
If what I’m describing is accurate about how the real world of the legal American process works, then when do cases
become over turned? Could it be that if you attempt to try to resolve your case in private using, for e.g., your private
assets as the remedy you somewhere along the way screw up and, as Jack Smith would say “throw away your remedy
in a heartbeat”, will not your private remedy be overturned? There are many ways to screw up your remedy like e.g.
you starting argue or make statement like a debor. How about the judge tries to “knock you off your rock4” to test
you to see if you will throw away your remedy.
Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has
made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104,
5.

PETITION
1. An instrument of writing or printing containing a prayer from the person presenting it, called the petitioner,
to the body or person to whom it is presented, for the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, which
the latter has the right to give.
2. By the constitution of the United States the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," is
secured to the people. Amendm. Art. 1.
3. Petitions are frequently presented to the courts in order to bring some matters before them. It is a general rule,
in such cases, that an affidavit should be made that the facts therein contained are true as far as known to the
petitioner, and that those facts which he states as knowing from others be believes to be true.

4
another Jack Smith euphemism which is near and dear to my heart because the name of our Torah keeping group is called Tzur
Yisrael which means the Rock of Israel. This metaphor is found in many places in the TaNaCh (“Old Testament”) , see Psa 62:2, 6,
and Deu 32.
http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 6 of 7
Biblical References on the word Judge and my commentary
Mat 7:1-2 KJV Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

JKM Mat_7:1-2, is not saying that you should never be judging, it is saying you the measurement that you
use to judge will be used as a measurement to you. The judgment that will be used against anyone will be
the law form that they are operating under whether they are explicit of the law form, or the one you ascent to.
If you ask a judge to adjudicate a matter and ignore your administrative process then he will do so based on
what he thinks if equitable and based on the confines of public policy.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Mat_7:12), Mat_22:36-39.
Mar 4:24 KJV And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

1Co_6:1-2 NIV If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment
instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the
world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
JKM: How can you be part of a nation of priests and kings if you can’t adjudicate matters?

http://torahlawform.com/Documents/ 7 of 7