- Chapter Sixteen`
Restore
Title to Your Natural Person, Land and Property. Defend Those Unalienable
Rights.
ADVANCED TOOLS FOR FREEDOM`
by Johnny Liberty`
Dedicated
to the thousands of pioneers` who came before and contributed to the research` and
creation of this handbook.
Elements of a Court`
“Through the medium of the courts of justice,` whose duty it
must be to declare all acts` contrary to the manifest tenor of` the
Constitution void...
Without this all the reservation of particular`
rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”
— Alexander Hamilton 1`
If you are
compelled to appear in court for a civil or criminal` violation, to challenge
jurisdiction (Special or Limited` Appearance) or the constitutionality of a
statute, it’s` important to be well prepared before
facing a judge or a jury.
One must understand
the elements of courtroom procedure,` the rules of
civil and criminal procedure, the rules of` evidence, and which jurisdiction
the court is operating` (LAW, EQUITY, ADMIRALTY /MARITIME/ or` STATUTORY).
Challenge Jurisdiction Before Pleading` To challenge jurisdiction, one must understand the nature`
and cause of the action, challenge the oaths of office of court` officers that abuse
the process, refuse unlawful process for` fraud, develop grounds for dismissal,
motions to dismiss,` and understand various pleadings (guilty, not guilty, non
est` factum, non assumptit, corum non judice, confession and` avoidance). Then
one can choose to continue in that` jurisdiction, change venue to the Common
law, or develop` an affirmative defenses (demurrers).
> NON-ASSUMPSIT — did not undertake or promise as` alleged.
> CORUM NON JUDICE — declaring the court does not` have jurisdiction or venue
over the special character of the` sovereign Citizen.
Until now, the
cards have been well stacked in the court’s` favor, and an elite, secret club
of attorneys, judges, and` prosecutors are the only ones who actually know the
rules of` the game. They appear to make it up as they go to expedite` their
agenda of expropriating your rights and property.
The
The Power structure
will be compelled by the sovereign` “state” Citizens to play fair and abide by the
law, or blatantly` abrogate the law in broad daylight (with the video cameras`
rolling and the INTERNET reporting), and be exposed for` all to see.
The Power structure
is vulnerable to lawful process. The` truth will be told, and justice shall be
done.
After you have
created prima facie evidence of your` sovereign “state” Citizenship, understand
the elements and` procedures of a court, and are prepared to argue and defend`
your unalienable rights, anticipate that the present judicial` establishment
(political by nature) will abrogate lawful` process consistently without
remorse. If you are damaged by` violations of your rights or the abuse of
process, there is` remedy and recourse.
Step 1: Filing
Papers And Notice Of` Indemnification` You must learn how to properly file papers with the court` clerk.
Whenever in doubt, ask questions. If they are` stubborn or hesitant tell them
“I file on demand!” Do not be` in
One copy goes to
each opposing party. In civil cases, papers` can be mailed and a proof of
service by mail included in the` filing. In criminal cases, papers can be
dropped off at the` attorney for the opposing party (e.g., in a traffic ticket
case, a` copy is usually dropped off at the City Attorney’s office).
You can take a
“Notice of Indemnification” with you before` you present your case in court.
Indemnification is a bond` that the court must post on your behalf at least
five days` before your court appearance, if you demand it.
If the
administrative tribunal then violates your unalienable` or constitutional
rights, whether a sovereign “state” Citizen` or
>
INDEMNIFY— to bond, insure or
secure against any loss` or damage that may occur in the future.
Step 2:
Preparation For Appearance` You
must have a clear statement prepared before you go to` court. Create a
statement from your affidavits, retain your` full Power of Attorney, with the
general details of your case.
Send any other
pertinent affidavits that might help your` case. Keep a few aces in your hat if
you need them. Don’t lay` all your cards on the table out-front. You will want
to put in` writing your explicit “Reservation of Rights” under the` Common law
pursuant to UCC 1-207.
You might also
consider bringing your own licensed court` recorder, if you are appearing in a
traffic or municipal court` which are not courts of records. If you’re
concerned, and you` have good reason to be, that the court records might be`
perjured, or altered by the court, or if you intend on` appealing, then it must
be a court of record.
If you’re seriously
challenging your traffic ticket, then` request from the court clerk that the
appearance be` scheduled for a court of record, instead of a traffic court.
Municipal courts
and often District courts are not courts of` record but administrative summary
process only.
You have far more
options and power in court as a sovereign` “state” Citizen or sui juris
freeman/woman to reclaim your` rights than you do as a
Your ability to
defend your government-granted privileges` evaporates quickly in a statutory
jurisdiction. You can only` win on a procedural technicality.
Becoming a
sovereign “state” Citizen is important to` establish before you have your day
in court, to overcome the` presumptions that you are a
Step: 3
Appearance And Jurisdiction` When
compelled or volunteering to make an “appearance” before the court, you are submitting to the
jurisdiction and` authority of the court, unless you challenge jurisdiction,
ask` for a “Jurisdictional Hearing,” or make a “Special or Limited`
Appearance.”
Discover what
jurisdiction the court has, the rules pertaining` to that court, and how it
applies to you, if at all. Look into` the courtroom prior to your appearance.
If you see an Admiralty/` Mari
> COMPULSORY APPEARANCE— required showing` up in court of a plaintiff or defendant,
either pro se, or` through an attorney; an appearance and pleading involves a`
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court;` appearance is compelled
by the service of process (you get a` notice, summons, subpoena, or a date
noted on the traffic` ticket); “Refuse for Fraud” your citations or
presentments,` “Without Dishonor, pursuant to UCC 3-501,” and then file a`
“Special or Limited Appearance” to challenge jurisdiction.
> SPECIAL or LIMITED APPEARANCE— for the` sole purpose of questioning the jurisdiction and
authority of` the court over the defendant either in personum, or in` subject
matter; the court cannot proceed until the challenge` to jurisdiction is
adjudicated, and the burden of proof is on` the court to establish
jurisdiction; challenge jurisdiction on` paper and file with the court clerk;
also revoke their Power` of attorney; do not motion or move the court to do
anything` until jurisdiction is established, otherwise your jurisdictional`
arguments are moot; doesn’t work in Admiralty or Military` courts.
> JURISDICTIONAL HEARING— a proceeding before` a magistrate without jury to
determine an issue of fact,` specifically regarding whether or not the court
has` jurisdiction; you cannot challenge jurisdiction in Admiralty` or Military
courts.
“Once you challenge jurisdiction in a criminal case,` the courts
have the burden of proof ... and they are` required to back their
jurisdictional claim` by showing you pertinent statutory charges.”
— 5 U.S.C. 556(d)`
Step 4:
Arraignment And Pleadings` There
are specific rules and court procedures that must be` followed. You’re better
off to sit mute and not incriminate` yourself, than to give your consent, agree
unwittingly, or` unknowingly violate court procedures. Standing in court or`
approaching the “bar” implies your consent to be tried under` “statutory” law.
Do not stand in
court until the court has answered your` request regarding its jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction must be` squarely challenged. Your rights must be explicitly
reserved` at each step of the proceeding. Failure to deny is an` admission of
guilt (28 U.S.C. 8(d)).3` Hiring or retaining an attorney also implies your
consent to` be tried under the statutory law of that court, and waiving` your
right to represent yourself. By hiring or retaining an` attorney, you’ve agree
to become a “ward of the court,”
subject to the
rules and procedures known only to the State` Bar Associations, subject to the
jurisdiction of the court, and` their mercy. Remember an attorney’s first duty
is to the` courts (creditors of the federal
> WARD OF
THE COURT— infants and persons
of` unsound mind; most people have been regarded as children` all their adult
lives.
“The more laws that are written,` the more criminals are
produced.”
— Lao-Tse, Tao Te Ching`
Sample
Arraignment 5` COURT: When
asked by a government official what you` meant when you wrote “Without Prejudice”
by your “name,” you must say:` CITIZEN:
“Your honor, my use of Without Prejudice UCC` 1-207 with my signature on this
document indicates that I` have exercised the remedy provided for in the UCC in
book 1` at section 207, whereby I may reserve my common law right` not to be
compelled to perform under any contract or agreement` that I have not entered
into knowingly, voluntarily and` intentionally, and that reservation serves as
Notice upon all` administrative agencies of government, federal, state and
local,` that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated` with the
compelled benefit of any unrevealed commercial` agreement.”
Once you make a
plea, you’re under their jurisdiction.
Entering a “not
guilty” plea in a civil matter is admitting to` the existence of the unpaid
bill. “You are not refusing to` enter a plea, but merely wishing to understand
the basis of` the charge (debt) before pleading, which is why you are`
insisting on a presentment under UCC 3-505 without` dishonor. Tell the judge,
on the record, that you require such` presentment to determine your plea.”
“It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea` to the
jurisdiction is the first in the order of` pleading, and that any plea which
refers to the` court any other question, is a tacit admission that` the court
has a right to judge in the cause, and is a` waiver to all exceptions to the
jurisdiction.”
— Birty vs.
COURT: The judge
will ask you to plea (guilty or not guilty).
Do not plea. Once
you plea, or the court pleas for you, then` jurisdiction is assumed. This is
where you challenge the` court’s jurisdiction.
You must say:`
CITIZEN: “Your honor, I cannot enter a plea as I desire to` challenge the
jurisdiction of this court and am now asking` this court to set a
jurisdictional hearing. Until jurisdiction is` proven, once challenged, no plea
can be accepted.”
COURT: If the judge
enters a plea you must object.
CITIZEN: “I object
to the court entering a plea because I` desire to challenge the jurisdiction of
the court, and until` jurisdiction is proven, once challenged, no pleas can be`
accepted. The court is not permitted to accept a plea until` jurisdiction is settled.”
COURT: If the judge
denies motion to dismiss.
CITIZEN: “I object,
the court has done nothing on the` record to prove that the court has
jurisdiction.”
COURT: The judge
may say, the statute says...blah, blah,` blah. You must object.
CITIZEN: “I object.
I have not filed any arguments. I have` not made any legal arguments. I have
merely made a motion` and that is why I want the hearing so we can settle this
issue` of jurisdiction. Then I can file my formal motion. All I have` done is
challenge the jurisdiction. Now that I know the` charges, I am asking the court
to set a hearing, plain and` simple, set a date and we will have the
jurisdictional hearing.
If jurisdiction is
proven, then I will go on and plea.”
COURT: As a last
resort, if the judge persists and assigns a` plea then you must say:` CITIZEN:
“I object. If this court proceeds with entering a` plea on my behalf without
first establishing jurisdiction for` the record, then this court is doing so
under a hidden,` statutory jurisdiction with an unrevealed contract known` only
to the secret society of the State Bar Association.” If this` doesn’t get the
case dismissed, then demand a “Writ of` Mandamus,” which is a request to have
the case reviewed by` a superior court.
Writ Of
Mandamus` Step 5: Jurisdictional Hearing` File your “Statement” with the court prior to the hearing.
Then prepare for an
interesting exchange between yourself` and the magistrate or judge.
Sample
Jurisdictional Hearing 6` COURT: The
judge will say, “How do you challenge` jurisdiction?” You can say.
CITIZEN: “Your
honor, I have some questions concerning` the nature of the action that I don’t
understand. (6th` Amendment) Is the action against me civil or criminal?
COURT: It’s a
criminal action. He/she won’t say civil,` otherwise it would go to federal
court.
CITIZEN: “Your
honor, the Constitution authorizes two` criminal jurisdictions for the court.
One of these is Common` law . But under the Common law there must be a corpus`
delecti or damaged party before the court can recognize any` jurisdiction. This
cannot be a Common law action because` there is no sworn complaint from a
damaged party.
Therefore this
court does not have a criminal jurisdiction` under Common law.” (If the judge
replies that this is a` Common law court, then demand a “Bill of
Particulars.”)` “The only other criminal jurisdiction authorized for the` court
is the breech of an International Mari
COURT: The judge
may reply: “It’s a statutory jurisdiction.”
Statutory =
Admiralty / Mari
Please, where can I
obtain the published rules for the` criminal procedure for statutory
jurisdiction? (There aren’t` any, of course.)` COURT: The judge might be mad or
upset and refuse to` practice law from the bench or give advice.
CITIZEN: “Let the
record show that the courts have` authority to conduct a criminal action under
a secret` jurisdiction that is known only to the courts and licensed` attorneys,
thereby denying the defendant the right to defend` in his own person.” “I am
appealing the legal determination` made by this court that it can conduct
criminal action under` a statutory jurisdiction, and in my appeal, I am naming
you,` your honor, as witness in my favor, and I’ll issue a subpoena` duces
tecum, in which you will be required to bring a copy of` the rules of criminal
proceedings in a statutory jurisdiction` when you enter the appeals court.”
“And I am subpoenaing
the Prosecuting Attorney as my` witness to the fact that the judge said...blah,
blah.”
> SUBPOENA — command to appear at a certain
Step 6:
Affirmative Defense` If
you fall into a jurisdictional trap, then you must prepare` an “affirmative
defense” on your behalf. Prepare yourself` before the court by explicitly
“Reserving your Rights” under` the Common law pursuant to UCC 1-207. Develop a
strategy` utilizing the remedies and recourse available in the UCC.
You have the right
to “discovery,” to find out from the` prosecutor under which statute you’re
being tried, and to see` evidence of the presentment, without dishonor pursuant
to` UCC 3-505.
> DISCOVERY— modern, pretrial procedure for getting` information held by the
adverse party; you have the right of` discovery, to subpoena information from
adverse parties you` can also use FOIA requests to get information from the`
government agencies or sue them under Title 5§556.
If the State is
bringing forth the charges, then demand that` the State take the witness stand
and produce the vic
According to the
Common law “Writ of Habeas Corpus,” if` there is no vic
The court cannot
proceed if a defendant admittedly does not` understand the charges. You can
also demand a “jury of your` peers,” for any offense over twenty-one ($21)
lawful dollars,` not FRNs. (7th Amendment). You must
override the` government’s presumptions that you are “accepting” and` have
received any benefits, privileges or securities from the` government. Give
“Judicial Notice” of prevailing case law or` Supreme Court decisions relevant
to the case at hand.
> JUDICIAL NOTICE— an the act by which a court, in` conducting a trial...will of its
own motion or on request of a` party, and without the production of evidence,
recognize the` existence and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the`
controversy at bar...
Judicial
Notices` 1) Constitutional
Law (state and federal, including the` original 13th Amendment barring Titles of Nobility (i.e.,` attorneys)
from holding government office.)` 2) Enabling Acts and Organic Law of the
states (when` each state entered the Union)` 3) Treaty Law (e.g., land
patents)` 4) U.S. supreme Court rulings (pre1938 before Common` law was merged
with equity)` 5) U.S. Supreme Court rulings (post1938 after Common` law was
merged with equity)` 6) Federal Appellate Decisions` 7) Common law` 8) Case
law` 9) Federal Register (evidence of positive law)` 10) Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) procedure` 11) Federal Rules of Evidence procedures` 12) Rules
of Grammar (U.S. government printing` standards for proper nouns and
capitalization)` 13) Trust Instruments (documentation)` Judicial Notice : ORS 40.090` The court is hereby given legal constructive notice of the
law` at ORS 40.090: Law judicially noticed is defined as: (1) The` decisional,
constitutional and public statutory law of` Oregon, the United States and any
state, territory or other` jurisdiction of the United States. (2) Public and
private` official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial` departments
of this state, the United States, and any other` state, territory or other
jurisdiction of the United States. (3)` Rules of professional conduct for
members of the
Challenging “Statutory” Jurisdiction` [Editor’s Note: Thanks to Dan Meador for his
research and` analysis here.
The jurisdictional
issue, or lack of subject matter jurisdiction` can be argued in virtually every
case, state or federal.
Wrongful
jurisdiction is always a basis for appeal until the` issue of distinguishing
judicial power from legislative power,` the Common law versus the commercial
sides of the court is` properly adjudicated.
The separation of
powers is paramount in a constitutional` republic. The problem is that the
courts are not presently` accountable to the law or enforcing these doctrines.
Wrongful
prosecution and the misapplication of a commercial` statute upon a private,
sovereign individual is` common in all the cases we've seen. Americans are
being` compelled into a contract without knowledge or consent.
> MINOR PREMISE — a concurrent or joint resolution` of the legislature is not law,
and neither are statutes.
> MAJOR PREMISE — only a properly convened grand` jury can indict and convict a
sovereign.
Nisi prius rules of
Civil Law are repugnant to state and` national constitutions; the key concern
is the exercise of` non-jurisdictional authority via way of Title I courts of
the` United States; Title 1 courts have been incompetent at law` since Erie
Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304
> NISI PRIUS — a trial held for the issue of facts before a` jury and presiding
judge; no issues of law raised; jury` judging the facts not the law.
The jurisdiction of
Title 1 courts of the United States` operating as nisi prius courts under Title
IV authority, is` specifically articulated at 18 USC §7(3), which prescribes
the` inland (within the state republics) special United States` territorial and
mari
Within the state
republics, this foreign corporation, the` United States Government, has
jurisdiction only on federal` enclaves such as forts, magazines, dock yards, and
other` needful buildings where state legislatures have ceded` jurisdiction (or
participated in federal funding or mandates).
FRCP, Rule 54
defines “Act of Congress” as being specifically` applicable only to the
“Non-Constitutional,”
Not “Unconstitutional” Law` State
District and Circuit Courts operate as legislative courts` to effect
“nonconstitutional” law, not “unconstitu-tional”
law. The federal
State and
If any given
statute abrogates the Common law, it changes it.
However, the
statute which is in derogation of Common law` operates outside Common law,
inclusive of the` constitutions, without materially affecting or altering it. 7`
§1-103
Supplementary General Principles of Law` Applicable` Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Act,
the` principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and` the law
relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent,` estoppel, fraud,
misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake,` bankruptcy, or other validating
or invalidating cause` shall supplement its provision.
For example, Note 6
for § 1-103 of the UCC states that the` Code “complements,” not replaces
constitutional or common` law. The constitution and Common law is black, and`
the code is white occupying the circle.
AmJur, 2nd edition under
the subheading “conflict of law,”
it was discovered
that non-constitutional code law accommodates` private international law.
However, when non-constitutional` law is confronted with constitutional and
common` law, statutory code law must yield or fall if it conflicts` with
constitutional and Common law indige-nous to the` state republic.
Non-constitutional statutory law remains` non-constitutional so long as it
yields to or is corrected by` constitutional and Common law.
It becomes
unconstitutional when it is imposed on sovereign` rather than subject classes,
or when it is challenged on constitutional` grounds and the court does not
concede under` the mandate for judicial notice of constitutional and Common`
law.
If an original
action in law is filed in any given county (within` the proper framework of
Common law), the appeal route` is through the state supreme Court (i.e., state
Supreme` court) which has original jurisdiction at law or in equity and`
subsequently the law side of the supreme Court of the united` states of
America.8`
In other words, state (or federal
State) district or circuit` courts do not have a Common law capacity, they
operate exclusively` as nisi prius courts of the de facto federal State under`
Title IV authority of the United States. Appeals on the` Civil side of the
court would be to the 9th Circuit Court of` Appeals.
The Magna Charta is
the first cornerstone of the Common` law. Title 1 courts have been incompetent
at law since
The supreme Court
declared that there is no general Common` law in the
9`
Imposition of fines, incarceration,
and other penalties for` non-performance and various alleged crimes are
premised` on the presumption of a contractual obligation to some` higher
federal authority and their principals.
On nearly all legal
documents generated by courts and other` government institutions, a fictitious
corporate “person” is` created by capitalizing all letters in the name, (i.e.,
JOHNNY` LIBERTY) in order to perpetuate the fraud and deception` and steal the
lawful character of the sovereign who would` otherwise be entitled to existing
rights and remedies` preserved in the Common law under their Christian name.
A few obvious
constitutional and Common law principles` condemn closing courts to “choice of
counsel” by granting` exclusive domain to bar-licensed attorneys, members of
the` club subject to the court in the same manner as other` government
employees. Within the framework of Common` law, the term “counsel” includes
both attorneys at law and` non-attorney counselors of law.
The exclusive
domain of attorneys in both state and federal` courts is the representation of
dependent and incompetent` persons--corporate entities that exist by consent
of` government, their agencies or indigents. Right to counsel of` choice is
maintained by the constitutions and Common law.
The nisi prius
court is legislative rather than a judicial court.
It poses a special
problem for the judges who operate in a` ministerial rather than a judicial
capacity.
A magistrate cannot
deprive the de jure people of life, liberty` or property without effecting a
Bill of Attainder. Legislative` and administrative branches of government
cannot pass` then enforce laws against the de jure people.
This kind of
justice is condemned by the Separation of` Powers Doctrine as well as being
repugnant to principles of` Common law. This perverse system of peonage could
be` peacefully corrected in short order if those who hold` legislative,
judicial and enforcement offices would simply` comply with the law when
constitutional and Common law` are presented in opposition to statutory law.
But history` teaches us well, that wealth, power and privilege are never`
voluntarily surrendered.
Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act` Editor’s Note: According to Joe Stevens, invoking the` Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act has been effective in` some cases for the sovereign American
arguing immunity` from prosecution in a statutory jurisdiction. If you
consider` that the American National and/or sovereign “state” Citizen has the
judicial capacity to create a government,` and the sovereign state republic is
a foreign state, then the` argument follows.
The American
legislator has taken an early incentive to draft` a national statute on foreign
sovereign immunity. The` “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA)” was
for a` large part the merit of Monroe Leigh, a Washington` D.C. based
international lawyer and at that
Stating the basic
principle in terms of immunity may be of` some advantage to foreign states in
doubtful cases, but,` since sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense which`
must be specially pleaded, the burden will remain on the` foreign state to
produce evidence that a foreign state or one` of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities is the` defendant in the suit and that the plaintiff’s claim
relates to` a public act of the foreign state — that is, an act not within` the
exceptions in sections 1605-1607. Once the foreign state` has produced such
prima facie evidence of immunity, the` burden of going forward would shift to
the plaintiff to` produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not`
entitled to immunity. The ul
This passage of the
House Report shows that foreign` sovereign immunity has been drafted as an
affirmative` defense which has to be specifically pleaded.
This would imply
that the persuasive burden as to the` existence of the facts determining
sovereign immunity (i.e.
the
non-applicability of the exceptions to immunity, drafted` in the Act) is on the
foreign state. As a result, the foreign` state would also be charged with the
evidential burden, the` burden of going forward with the evidence, at the
beginning` of the trial.
This means in
practice that the foreign state would have to` produce a prima facie case with
regard to the following facts:` i. that it is a foreign state according to
§§1603(a),(b)` FSIA, and;` ii. that the activity which is in question, was of a
public,` governmental nature.
After production of
such proof by the foreign state, the` evidential burden would shift to the
plaintiff so that he` proofs the applicability of one of the exceptions to
immunity` (§§ 1605-1607). When this proof fails, the court must grant` immunity
to the foreign state because of the general rule of` immunity, established in the
FSIA.
Article I, Court Actions and Motions` Strategies for a number of lawsuits are being developed
to` prepare the sovereign “state” Citizen for necessary legal` action to remove
the hurdles the government erects to` discourage those who dare to exercise
their unalienable and` constitutional rights.
There are
strategies to challenge the unlawful “occupation` taxes” being imposed upon all
sovereign “state” Citizens in a` bureaucratic scheme to extort revenue.
This tax is imposed
upon all Citizens through the drivers` license and vehicle registration fees.
These licenses are, by` legislative act, for drivers who are operators of
commercial` vehicles only, not for Citizens traveling by right, freely from`
place to place. The government has been complicit in` constructive fraud by
permitting this abuse to go unabated` for years.
Refuse all your
citations and presentments for fraud,` without dishonor, pursuant to the UCC
3-501, then present` them a notice of default, until your pro se litigation is
ready` to go to trial.
Properly done, this
admits evidence into the case record that` can later be used for an appeal, a
cross-claim or cross-libel` in admiralty, or a Title 42§§§1983, 1985, 1986
civil rights` action brought in the district court of the united States in a`
Common law venue and jurisdiction.
The proper and
appropriate use of “Non-Statutory` Abatements” can also estoppel an action
against you by` challenging the improper paperwork or insufficient process` of
any of the emergency and war powers courts.
If you are unable
to afford the filing fees or court costs, you` can file a “Petition in Forma
Poperis.” This is for a pauper` needing access to the legal system without
paying the fees up` front. If you lose the case, you won’t be asked to pay
court` costs.
But remember that a
sovereign cannot be a “pauper” without` compromising your status. You must be
economically` sovereign as well as legally and politically sovereign.
Article 1,
Court Strategies` 1) Declaratory
Injunctive Relief.
2) Suit to Compel
Specific Performance.
3) Complaint
Against Federal Agency (5 U.S.C. §702,` 703).
•
• U.S. Postal Services` (for refusing to post non-domestic
mail)`
• Department of Transportation` (for refusing to implement a
policy to discern` between “non-resident” Citizens who are not` required to
have a driver's license or vehicle` registration and “resident” motorists)`
• Police Department, County Sheriff,` State Police &
Other Police Agencies` (for continuing to issue citations, impound` vehicles of
non-resident Citizens)`
4) Suit To Comply
With Freedom of Information or` Privacy Act Aimed at Employers, Corporations,`
Government (4 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B).
5) Suit to Prevent
Discrimination Against Citizens w/o SSN` 6) Removal of IRS Liens, Levys and
Garnishments.
Once jurisdiction
is established, you can “Motion” the court` to take action.
Motions include:` • Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction` • Motion to Abate/Non-Statutory/Common
Law` • Motion for Common Law Jury, Grand Jury, Counsel` • Motion
for Change of Venue` • Motion for Reversal of Prior Conviction` • Motion
for Summary Judgment` • Motion to Quash` • Motion for
Protection Motion to Compel Discovery` • Motion to Suppress
Illegal Evidence` • Motion for Continuance, Extension` • Motion
for Bond Reduction` "Courts should not tolerate or condone disregard` of law
and arbitrary usurpation of power on the` part of any officer. Ours is
government of law,` and not of men, and before any act of any official` will be
sustained by the courts such act must` be authorized by law.”
— Ex parte Owen,` 10
Counsel of Choice`
Editor’s
Note: Thanks to Tim & Paula Richardson of the`
The right to
counsel is a fundamental right and must be` defended in the courts of this land
today. The American Bar` Association monopoly over judges, attorneys and other`
officers of the court has left the Citizen defenseless in` his/her own land
without the continued and necessary` assertion of this right. Know this.
This right to
counsel of choice is protected by the` Constitution for the
As in the doctrine
of the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights,` the fact that the Sixth Article of
the Bill of Rights secures a` right to counsel in all criminal matters cannot
be construed` to deny that right, to say nothing of the right to peaceably`
assemble, and to petition the Government, and to defend` one’s life, liberty,
and property in the courts. Any rule of` procedure for the court is there
precisely to guarantee due` process of law to private Citizens, as a matter of
right.
You can require
that the court apply no laws that would` abrogate your rights, and that the
court answer to its duty to` guarantee due process of law in all proceedings.
You can contend on
good authority (the Constitution for the`
“The court by common law had no power to admit` an attorney
...to practice... It was the policy of the` common law, in order that suits
might not multiply` and increase, that both plaintiff and defendant` appear in
person ... the justices could not permit` a person to appear by attorney, the
king, by the` plenitude of his prerogative, might appoint an` attorney, and
give any person a right to appear in` this manner...”
— Ricker's Petition , Strafford, June 1890.
Furthermore, the
Oregon State Bar Association (or any` other State Bar Association) is nothing
more than a private` club, is not any form of state agency, does not speak for
the` state and does not act for the state and has no power to` control the
lives of private Citizens. The whole fraud about` only permitted “licensed”
attorneys in a court is a sham.
It was held that a
state may NOT pass statutes prohibiting` the “unauthorized practice of law” or
interfere with the right` to freedom of speech, secured in the first Amendment.11 The` terms “attorney” and “counsel” are Common Law terms
and:` “It has been held, and is undoubtedly the law,` that, where
Common law phrases are used in` an indictment or information, such phrases
must` have Common law interpretation.”
— Chapman vs People, 39
The meaning of the
Common law terms is quite clear and` the term “Assistance of Counsel” does not
necessarily mean` that “Counsel” will be a licensed attorney. A licensed`
attorney may be a counselor behind the bar, but all` counselors may not be
licensed attorneys:` “An attorney-at-law ...is one who is put in the place,` stead,
or turn of another, to manage his matters of` law.... An officer in the supreme
court of the United` States, and in some other courts, who is employed` by a
party in a cause, to conduct the same on its` trial on his behalf. He differs
from an attorney at` law.”
— Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 3rd edition.(q.v.)` In the supreme
court of the
— 1 Kent, Com. 307 (emphasis added).
The right to
counsel of choice was once well understood to` be the “right” of the people as
defined in the “Will of the` Sovereign People's” Constitution.
No governmental entity
was ever given power, responsibility` or authority, by the “Will of the
Sovereign People,” to take` such a “right” away, especially not to give it to a
private organization` which is not part of the state government, which`
operates a monopolistic “club” for the exclusive benefit of its` members and to
the detriment of Citizens of this state.
The Founding
Fathers sought to specifically secure the right` to counsel of choice in all
criminal matters, and did not` think it wise or proper to write in the words,
“counsel of a licensed attorney,” and because the words “licensed` attorney” do
not appear in the Constitution, no court can` insist that only licensed
attorneys can be counsel.
It is still an
unarguable fact that the Constitution for the`
“If the state should deprive a person the benefit of` counsel,
it would not be due process of law.”
— Powell v
Furthermore it was
decided in Argersinger v. Hamlin, that` no defendant may be deprived of
liberty, or put into jail in` any case in which he/she was denied counsel of
choice.”
The right of an indigent
defendant in a criminal trial to the` assistance of counsel, which is
guaranteed by the Sixth` Amendment as made applicable to the States by the`
Fourteenth, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372
792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799,
is not governed by the classification of` the offense or by whether or not a
jury trial is required.
No accused may be
deprived of his liberty as the result of` any criminal prosecution, whether
felony or misdemeanor,` in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.
In this case, the
Supreme Court of Florida erred in holding` that petitioner, an indigent who was
tried for an offense` punishable by imprisonment up to six months, a $1,000`
fine, or both, and given a 90-day jail sentence, had no right` to
court-appointed counsel, on the ground that the right` extends only to trials
'for non-petty offenses punishable by` more than six months imprisonment.” 12`
Challenging Oaths of Office` All elected officials owe an oath of allegiance to the`
Constitution. Otherwise their office is a fraud under` American law. Citizens
must take the law into their own` hands and challenge the oaths of office of
all elected` representatives, public officials, police officers (e.g.,
Although many
states do not require the oaths of office to be` filed, federal law does
provide a filing requirement. Supreme` Court justices are required to make an
oath or affirmation` and file that oath. Pro tem judges and lawyers serving as`
judges have the same oath as the county judges even though` there are no more
county judges, but county commissioners` instead. County commissioners are
required to take an oath` of affirmation.
Most elected
officials have not legally filed their oaths of` allegiance with the
The reason they do
not is that their office routinely violates` their oath of allegiance and thus
they’d be perjuring` themselves by their daily actions against the united
states of` America. U.S. judges are required to take a double oath in` order to
get their coveted job. The Judicial Act of 1789` contains the lawful oath
required of all federal judges.13` If their allegiance
is not to the Constitution, or serving the` interests of the American people,
then you best find out who` their allegiance is to. You’ll be surprised. For
those still` voting, elect a responsible judiciary and representatives that`
will appoint officers willing to restore the constitutional` republic.
Citizens must at
every opportunity challenge the lies and` deception, the masking and concealing
of the criminal` element in government, the law-breakers and treasonous`
politicians who have violated the public trust, the` Constitution and common
sense morality.
All must be brought
to justice, whether they are socialist-` Democrats or socialist-Republicans.
Blatant disrespect and` violations of the American law must not be tolerated.
Citizens must stand
up and fight such individuals or` institutions, and support the “law of the
land,” otherwise the` law has no standing.
This takes great
courage and I honor anyone who finds they` have the perseverance and guts to
face the lions preying in` the courtroom today.
Sheriff Richard
Mack has set legal precedent by being the` first sheriff in the country to
publicly reaffirm his` commitment to his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
Most public
officials are in direct violation of 4 U.S.C. §101` and 102 having either not
performed their duty and` obligation to uphold the Constitution, or have not
recorded` or certified their oath of office. It is up to We the People to` make
the government accountable to the law, and to bring` criminal charges against
them if they fail to perform their` duties.
“Every member of a State legislature, and every` executive and
judicial officer of a State, before he` proceeds to execute the duties of his
office, take an` oath in the following form, to wit:` I, do solemnly swear that
I will support the` Constitution of the United States.”
— 4 U.S.C. §101 Oath by members of legislatures` and officers. 14` “Such oath may be
administered by any person` who, by law of the State, is authorized to`
administer the oath of office; and the person so` administering such oath shall
cause a record or` certificate thereof to be made in the same manner,` as by
the law of the State, he is directed to` record or certify the oath of office.”
— 4 U.S.C. §101 Same; by whom administered.15`
Here’s an excerpt
from an “Oath of Office” for United States` Judges pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.
§454 (first oath) and` Title 5, U.S.C. §2231 (second oath).
“I, John B. Jones, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will` administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal` right to the
poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and` impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent` upon me as United States District Judge
according to the` best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the`
Constitution and laws of the United States; AND that I will` support and defend
the Constitution of the United States` against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear` true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take
this` obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose` of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the` duties of the office on
which I am about to enter. So help me` God.”
Original 13th Amendment Arguments` The “original 13th Amendment” had in
fact been ratified` prior to the Civil War by thirteen states, enough for`
ratification, and was published in the official copies of the` Constitution for
the usA throughout the united states. Over` 30 or more official publications
from Maine to Colorado` contained the “original 13th Amendment.”
That it suddenly
“disappeared” and was replaced with` another 13th Amendment
is now a matter of historical and` legal fact. It has been hypothesized that the
unrevealed` motive behind the War of 1812 was to delay the ratification`
efforts of the sovereign states regarding this “missing”,` original 13th Amendment,” and destroy the records.16` A book published in New Hampshire in 1840 by Joseph Coe`
was certified by a special act of Congress, as having the` original
Constitution for the usA with the original 13th` Amendment.
This copy is prima facie evidence of the` original 13th Amendment having passed.
David Dodge and
Brian Marsh have a certified copy of an` un-catalogued book from the archives
of the State of` Virginia, also found to have the original, 13th Amendment in` it. Virginia was the 13th state required to ratify the original` 13th Amendment. There is also evidence that the issue has` come
before the supreme Court at least 4
This original 13th Amendment can be presented in any court` of law as a
challenge to the legal fraternity who have all` accepted a Title of Nobility.
Attorneys-at-Law and Esquire` are Titles of Nobility, thus cannot hold public
office, nor are` they Citizens of the United States. If the missing 13th` Amendment were restored, “special interests” and
“honors” would be rendered
unconstitutional.
This could compel
the entire government to operate under` the same laws as the Citizens are
expected to obey. Without` their current individual immunities, government
officials` would be unable to abuse common Citizens without fear of` legal
liability.
Imagine a
government of the people, by the people, and for` the people. Imagine a
government truly accountable to the` people, that could not systematically
exploit its own people.
Imagine a
government without attorneys. 17`
Article III, Court Actions and Motions` These are perhaps the most profound legal strategies to
have` been developed since the original republic of the united` states of
America.
Most litigators and
Citizens have forgotten the separation of` powers doctrines and that all state
courts have the capacity` to operate on either an Article I or Article III
capacity AND` federal courts have the capacity to operate in Article III or`
Article IV capacity.
Not all courts are
the same. One side is the Common law` side in its Article III capacity. The
other side is the` Equity/Admiralty or what’s called the Statutory side in its`
Article I or Article IV capacity.
So for example,
when most people think of taking something` to federal court, they
automatically think — “U.S. District` Court.” Correct, if you want to bring an
action before the` Equity/ Admiralty or Statutory side of the court in its
Article` IV capacity.
This is a
territorial court (e.g., like Puerto Rico is a territory` of the United
States). Wrong, if you have any issues of law at` stake, or you are operating
in a sovereign capacity in a` “state.” There are NO issues of law EVER
presented before` that side of the court. They have no jurisdiction in law,
nor` do the judges have the capacity to judge the law. Article I` judges can
only judge facts. In fact, as Dan Meador has so` eloquently proved, U.S.
Magistrates have the judicial` authority of nothing more than a park ranger. 18` If you must raise an issue of law, then you must invoke
the` Common law side of the court (state or federal) and in the` case of a
federal action bring it in the “district court of the` united states” in its
Article III Common law capacity, not its` Article IV Territorial capacity.
The supreme Court
and Congress, both exercising their` respective Constitutionally granted
authority, established by` rules, law and the operation of power vested in
Congress at` Articles I, III and IV of the Constitution for the united states,`
have created courts of the United States deriving authority` from distinct and
different Constitutional grants of power or` jurisdiction, with each court duly
authorized to exercise its` judicial power ONLY within separate jurisdictions.
In Mookini v.
United States, 303 US 201 the supreme Court` examined the application of rules
and the statute` authorizing the court to promulgate rules for United States`
courts. In the published opinion in Mookini supra, the court` held that:` “No provision was made with respect to proceedings
in` cases brought in the District Courts of Alaska, Hawaii,` Puerto Rico, Canal
Zone and Virgin Islands, in the` Supreme Courts of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, or
in the` United States Court for China.... The statute contains no` requirement
that the Court must prescribe identical rules` with respect to all the courts
mentioned regardless of` varying conditions, or that rules for all these courts
must` be prescribed at one and the same
Note that the list
of courts specifically excludes the “district` courts” in any of the 48 states
(Mookini was decided` February 28, 1938). The U.S. supreme Court did hold that courts of the territories were capable of being
distinguished` from courts in the states.
“The term “District Courts of the United States,”
as used in the rules, without an addition expressing` a wider
connotation, has its historic significance.”
— Mookini v. U.S., 303
US 201, 205`
The supreme Court thereby stated that the definition or`
distinction of a “district court” was not being invented (or` coined) for the
Mookini case, but instead that the definition` of the courts was firmly rooted
in history, the law and the` Constitution.
The court went on
to hold that: “It [referring to the term` “District Courts of the United
States”] describes the` Constitutional courts created under Article III of the`
Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts,` properly
speaking, and ARE NOT District Courts of the` United States.
We have often held
that vesting a territorial court with` jurisdiction similar to that vested in
the District Courts of` the United States DOES NOT make it a “District Court of
the` United States.”— Reynolds v. United States; The City of` Panama; In re
Mills; McAllister v. United States; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation; Summers v.
United States; United States` v. Burroughs, (cites omitted) [Emphasis added.]`
Not only did the promulgating order use the term District` Courts of the United
States in its historic and proper sense,` but the omission of provision for the
application of the rules` to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned
in the` authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was` intended.
The Mookini holding
is clear and unequivocal. There are two` courts. It is further clear from the
court’s holdings that the` aforesaid two courts have differing Constitutional
origins.
One, the “district
court of the united states” is the true` Constitutional Court authorized by
Article III of the` Constitution, and the other is a court of the Territories,`
deriving its authority from the language of Article IV which` makes the latter
court a territorial court — a “legislative”
creation, rather than a true Constitutional one.
Courts created by
Congress under Constitutional authority` at Article I section 8, clause 17, or
Article IV section 3, clause` 2 are certainly courts, but the jurisdiction and
venue of said` courts differs from the “Constitutional” courts which are`
authorized by Article III of said Constitution.
In a very well
articulated case, O’Donoghue v. United States,` 289 US 516, the Court was
required to rule on the` Constitutional issues surrounding whether all federal
Court` judges were covered by the Constitutional provision in` Article III that
a judge’s compensation cannot be reduced` during the
The supreme Court,
in making its determination, succinctly` explained the difference between
legislative territorial courts` and true Article III Constitutional courts.
> TERRITORY— U.S.C.S. Article III §2 cl. 1 at case note` #91: Territory is not
state within meaning of that term as` used in Art. III, §2 cl. 1 (cite
omitted).
One of these issues
was whether the courts established by` Congress in the District of Columbia were
to be considered` as exercising the Article III judicial power of the United`
States.
“The granting to
the courts of the District [of Columbia] of` an extensive jurisdiction in
purely national matters` establishes their status as courts of the United States
and` their exercise of judicial power under Article III of the` Constitution.”
“There is a vast
distinction between jurisdiction and judicial` power. The former may be
granted, qualified or taken away` at the will of Congress....But after having
created an inferior` court of the United States and defined the subjects over`
which it shall have jurisdiction, Congress cannot limit the` exercise of
judicial power, because that comes directly from` the Constitution and is not
derived from Congress.” 19` The foregoing sets
forth and explains the fact that judicial` power is exercised in all courts,
regardless of their` Constitutional origin, but jurisdiction is determined by`
Congress, not by the court (since the “venue jurisdiction” of` the courts is
different).
Further, in the
holding of the court, when the jurisdiction as` set by Congress was that of an
Article III court, the Judicial` Power of the United States was given by the
Constitution` and could not be limited, constrained or otherwise imposed` upon
by Congress.
The converse would,
of course NOT be true: i.e., Congress` could control (or at least limit) the
exercise of authority in` tribunals established to administer the laws of the
Territory` or in courts established under the authority of Congress at` Article
I, section 8, clause 17.
The O’Donoghue case
went on to argue that there were clear` historical, contextual and
constitutional distinctions` between courts of the territories and courts which
extend the` judicial power of the United States through and from Article` III
of said Constitution:` “The constitutional provisions in question must` be construed in
the light of their history and of the` development of our institutions, and not
without` reference to the distinction which has so clearly` been drawn between
constitutional and` legislative courts.”
— O’Donoghue, supra at page 523.
The exercise of
judicial power is not a characteristic which` distinguishes one court from
another, see paragraph 3 above` and again from the O’Donoghue case:` “The exercise of
judicial power is common to both` legislative and constitutional courts, and`
determines the status of neither.
— Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 US 438, 449”
O’Donoghue, supra at page 524.
It is, however, the
“nature” of the judicial power which is` determinate of the status of any
court.
Justice Sutherland,
in delivering the opinion of the court in` the O’Donoghue case, restated the
intent of the Founding` Fathers to establish a judiciary which could and would
effect` its work unconstrained by influences from either of the` other two
branches of government: an issue of paramount` importance in distinguishing
between the jurisdictions of` two or more courts created by Congressional
authority; e.g.,` the “United States District Court,” a court of the
Territories,` and the “district courts of the united states,” courts of true`
Constitutional authority pursuant to Article III of the` Constitution.
The court held:
“[I]t will materially assist us in arriving at a` correct determination if we
shall first consider the great` underlying purpose which the framers of the
Constitution` had in mind and which led them to incorporate in that` instrument
the provision in respect of the permanent tenure` of office and the
undiminishable character of the` compensation of the judges.”
“The Constitution,
in distributing the powers of government,` creates three distinct and separate
departments — the` legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This
separation is` not merely a matter of convenience or of governmental`
mechanism.
Its object is basic
and vital, Springer v. Philippine Islands,` 277 US 189, 201, namely, to
preclude a co-mingling of these` essentially different powers of government in
the same` hands.
And this object is
none the less apparent and controlling` because there is to be found in the
Constitution an` occasional specific provision conferring upon a given`
department certain functions, which, by their nature, would` otherwise fall
within the general scope of the powers of` another. Such exceptions serve
rather to emphasize the` generally inviolate character of the plan.” —
O’Donoghue,` supra at pages 529, 530.
Justice Sutherland
and the court went to great pains to` clearly describe and explain to us for
all
The high importance
of the provision, as the contemporary` history shows, was definitely pointed
out by the leading` statesmen of the
Thus, in The
Federalist, No. 78, Hamilton said — “The` complete independence of the courts
of justice is peculiarly` essential in a limited Constitution.”
And, in No. 79 —
“Next to permanency in office, nothing can` contribute more to the independence
of the judges than a` fixed provision for their support. . . .In the general
course of` human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to` a power
over his will.”
Chief Justice
Marshall, in the course of the debates of the` Virginia State Convention of
1829-1830 (p. 616, 619), used` the following strong and frequently quoted
language: “The` Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every` man’s
fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his` life, his all. Is it
not, to the last degree, important that he [the` judge] should be rendered
perfectly and completely` independent, with no other to influence or control
him but` God, and his conscience?
I have always
thought, from my earliest youth till now, that` the greatest scourge an angry
Heaven ever inflicted upon an` ungrateful and sinning people, was an ignorant,
a corrupt, or` a dependent Judiciary.” 20` The
court went on to state the obvious: that diminution` could occur in different
forms: “Obviously, diminution may` be effected in more ways than one. Some may
be direct and` other indirect, or even evasive as Mr. Hamilton suggested.
But all which by
their necessary operation and effect` withhold or take from the judge a part of
that which has` been promised by law for his services must be regarded as`
within the prohibition. Nothing short of this will give full` effect to its
spirit and principle.” 21` And then the court
went on to state: “In the light of the foregoing` views, —
22`
Because of the high (some might even
characterize it as` extreme) degree of importance to have an independent`
judiciary, it is equally important to note that the court` carefully considered
which portions of the Federal Judiciary` were to be protected by the letter and
spirit of the` Constitutional provision against reduction of a judge’s salary`
during his tenure at the bench, and why there was a` difference between courts.
“This court has
repeatedly held that the territorial courts are` legislative courts, created in
virtue of the national` sovereignty or under Article IV section 3 clause 2 of
the` Constitution, vesting in Congress the power to dispose of` and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the` territory or other property
belonging to the United States”;` and that they are not invested with any part
of the judicial` power defined in the third article of the Constitution. And`
this rule, as it affects the territories, is no longer open to` question.” 23` That congress has the authority to create courts “inferior”
to` the Supreme Court cannot be held to doubt; it is ONLY the` extent and
exercise of the authority of courts which` determines whether they are true
“constitutional” courts or` courts of the territories or courts created by
virtue of` Congressional authority at Article I, section 8 clause 17. The`
inquiry as to the judicial authority and the extent and exercise thereof in the
various “federal” courts has been` examined many
511, went on to
declare: “The Courts [the territorial courts],` then, are not constitutional
Courts, in which the judicial` power conferred by the Constitution on the
general` government, can be deposited. They are incapable of` receiving it.
They are legislative Courts, created in virtue of` the general right of
sovereignty which exists in the` government, or in virtue of that clause which
enables` Congress to make all needful rules and regulations,` respecting the
territory belonging to the United States. The` jurisdiction with which they are
invested, is not a part of that` judicial power which is defined in the 3rd
article of the` Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution`
of those general powers which that body possesses over the` territories of the
United States.” 25`
[Sample Header
Court Action] 4 U.S.C.A. §1` In
the district court for the united states` District of Colorado (Denver) In its
Article III Common Law` Capacity Johnny, Liberty ex. rel., Proper Party
Plaintiff, vs. Big Bad Wolf, et. al., all in private capacity Defendants`
Incorporated Case No. 96-B-2558` BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)(b)
MOTION TO` STRIKE AND CORRECT THE RECORD and BRIEF IN` SUPPORT OF Fed.R.Civ.P.
27 PERPETUATION OF` TESTIMONY` A Common Law Action brought under Article III of
the` Constitution for the united States Trial by Jury Pursuant to` the 7th
Article of the Bill of Rights Endorsed Hereon`
American Flag of Peace` Editor’s Note: Thanks to Tim Richardson for the following`
research and documentation in it’s entirety.
The “U.S. District Court”
uses the symbol of the flag of the` executive branch of government, the
President of the united` states of America, a symbol which is codified nowhere
in the` laws of the United States, except in a Military handbook at` section
840 Chapters A and B, sections 1 & 2.
Also see 34 Opinion
of the Attorney General number 483` (1925) wherein diligent study and
investigation by the` proper party plaintiff finds that the President, in his
capacity` as Commander- in-chief of the military is authorized to` define and
use the gold-fringed flag.
Said gold-fringed
flag is not authorized by any other` codification or operation of law, act, or
resolution of` Congress, or the Constitution and does not symbolize the` civil
authority of the government of the union of states. Only` the flag described in
the law at 4 U.S.C. §1 is authorized for` use by the civil authority of
government.
Since symbols such
as the flag are such powerful` conveyances of information, and since there is
no` authorization for a gold-fringed flag in the Constitution or in` the laws
made pursuant thereto (outside of the Executive` military power), and since the
proper party plaintiff did` specifically incorporate this case under the
“American Flag` of Peace,” and under the venue jurisdiction of the Article III`
“constitutional” court, which are described in the laws of the` United States
pursuant to the Constitution, the Proper Party` Plaintiff is standing firmly
within the law and the rights` guaranteed to the Proper Party Plaintiff by the
Constitution,` and the Proper Party Plaintiff hereby requires that all future`
pleadings in this matter address themselves under the` “American Flag of Peace”
and further that any other symbols` of “foreign jurisdiction” be banned from
the venue` jurisdiction of this action.
Examination of
Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 1 of the US Code,` reveals that this law has
been duly enacted by the Congress` of the United States and is positive law,
and the` aforementioned section defines the flag of the United States` to be of:
three colors, red, white, and blue. 36 U.S.C. §176 of` the Code states that,
“the flag should never have placed upon` it, nor attached to it any mark,
insignia, letter, word, figure,` design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”
Thus we have the` law of the United States stating in clear terms, that the`
“gold-fringed” flag IS NOT a proper flag of the United States.
The law of the
flag: “In mari
Civil Rights Actions: Title 42 U.S.C. §1983` These statutes create a cause of action against any
individual` or person who, acting under color of state law, abridges` rights
created by the Constitution and the laws of the United` States. It was originally
passed by Congress as a part of the` Civil Rights Act of 1871.
It does not create
federal court jurisdiction but a cause of` action, a legal entitlement to
relief, against those who, acting` pursuant to state government authority and
the Common` practices or policy of various state agencies, violate federal`
law.
You must prove that
it was the custom and policy of the state` government authority or state
agencies to violate your` rights.
Other applicable
statutes include Title 42 U.S.C.§1985,` Conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights, Title 42` U.S.C.§1986, Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy, and`
the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization Act` (RICO) statutes.87`
"Every person who, under color of any statute,` ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of any,` subjects or causes to be subjected, any
citizen` of the United States or other person within the` jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of any` rights, privileges, or immunities secured by` the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the` party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity,` or other proper proceeding for redress.”
— Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 27` When federal officials violate a person's civil rights they are` said
to be acting under color of federal law. They can be sued` pursuant to the
Bivens Doctrine. 28`
The jurisdiction to hear this action
exists under 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and 28 U.S.C.
§1343 (a)(3). These sections grant` jurisdiction to redress violations of federal
laws that provide` for the equal rights of citizens.
Immunity` To overcome the defendants claim of qualified immunity`
and the immunity defenses raised by government entities in` a “Motion to
Dismiss,” the plaintiff must sufficiently plead:` 1) that under the
circumstances the reasonable person` would have known that the conduct violated
well established` law;` 2) that the conduct was in accordance with the entity’s
policy` and custom;` 3) that in the case of a single occurrence, the conduct
was` initiated by or acquiesced to by a final policy maker with` respect to
that particular conduct;` 4) that the defendants conduct violates rights
protected by` the Constitution or laws of the United States; and` 5) that the
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United` States was the proximate
cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
This is the point
in the proceedings where evidence can be` entered into the court record
regarding the oaths of allegiance` and oaths of office, and the lack thereof,
of the individuals` claiming government immunity from prosecution.
“Immunity did not protect a state official who was` acting under
an unconstitutional state law` or who was exceeding his properly granted`
authority.”
— Osborn vs. Bank of the U.S., 9 Wheat 738 (1824)`
Often federal
officials, including members of the U.S. Congress and the justices of the U.S.
supreme Court, will` argue their defense solely on the position that they were`
immune from the consequences of their acts, including the` consequences of
their refusal to perform a duty.
These arguments of
government immunity have in effect` placed federal officials above and outside
the law. Thus they` are protected from criminal prosecution and the` government
corruption continues unabated.
These are the
mentalities that permit inflicting massive` harm upon the public, and
irresponsibility on behalf of the` government to be accountable to the law.
The legal
fraternities position was, and is still today, that` federal officials, judges
and members of Congress could` engage in outright criminal acts of cover-up,
misprision of` felonies, obstruction of justice, and be immune from the`
consequences. Even the U.S. supreme Court Justices when` personally sued for
violation of rights under color of federal` law argued:` “The nine justices of
the supreme Court are entitled` to absolute judicial immunity from plaintiff’s
claims.
A judge will not be deprived of immunity because` the action he
took was...done maliciously, or was` in excess of his authority.”
— supreme Court Justices Argument Against the` Lawsuit of Rodney
Stich 29` This
contradicted an earlier decision by the same U.S. supreme Court Justices who
held:`
“There is little support in the common law` for a rule of
judicial immunity` that prevents injunctive relief against a judge.
There is even less support for a conclusion` that Congress
intended to limit the` injunctive relief under §1983` in a way that would
prevent` federal injunctive relief against a state judge.”
— Pulliam vs. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) 30`
To overcome the
defendants claim in the Motion for` Summary Judgment,” the plaintiff must also
argue` sufficiently in the pleadings, depositions, answers to` interrogatories,
admissions, and affidavits that there are` material facts to prove the case with
the preponderance of` the evidence.
Although these
statutes were originally created for U.S. citizens, in particular the newly
freed black slaves, they are` applicable to sovereign “state” Citizens as a
remedy for` continued violations of unalienable and constitutional rights`
under the color of state law.
There is a debate
as to whether or not a Title 42§1983` subjects the sovereign “state” Citizen to
federal jurisdiction` or not, and whether or not it compromises sovereignty or`
not. Rick Shram and Richard McDonald are still hotly` debating the issue.
I assert if the
action is brought on the Common law side of` the federal Court (i.e., district
court of the united states)` then jurisdiction is not waived. Other components
of a Title` 42 action include:31` • Civil Rights Litigation and Complaint` • Motion
for Summary Judgment` • Motion to Strike` • Brief in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike` •
Summary of Points Raised and
Authorities Relied Upon.
In a Title 42§1983
action, all previous related actions are:` 1. immediately estoppeled;` 2. to
defend against a Title 42 is expensive whether you win` or not;` 3. you might
actually win a case or settlement.
No insurance
company will insure against constitutional` violations. If a Title 42 action
gets beyond rule 12B and the` federal judge doesn’t toss it out as frivolous,
then the` bonding company for the defendants must post a bond for` 10% of the
total suit.
Then you can
proceed to take depositions and` interrogatories. Have fun with it.
Commercial & Common Law Liens` Editor’s note: Beware the “lien” has become a
political hot` potato. It’s such a powerful tool and if misused, it can be`
fatal to the user. Many people have used the lien process` frivolously or
incorrectly and ended up in prison. Others` used the lien process lawfully and
ended up in prison (e.g.,` Montana Freemen). The Power structure does not like`
anybody playing around with their monopoly of the lien` process. It’s the basis
for the entire international banking` system and it’s ul
A “Lien” is a hold
or claim against the property of another as` a security against a charge or
debt. If your unalienable or` constitutional rights have been violated by an
official or` agent of the government, or a crime has been committed` against
you, or you have a legi
These liens are
filed through the County Recorders office in` the county in which the official,
agent or debtor has property` or published in a legal newspaper. In many venues
liens filed` by Citizens are not being accepted for filing due to decrees by`
the Attorney General (e.g., Oregon).
Many Common law
liens are no longer accepted for filing in` County Recorder’s offices, but they
can be filed in the` Common law court’s Bureau of Records & Conveyances or`
by National recording services. Or file them in more amiable` venues, or in
foreign jurisdictions if necessary.
“A Common law lien is a mere right in one man` to retain that
which is in his/her possession` belonging to another until certain demands` of
the person in possession are satisfied.”
— Bell vs. Dennis, 93P.2d 1003, 1005, 43 N.M. 350`
Liens are the
underlying basis for the entire international` banking system. Liens are the
foundation of all commerce` and are traded, exchanged, transferred and
discounted` securities.
They are based on
commercial affidavits which is also the` basis of the entire legal system—
swearing under oath to tell` the whole truth and nothing but the truth. An act
of` Congress (e.g., budget) is a true “bill” or invoice, which` obligates
federal U.S. citizens to pay the “bill” through` income taxes and other
excises.
When your rights
have been violated, your property taken,` or a crime committed against you,
then a true “bill of` particulars” under the Common law specifies the nature
of` the offense or complaint. The three parts of a perfected lien` include:` 1.
true bill or complaint;` 2. debtor;` 3. assign.
Common law liens
are non-negotiable instruments` exchangeable for gold/silver which is lawful
money.
International banks
pay debts with each other in gold/silver,` not commercial paper.
Commercial liens
are commercial paper and negotiable` instruments. Commercial liens imply a debt
in the absence` of any lawful money. Commercial banks discharge debts` with
each other in debt currency or negotiable instruments,` not gold/silver.
If a bank or
corporation cannot meet its financial` obligations, then the parties can
renegotiate or the creditor` initiates a “hostile takeover” of the debtor.
This is done
through the commercial lien process. When the` IRS sends you a “Notice of
Intent to Lien” they are noticing` you of their intent to attach a commercial
lien to your` property for a purported tax “bill.”
In the case of the
IRS, the true “bill” and the assessment is a` fraudulent and imperfect
commercial lien process because it` is not based on a sworn commercial
affidavit or true “bill.” A` perfected lien is based on a sworn affidavit of
truth and a` true “bill” that stands un-refuted at-law.
When you write a
check for $20.00, you’ve just put a lien on` the bank for $20.00. When the bank
supposedly “loans” you` “money” they have just put a lien on the collateral or`
securities you’ve posted against the bank credit purportedly` loaned you.
This bank credit
was created from thin air, which is illegal,` and is hypothetically based on a
perfected commercial lien.
Once a commercial
lien is perfected, it is a saleable, traded,` exchanged security like any other
stock, bond, or mortgage` contract. It is deposited in a bank in exchange for
bank` credit. Then the bankers can write checks directly on these` deposited
liens under the Uniform Commercial Code.
There are three
parts of a perfected lien. First, the true “bill” or invoice is properly noticed and answered.
If the true “bill” once served is
ignored or unanswered it becomes the truth` in commerce by default as a UCC 4
Form.
Then the debtor is
noticed of your intent to lien. If they fail` to answer, you list them as the
debtor on a UCC 1 Form and` you as the assign on a UCC 3 Form. Then you get a court`
judgment from an Article III court and you’re on the road to` a perfected lien.
These perfected
liens or securities can now be tendered for` deposit upon a commercial bank or
sold.
Caveat We do
not advise amateurs playing with liens. They` demand the finest attention to
detail and lengthy study. A` lien is a double edge sword and can cut both ways
if` improperly administered. This is a powerful tool of liberty.
Do not
misuse or abuse the process for greedy or self-interested` purposes. You do not
have enough information` in this book to perfect a lien. Enter at your own
risk. We disclaim any responsibility or liability for the misuse of this`
information.
A report was aired
on Peter Jennings on November 2nd,` 1995, attacking the people using the commercial
lien process` and dubbed them “paper terrorists.”
Every
People using the
lien process against judges, politicians, law` enforcement personnel and media
are completely and` perfectly within the law as proven in a recent court
decision` in the 14th
Judicial Circuit in Texas.
The lien process is
res judicata (i.e., it is already decided)` and the party that had been liened
is stuck with the penalty.
One individual in
Washington state has brought forward a` lien against nine state government
officials for violating the` laws pursuant to their oaths of office. His lien
action was` done on behalf of the 5 million residents and comes to $200`
billion of restitution.
Terry has filed a
lien outside of his State of residence for $26` million against government
officials because the courts` refuse to allow the instrument to be filed in the
County` Recorder’s office.
The Montana Freemen
had perfected a lien for $15 trillion` against the principles / creditors of
the United States.
They are presently
political prisoners of the international` bankers.
Notes and Sources`
31. Alexander Hamilton;
Sourced from The Federalist Papers` #78, Modern Library, New York.
32. Sourced from a
lecture by John Quade at the` Preparedness Expo, Seattle, Washington, October
1993;` See also Government's Liberty... Brings Death To` Freedom p. 53 (how to
file court papers).
33. 28 USC §8(d);
Sourced from Free At Last, by N.A. Scott,` Ph.D., D.D., p.4-49.
34. See also Corpus
Juris Secundum, A Complete` Restatement of the Entire American Law, Section 4,`
Attorney Client.
35. Sample
Arraignment sourced from UCC Training Guide` by Howard Freeman.
36. Guide by Howard
Freeman.
37. Sourced from
patriot researcher Dan Meador.
38. Sourced from
Justice Marion P. Opala, justice on the` Oklahoma Supreme Court.
39. Sourced from
Tom Dunn & Maine Bar Association` Centennial Report (1992).
40.Utilizing the
“Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” as an affirmative` defense for sovereign
“state” Citizens is worth` exploring.
41. Sourced from
United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar` Association, 389 US 217.
42. Sourced from 92
S.Ct. 2006, 407 U.S. 25, Argersinger v. Hamlin, pp. 2007 2014.(U.S.Fla. 1972).
43. Sourced from
Government's Liberty...Brings Death To` Freedom,; See also Rodney Stitch,
Defrauding America` (1994), p.90 (oaths of federal judges).
44. See also 4 USC
§101, 102; also c. 389, 61 Stat. 643 and` 644, July 30, 1947; See also Judicial
Act of 1789.
45. Sourced form
N.A. Scott.
46. Sourced from
Velma Griggs, The Original 13th` Amendment, (Inyawe
Trust Company).
47. Ibid.
48. See also patriot
researcher Dan Meador’s treatise on the` U.S. magistrates and how their
authority is comparable to` a U.S. Park Ranger.
49. Sourced from
Story, J., in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee 1` Wheat, 305, 328; Chief Justice
Hughes, ‘The Supreme` Court of the United States,’ p. 133; Kansas v. Colorado,`
206 US 46.” O’Donoghue, supra at pages 521, 522.
50. Ibid, pages
531, 532.
51. Ibid, page 533,
quoting Evans v. Gore 253 US 245, 249.
52. Ibid, page 533.
53. Ibid, page 535.
54. Ibid, pages
535, 536 quoting American Insurance Co. v. Canter.
55. Ibid, page 536;
Brief prepared by Timothy Lee` Richardson, Patriot Resource Center for Michael
Duane` Smith, Plaintiff against Colorado State Bank.
56. Sourced from
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, under:` “flag, law of”.
57. 17 Stat. 13, §1
of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1987.
58. Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
59. Case No.
89-0470 SS (2/7/89 amended 3/14/89).
60. See also
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 18 L.Ed 2d 288, 87` S.Ct. 1213 (1967).
61. Sourced from
Rick Schramm, Jack Smith of Right Way` L.A.W., On Point III.
62. Sourced
fromGovernment's Liberty...Brings Death To` Freedom, pp.1-3.
63. Sourced from
Hartford Van Dyke. See also his book on` Commercial Affidavits.
64. Sourced from
Liens Resources & Link Index:` www.icresource.com/public_html/CRC/Directory/Sovereignty.html
See` also NANS, Fall ‘96, pp.61-66,
& Spring‘96, pp 58-67.