THE KINGS BENCH
CORAM IPSO REGE. Before the king himself the old name of the court of king's bench, which
was originally held before the king in person. 3 Bl.Comm. 41. “The people of this State, as the
successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the
King by his prerogative”. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const.
Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves
Sec. 3, 7.]
10
BENCH. [Blacks Law] Latin Bancus, used for tribunal.
KING'S BENCH. [Blacks Law] The supreme court of common law in England, being so called
because the king used formerly to sit there in person, the style of the court being "coram ipso
rege." See 3 Bl.Comm. 41-43.
CORAM NOBIS. [Blacks Law] Before us ourselves, (the king, i. e., in the king's or queen's bench.)
Applied to writs of error directed to another branch of the same court, e. g., from the full bench
to the court at nisi prius. 1 Archb. Pr. K. B. 234. See Writ of Error.
20
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. [Boviers 1856] The name of the supreme court of law in England.
Vide King's Bench.
KING'S BENCH. [Boviers 1856] The name of the supreme court of law in England. It is so called
because formerly the king use to sit there in person, the style of the court being still coram ipso
rege, before the king himself.
TRIBUNAL. The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice; but by this term is more
usually understood the whole body of judges [jury] who compose a jurisdiction sometimes it is
taken for the jurisdiction which they exercise.
30
COURT OF RECORD1 Acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual
memory and testimony; proceeds according to the course of common law; has power to fine or
imprison for contempt; possesses a seal; it’s judicial tribunal has attributes and exercising
functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it. The
decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal. The decisions of an
inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an
inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appellate court. Decision of a court of
record may not be appealed. It is binding on ALL other courts. However, no statutory or
1
[Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v.
Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689; 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex
parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229,
231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 1 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
40
50
60
70
constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the
judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is
as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this
court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it."
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are
not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts proceed according to statutory
law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts
proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a
court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court. [Ex
parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255
(1973)].
Courts are divided generally into courts of record and those that are not of record. A court of
record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the
person designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of the common
law. “Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings
are not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts proceed according to
statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and
admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to
statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an
inferior court.
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that
there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of
those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a
particular judgment by reference to its record. Note, however, that a ‘superior court’ is the
name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring
jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time
being, no matter what its ordinary status may be.
POWER OF A COURT OF RECORD - N.Y.JUD.LAW §753: (A) A court of record has power to
punish, by fine and imprisonment, or either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct,
by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court
may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced, in any of the following cases: (1) An
attorney, counselor, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, in any manner duly selected or
appointed to perform a judicial or ministerial service, for a misbehavior in his office or trust, or
for a willful neglect or violation of duty therein; or for disobedience to a lawful mandate of the
court, or of a judge thereof, or of an officer authorized to perform the duties of such a judge. ...
(7) An inferior magistrate, or a judge or other officer of an inferior court, for proceeding,
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 2 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
contrary to law, in a cause or matter, which has been removed from his jurisdiction to the
court inflicting the punishment; or for disobedience to a lawful order or other mandate of the
latter court. (8) In any other case, where an attachment or any other proceeding to punish for a
contempt, has been usually adopted and practiced in a court of record, to enforce a civil
remedy of a party to an action or special proceeding in that court, or to protect the right of a
party.
ONLY THE KING (PEOPLE) IS SOVEREIGN – the state is a clipped sovereignty
80
NEW YORK CODE - N.Y. CVR. LAW § 2 : NY Code - Section 2: Supreme sovereignty in the people
- No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but
such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state.
“A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the
law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. His judges
are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected”. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) [1 Blackstone's
Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379]
90
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in
our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty
itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts And the
law is the definition and limitation of power…” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 Quotiens
dubia interpretatio libertatis est, secundum libertatem respondendum erit]
"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." [American
Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas.
1047].
“In United States, sovereignty resides in people. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign
power of the People to override their will as thus declared.” [Perry v. US, 294 U.S330]
100
“It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business.... The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
themselves...” [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793)
pp471-472.]
The idea that the people cannot exercise their unalienable right to administrate and impanel its
own Grand Jury, protected under the Fifth Amendment2, without the consent of the
2
Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury...
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 3 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
110
120
130
government, and not the people, would overturn the Declaration of Independence3 and the Bill
of rights. It would make the government the consentor of the themselves, it would render the
Fifth Amendment null and void it would place the government as the ordainers (king)4 above
the Constitution and the people their subjects (slaves) under the Constitution, in other words
we would have government by the consent of the government, thereby making the actors of
government tyrants.
CONCLUSION. The Kings bench is the seat of the tribunal (judge) for the supreme court of
common law (court of record) made up of one or more sovereigns, with the power to fine or
imprison for contempt and functions independently of the person of the magistrate. Therefore
the kings bench can only be the Jury (grand or the petite) or the sovereign of the court.
Whenever the Kings Bench is impaneled "by the people" a Court of Record is open whether it is
in its investigative role (Grand Jury) or in its trial mode (Petite Jury) its authority, power,
judgments, and jurisdiction is final and cannot be challenged or overturned. All courts not of
record (without the kings bench) are inferior courts whose jurisdiction is limited and special and
whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts
proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise,
civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding
according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common
law); it is an inferior court.
Extraordinary writs emanate from the Kings Bench, and although the tribunal is usually a body
of judges, twelve or twenty-five, it can also be executed by the King (people) himself, and can
only be refuted by the sworn affidavit of another King (people). These extraordinary writs are
extraordinary “REMEDIES”.
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES. The writs of mandamus (We Command), quo warranto (Kings
inquiry of usurpers), habeas corpus (release from unlawful imprisonment), and some others are
sometimes called "extraordinary remedies," in contradistinction to the ordinary remedy by
action. Receivership is also said to be an. "extraordinary remedy." Prudential Securities Co. v.
Three Forks, H. & M. V. R. Co., 49 Mont. 567, 144 P. 158, 159.
140
An extraordinary writ, issued by a superior court to an inferior court to prevent the latter from
exceeding its jurisdiction, either by prohibiting it from assuming jurisdiction in a matter over
which it has no control, or from going beyond its legitimate powers in a matter of which it has
jurisdiction. State v. Medler, 19 N.M. 252, 142 P. 376, 377.
3
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed,
4
PREAMBLE. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 4 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
An extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction, directed to an
inferior court or tribunal exercising judicial powers, for the purpose of preventing the inferior
tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not lawfully vested, State v. Stanfield, 11
Okl.Cr. 147, 143 P. 519, 522; from assuming or exercising jurisdiction over matters beyond its
cognizance, Jackson v. Calhoun, 156 Ga. 756, 120 S.E. 114, 115; or from exceeding its
jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. Jackson v. Calhoun, 156 Ga. 756, 120 S.E. 114,
115.
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS
= The King’s (Sovereign’s) Remedy
150
160
170
WRIT OF PROHIBITION. (A decree that prohibits something) The writ of prohibition is the
counterpart of the writ of mandate. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board, or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such
tribunal, corporation, board, or person. Code Civ.Proc.Cal. § 1102. State v. Packard, 32 N.D.
301, 155 N.W. 666, 667. Johnston v. Hunter, 50 W.Va. 52, 40 S.E. 448. State v. Evans, 88 Wis.
255, 60 N.W. 433. Prohibition may, where the action sought to be prohibited is judicial in its
nature, be exercised against public officers. State ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Harty, 276 Mo. 583, 208 S. W. 835, 838.
MANDAMUS. Lat. We command. This is the name of a writ (formerly a high prerogative writ)
which issues from a court of superior jurisdiction, and is directed to a private or municipal
corporation, or any of its officers, or to an executive, administrative or judicial officer, or to an
inferior court, commanding the performance of a particular act therein specified, and belonging
to his or their public, official, or ministerial duty, or directing the restoration of the complainant
to rights or privileges of which he has been illegally deprived. Lahiff v. St. Joseph, etc., Soc., 76
Conn. 648, 57 A. 692, 65 L.R.A. 92, 100 Am.St.Rep. 1012.
The action of mandamus is one, brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, to obtain an order
of such court commanding an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to do or not to do
an act the performance or omission of which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station. Where discretion is left to the inferior tribunal or person, the mandamus, can
only compel it to act, but cannot control such discretion. Rev.Code Iowa, 1880, § 3373 (Code
1931, § 12440).
Writ of "mandamus" is summary writ issued from court of competent jurisdiction to command
performance of specific duty which relator is entitled to have performed. People v. Nelson, 346
Ill. 247, 178 N.E. 485, 487.
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 5 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
It is legal, not equitable, remedy, and, when issued, is an inflexible peremptory command to do
a particular thing. State ex rel. Onion v. Supreme Temple Pythian Sisters, 227 Mo.App. 557, 54
S.W.2d 468, 469.
180
190
200
The writ of mandamus is either peremptory or alternative, according as it requires the
defendant absolutely to obey its behest, or gives him an opportunity to show cause to the
contrary. It is the usual practice to issue the alternative writ first. This commands the defendant
to do the particular act, or else to appear and show cause against it at a day named. If he
neglects to obey the writ, and either makes default in his appearance or fails to show good
cause against the application, the peremptory mandamus issues, which commands him
absolutely and without qualification to do the act.
QUO WARRANTO. In old English practice. A writ, in the nature of a writ of right for the king,
against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what
authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right. It lay also in case of non-user,
or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant
to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it, or
having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl.Comm. 262.; An extraordinary proceeding,
prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully
asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331.; It is
intended to prevent exercise of powers that are not conferred by law, and is not ordinarily
available to regulate the manner of exercising such powers. State ex rel. Johnson v.
Conservative Savings & Loan Ass'n, 143 Neb. 805, 11 N.W.2d 89, 92, 93.
WRIT OF ERROR. Writ of Error Distinguished The distinction between an appeal and a writ of
error is that an appeal is a process of civil law origin, and removes a cause entirely, subjecting
the facts, as well as the law, to a review and revisal; but a writ of error is of common law origin,
and it removes nothing for re-examination but the law. Cunningham v. Neagle, 10 S.Ct. 658, 135
U.S. 1, 34 L.Ed. 55; Buessel v. U. S., C.C.A. Conn., 258 F. 811, 814. The present tendency is to
ignore the distinction between "writ of error" and "appeal," and, when found in modern
statutes, the meaning given "appeal" must be gathered from the language of the statute itself.
Widgins v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 142 Va. 419, 128 S.E. 516, 518.
An inferior court is a court whose judgments or decrees can be reviewed, on appeal or writ of
error, by a higher tribunal, whether that tribunal be the circuit or supreme court. Nugent v.
State, 18 Ala. 521.
HABEAS CORPUS. Lat. (You have the body.) The name given to a variety of writs, (of which
these were anciently the emphatic words,) having for their object to bring a party before a
court or judge. In common usage, and whenever these words are used alone, they are
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 6 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
210
understood to mean the habeas corpus ad sub jiciendum, (see infra.) Dancy v. Owens, 126 Okl.
37, 258 P. 879, 884; In re McDevitt, 101 Misc. 588, 168 N.Y.S. 433; U. S. v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44
S.Ct. 54, 57, 68 L.Ed. 221; Payne v. Graham, 20 Ala.App. 439, 102 So. 729, 731.
The sole function of the writ is to release from unlawful imprisonment. People ex rel. Luciano v.
Murphy, 160 Misc. 573, 290 N.Y.S. 1011. The office of the writ is not to determine prisoner's
guilt or innocence, and only issue which it presents is whether prisoner is restrained of his
liberty by due process. Ex parte Presnell, 58 Okl.Cr. 50, 49 P.2d 232.
HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM. At common law, the writ, meaning "you have the body
to testify", used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to give evidence before the
court. Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3 Bl.
Comm. 130; 2 Tidd, Pr. 809. Ex parte Marmaduke, 91 Mo. 250, 4 S.W. 91, 60 Am.Rep. 250.
220
HABEAS CORPUS ACT. The English statute of 31 Car. II. c. 2, is the original and prominent
habeas corpus act. It was amended and supplemented by St. 56 Geo. III. c. 100. And similar
statutes have been enacted in all the United States. This act is justly regarded as the great
constitutional guaranty of personal liberty.
HABEAS CORPUS AD DELIBERANDUM ET RECIPIENDUM. A writ which is issued to remove, for
trial, a person confined in one county to the county or place where the offense of which he is
accused was committed. Bac. Abr. "Habeas Corpus," A; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 132. Ex parte Bollman,
4 Cranch, 97, 2 L.Ed. 554. Thus, it has been granted to remove a person in custody for contempt
to take his trial for perjury in another county. 1 Tyrw. 185.
230
HABEAS CORPUS AD FACIENDUM ET RECIPIENDUM. A writ issuing in civil cases to remove the
cause, as also the body of the defendant, from an inferior court to a superior court having
jurisdiction, there to be disposed of. It is also called "habeas corpus cum causa." Ex parte
Bollman, 4 Cranch, 97, 2 L.Ed. 554.
HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM. A writ which issues when it is necessary to remove a
prisoner in order to prosecute in the proper jurisdiction wherein the fact was committed. 3 Bl.
Comm. 130; State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207, 210.
HABEAS CORPUS AD RESPONDENDUM. A writ which is usually employed in civil cases to
remove a person out of the custody of one court into that of another, in order that he may be
sued and answer the action in the latter. 2 Sell. Pr. 259; 2 Mod. 198; 3 Bl. Comm. 129; 1 Tidd,
Pr. 300.
240
HABEAS CORPUS AD SATISFACIENDUM. In English practice. A writ which issues when a
prisoner has had judgment against him in an action, and the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 7 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF
to some superior court, to charge him with process of execution. 3 Bl. Comm. 129, 130; 3 Steph.
Comm. 693; 1 Tidd, Pr. 350.
HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM. A writ directed to the person detaining another, and
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner, (or person detained,) with the day and
cause of his caption and detention, ad faciendum, sub jiciendum et recipiendum, to do, submit
to, and receive whatsoever the judge or court awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. 3
Bl. Comm. 131; 3 Steph. Comm. 695.
250
This is the well-known remedy for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William
Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all
manner of illegal confinement. 3 Bl. Comm. 129. The "great writ of liberty," issuing at common
law out of courts of Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. Ex parte Kelly, 123
N.J.Eq. 489, 198 A. 203, 207.
HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM. At common law, the writ, meaning "you have the body
to testify", used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to give evidence before the
court. Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3 Bl.
Comm. 130; 2 Tidd, Pr. 809. Ex parte Marmaduke, 91 Mo. 250, 4 S.W. 91, 60 Am.Rep. 250.
HABEAS CORPUS CUM CAUSA. (You have the body, with the cause.) Another name for the writ
of habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum, (q. V.) 1 Tidd, Pr. 348, 349.
260
CORAM IPSO REGE
PAGE 8 OF 8
BEFORE THE KING HIMSELF