THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT DON DENISON ... Wasn’t it reasonable for Chief Denison to conclude that if the Oregon ... I advocate for Toledo Police Chief Don Denison ...
Denison police chief resigns | Police | dbrnews.com
www.dbrnews.com/townnews/police/denison-police-chief...
As filed attasvk my family and edward, for the recall on Lincoln county school board wy the elected regulation writing to dai as Public officer, WTH .. this came 2003 after the recall I did ,With the union
Also thy pass bill to administratively to change Oregon state Constitution law to a State of Oregon administration all local school committees thru out the state was wipe out,, Local school Committees had lawful rights as filed in the public hearings.
Feb 2013 I had heart surgery , I was released by the doctor because I got up in good timing
To go to public hearing, on a bill that would have given attorneys and anyone to take claim on the disabled but then in a mental state corps. As on public recorded of the hearing that day




.Editorial Blasts Kate Brown After Bending Lobbyist Rules For Personal Gain
https://oregon.gop/editorial-blasts-kate-brown-after-bending-lobbyist-rules-for-personal-gain-2017-04-27

This Why I Given name lawful Bloodline American as filed
On in for public record .




Whereas When Elected and public servants comped with their Constitution contract 1871 .
THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT DON DENISON
about-don.blogspot.com

Mary was run out of town..
As I filed criminal charges back then. Toledo and county Dr. Tavis Cowan - Family Practice - Toledo, OR - DrScore.com
www.drscore.com/.../search/Tavis-Cowan_10232214.html

Dr. Tavis Cowan, MD, practices Family Practice in Toledo, OR at Tavis Cowan, MD. Dr. Cowan received his medical degree from Oregon Health & Science University. jean cowan son, As They filed crimnal charges against my disability Elected and public servants


Johnston v. City of Toledo et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings

dockets.justia.com › … › Oregon › Oregon District Court

Johnston v. City of Toledo et al ... Plaintiff: Edward Johnston. Defendant: City of Toledo, Pete Wall, Sharon Branstitter, Estate of Sharon Branstitter, James Rugeri, ...
JOHNSTON v. CITY OF TOLEDO | Civil No. 07-6302-AA ...
www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20090211615/JOHNSTON v...

edward johnston, plaintiff, v. city of toledo, pete wall, sharon branstitter and the estate of sharon branstitter, james ruggeri, donald dennison, will ewing, ...
Edward Johnston - May 1, 2013 - City of Toledo... | Facebook
www.facebook.com/edward.johnston.3150/posts/...

Edward Johnston said that he has served the City a letter and plans to ... Ed ... Johnston v. City of Toledo et al :: ... Johnston v. City of Toledo et al ...
FOIA on Toledo Police for video of Unlawful Arrest on Ed ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=esQOg7wKEM8

Jun 07, 2013 · These two Toledo Police Officers came to ... They then arrested Ed Johnston for allegedly ... Harassment on our way to City of Toledo Oregon Council ...
Edward Johnston - PDF] May 1, 2013 - City of Toledo... | Facebook
www.facebook.com/edward.johnston.3150/posts/...

... May 1, 2013 - City of Toledo www.cityoftoledo.org/ccminag/minutes/2013/ccminutes050113.pdf ITS ALL ABout proper ... Ed ... Johnston v. City of Toledo et al :: ...

Whereas : Civil Actions for False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person without consent or legal justification. False imprisonment can be committed by words, acts, or by both[i]. The common law tort of false imprisonment is defined as an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of movement[ii]. In order to constitute the wrong it is not necessary that the individual be actually confined or assaulted[iii].

It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority[iv].

False arrest is sometimes used interchangeably with false imprisonment. False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury. An arrest is unlawful when the police officers in question did not have probable cause to make the arrest[v].

An arresting officer who fails to take the arrested person before a court or magistrate within a reasonable time or without unnecessary delay is guilty of false imprisonment. Similarly, an officer who arrests a person without a warrant is liable for false imprisonment by detaining the prisoner an unreasonable time[vi].

Generally, false arrest is one of several means of committing false imprisonment. False arrest describes the setting for false imprisonment when it is committed by a peace officer or by one who claims the power to make an arrest. Thus, a tort action for false imprisonment based on false arrest against a person who is not a peace officer implies that the detention or restraint to support the tort was done by one who claims the power of arrest[vii].

However, false arrest is almost indistinguishable from false imprisonment[viii]. The only distinction lies in the manner in which they arise. False arrest is merely one means of committing a false imprisonment. Whereas, false imprisonment is committed without any thought of attempting arrest[ix].

The principal element of damages in an action for false imprisonment is the loss of freedom. Sometimes, a court also takes into account the fear and nervousness suffered as a result of the detention[x]. The tort of false imprisonment involves an unlawful restraint on freedom of movement or personal liberty. Therefore, two essential elements to constitute false imprisonment are[xi]:

Detention or restraint against a person’s will,
Unlawfulness of the detention or restraint.

Whereas, after liability is established for false arrest, the person who suffered may recover nominal damages as well as compensation for mental suffering, including fright, shame, and mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon an illegal detention[xii]. However, in a suit for false arrest and false imprisonment, a person cannot recover attorney’s fees incurred or loss of earnings suffered while defending an underlying criminal action[xiii].

The elements to be considered by the jury in awarding compensatory damages in a false imprisonment case are physical suffering, mental suffering and humiliation, loss of time and interruption of business, reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, and injury to reputation[xiv]. However, it is to be noted that a mere loss of freedom will not constitute false imprisonment[xv].

In a suit for false imprisonment, the damages award may include compensation for loss of earnings while imprisoned, for bodily and mental suffering caused by the imprisonment, and for expenses incurred in securing discharge from restraint including a reasonable attorney fee[xvi].

The measure of damages for false imprisonment is a sum that will fairly and reasonably compensate the injured person for the injuries caused by the wrongful act including any special pecuniary loss which is a direct result of the false imprisonment[xvii]. A jury can award punitive damages in a false arrest or imprisonment case, if the requisite level of malice or other requisite mental state is established.

All persons who personally participate or cause an unlawful detention are held to be liable. Similarly, persons other than those who actually cause an imprisonment may be held jointly liable with others, as instigators or participants. However, passive knowledge or consent to the acts of another, or acting on a superior’s order, is not sufficient to make a person liable for false imprisonment.

It is to be noted that the jail officials are also held liable for false imprisonment for holding a person for an unreasonable time. A jail official is liable for false imprisonment if s/he knows that an arrest was illegal and that there is no right to imprison the person so arrested.

The liability of a principal for the act of an agent in causing a false arrest or imprisonment depends upon whether the principal previously authorized the act, or subsequently ratified it, or whether the act was within the scope of the employee’s or agent’s employment[xviii]. However, an employer will not be held liable for false imprisonment for the actions of an employee which are outside the scope of employment.

In order to avoid liability in an action for false imprisonment, a person must establish that s/he did not imprison the other person or s/he must justify the imprisonment. The presence of probable cause for imprisonment is a defense if it constitutes reasonable grounds for acting in defense of property or making an arrest without a warrant. A person is not liable for false imprisonment, if the person restrained is a child under the age of seventeen upon certain conditions. However, contributory negligence is not considered a defense if the wrong is something more than mere negligence[xix].

A false imprisonment action cannot be maintained if a person is properly arrested by lawful authority without a warrant. In order to justify an arrest without a warrant, the arrestor must proceed as soon as may be to make the arrest. Therefore, a private person can arrest another for a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence[xx].

Certain officials and professionals are exempted from civil liability for false imprisonment under certain circumstances. They are:

Judicial officers;
Government officials entrusted with judicial functions;
Attorneys;
Physicians.

A judicial officer who has jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter is exempted from civil liability for false imprisonment so long as the judge acts within that jurisdiction and in a judicial capacity[xxi]. Similarly, officers in other government departments are also exempted from liability for false imprisonment whenever they are entrusted with the judicial exercise of discretionary power. Likewise, an attorney is also protected from personal liability for false imprisonment if s/he acts in good faith on behalf of his/her client. It is to be noted that physicians who give evidence in proceedings to determine sanity are also immune from liability for false imprisonment.

In the case of false imprisonment, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the false arrest. The plaintiff in a false imprisonment action must prove that the defendant proximately caused the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks damages[xxii].

[i] Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 754 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[ii] Pechulis v. City of Chicago, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11856 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 1997).

[iii] Whitman v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 85 Kan. 150 (Kan. 1911).

[iv] Pechulis v. City of Chicago, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11856 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 1997).

[v] Landry v. Duncan, 902 So. 2d 1098 (La.App. 5 Cir. Apr. 26, 2005).

[vi] Dragna v. White, 45 Cal. 2d 469 (Cal. 1955).

[vii] Rife v. D.T. Corner, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2002).

[viii] Kraft v. Bettendorf, 359 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 1984).

[ix] Harrer v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 124 Mont. 295 (Mont. 1950).

[x] Pitts v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1999).

[xi] Ette v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2002).

[xii] Barnes v. District of Columbia, 452 A.2d 1198 (D.C. 1982).

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Jenkins v. Pic-n-Pay Shoes, Inc., 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. July 15, 1985).

[xv] Gee v. State, 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 573 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1954).

[xvi] Phillips v. District of Columbia, 458 A.2d 722 (D.C. 1983).

[xvii] Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority, 64 Misc. 2d 995 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1970).

[xviii] Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Steele, 23 Tenn. App. 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

[xix] Aiken v. Holyoke S. R. Co., 184 Mass. 269, 271 (Mass. 1903).

[xx] Hill v. Levy, 117 Cal. App. 2d 667 (Cal. App. 1953).

[xxi] Bahakel v. Tate, 503 So. 2d 837 (Ala. 1987).

[xxii] Fischer v. Famous-Barr Co., 618 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).


Because artificial entities cannot take oaths, they cannot make affidavits. See, e.g., In re Empire Refining Co., 1 F. Supp. 548, 549 (SD Cal. 1932) ("It is, of course, conceded that a corporation cannot make an affidavit in its corporate name. It is an inanimate thing incapable of voicing an oath"); Moya Enterprises, Inc. v. Harry Anderson Trucking, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 39, 290 S.E.2d 145 (1982); Strand Restaurant Co. v. Parks Engineering Co., 91 A.2d 711 (D.C. 1952); 9A T. Bjur C. Slezak, Fletcher Cyclopedia of Law of Private Corporations § 4629 (Perm. ed. 1992) ("A document purporting to be the affidavit of a corporation is void, since a corporation cannot make a sworn statement") (footnote omitted).ROWLAND v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY•506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993)

NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL MAN

Supreme Court of the United States 1795, “Inasmuch as every government
is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind
only, a goining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation
of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect,
court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S.
54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
can interface only with other artificial persons. The
imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from
creating and atta
Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States, unless an American Indian original to this land, subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment “...Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884) 5 s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99,28 L.Ed. 643.

Because artificial entities cannot take oaths, they cannot make affidavits. See, e.g., In re Empire Refining Co., 1 F. Supp. 548, 549 (SD Cal. 1932) ("It is, of course, conceded that a corporation cannot make an affidavit in its corporate name. It is an inanimate thing incapable of voicing an oath"); Moya Enterprises, Inc. v. Harry Anderson Trucking, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 39, 290 S.E.2d 145 (1982); Strand Restaurant Co. v. Parks Engineering Co., 91 A.2d 711 (D.C. 1952); 9A T. Bjur C. Slezak, Fletcher Cyclopedia of Law of Private Corporations § 4629 (Perm. ed. 1992) ("A document purporting to be the affidavit of a corporation is void, since a corporation cannot make a sworn statement") (footnote omitted).ROWLAND v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY•506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) Guaranty of remedy for all injuries; generally

§ 615. Guaranty of remedy for all injuries; generally

A provision guaranteeing to every person a remedy in due course of law for injury done to him in person or property (and usually also for injury done to his reputation) is found in the constitutions of many of the states. (72) It means that for such wrongs as are recognized by the law of the land, the courts shall be open and afford a remedy, (73) or that laws shall be enacted giving a certain remedy for all injuries or wrongs. (74) This provision was designed to implement the maxim that for every wrong there is a remedy, (75) and to effectuate the security and enjoyment of the "inalienable rights" guaranteed in the Constitution. (76) It assumes that for every injury done to an individual in his lands, goods, person, or reputation there is a remedy provided by law either by the statutes or by the common law. (77) "Remedy by course of law," so used, means the reparation for injury ordered by a tribunal having jurisdiction, in due course of procedure, after a fair hearing. (78)

Footnotes

(72) Brotherhood of R. Trainment v. Barnhill, 214 Ala 565, 108 So 456, 47 ALR 270; Sparks v McCrary, 156 Ala 382, 47 So 332; Comer v Age-Herald Pub. Co., 151 Ala 613, 44 So 673; State v Rose, 33 Del 168, 132 A 864, 45 ALR 85; Dougherty v American McKenna Process Co., 255 Ill 369, 99 NE 619; Hanson v Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, 75 P 1041; Commonwealth v Boston Transcript Co., 249 Mass 477, 144 NE 400, 35 ALR 1 (ovrld on other grounds Pinnick v Cleary 360 Mass 1, 271 NE2d 592, 42 ALR3d 194); Re Peters, 119 Minn 96, 137 NW 390; Coffman v Bank of Kentucky, 40 Miss 29; Re Chambers's Estate, 322 Mo 1086, 18 SW2d 30, 67 ALR 41; Ex parte French, 315 Mo 75, 285 SW 513, 47 ALR 688; Randolph v Springfieled, 302 Mo 33, 257 SW 449, 31 ALR 612, later app (Mo App) 275 SW 567; Osborn v Leach, 135 NC 628, 47 SE 811; Malin v La Moure County, 27 ND 140, 145 NW 582; Kintz v Harriger, 99 Ohio St 240, 124 NE 168, 12 ALR 1240, (ovrld on other grounds Taplin-Rice-Clerkin Co. v Hower 124 Ohio St 123, 10 Ohio L Abs 478, 177 NE 203, 81 ALR 1117); Byers v Meridian Printing Co., 84 Ohio St 408, 95 NE 917; Salt Creek Val. Turnpike Co. v Parks, 50 Ohio St 568, 35 NE 304; Stewart v. Houk, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 61 ALR 1236, reh den 127 Or 597, 272 P 893, 61 ALR 1240; Mattson v Astoria, 39 Or 577, 65 P 1066; Narragansett Electric Lighting Co. v Sabre, 50 RI 288, 146 A 777, 66 ALR 1553, reh den (RI) 147 A 668, 66 ALR 1567 and later app 51 RI 37, 150 A 756, 70 ALR 46, reh den (RI) 151 A 363, 70 ALR 52; Barnes v Kyle, 202 Tenn 529, 306 SW2d 1; Harrison, Pepper & Co v Willis, 54 Tenn 35; Townsend v Townsend, 7 Tenn 1; Hanks v Port Arthur, 121 Tex 202, 48 SW2d 944, 83 ALR 278; Clem v Evans (Tex) 291 SW 871, 51 ALR 1135; Russell v Industrial Transp. Co., 113 Tex 441, 251 SW 1034, 51 ALR 1, adhered to 113 Tex 449, 258 SW 462, 51 ALR 8; Salt Lake City v Utah Light & Traction Co., 52 Utah 210, 173 P 556, 3 ALR 715; State v Cadigan, 73 Vt 245, 50 A 1079; McCoy v Kenosha County, 195 Wis 273, 218 NW 348, 57 ALR 412; Re Keenan's Will, 188 Wis 163, 205 NW 1001, 42 ALR 836.

It is stipulated in the Florida Declaration of Rights that the courts shall be open to any person for redress of any injury. Fla Const Art I § 21.

Practice Aids. – Selecting the Remedy. 3 Am Jur Trials 637.

(73) State v Rose, 33 Del 168, 132 A 864, 45 ALR 85; Francis v Western Union Tel. Co., 58 Minn 252, 59 NW 1078; Landis v Campbell, 79 Mo 433; Pentuff v Park, 194 NC 146, 138 SE 616, 53 ALR 626, later app 195 NC 621, 143 SE 140; Osborn v Leach, 135 NC 628, 47 SE 811; Stewart v Houk, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 61 ALR 1236, reh den 127 Or 597, 272 P 893, 61 ALR 1240; Mattson v Astoria, 39 Or 577, 65 P 1066; Clem v Evans (Tex) 291 SW 871, 51 ALR 1135

A constitutional provision that courts of justice shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation, must be enforced, but it must be enforced in accordance with the law, and not in violation of the law. Wagoner County Election Board v Plunkett (Okla) 305 P2d 525.

(74) Stewart v Houk, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 61 ALR 1236, reh den 127 Or 597, 272 P 893, 61 ALR 1240; Mattson v Astoria, 39 Or 577, 65 P 1066.

(75) Holland v Mayes, 155 Fla 129, 19 So 2d 709

Generally as to the common-law principle, expressed in the equitable maxim, "ubi just ibi remedium," that wherever the law gives a right or prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy, see 1 Am Jur 2d, Actions § 47.

(76) State ex rel. Lawson v Woodruff, 134 Fla 437, 184 So 81; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v Stankard, 56 Ohio St 224, 46 NE 577.

(77) Cason v Baskins, 155 Fla 198, 20 So 2d 243, 168 ALR 430, later app 159 Fla 31, 30 So 2d 635.

(78) Neely v St. Francis Hospital & Schooll of Nursing, Inc., 192 Kan 716, 391 P2d 155; Noel v Menninger Foundation, 175 Kan 751, 267 P2d 934; Hanson v Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, 75 P 1041.

16A American Jurisprudence 2d, § 615, p. 561-562.

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.The Law of the Flag regulates the laws under which contracts entered into will be governed. (See Ruhstrat v. People.)

Any courtroom that displays such a flag behind the Judge is a military courtroom which Is operating under military law and not constitutional law, or common law, or civil law, or statute law, Restrictions. (Note added: This court is thereby receiving public funds under false and fraudulent pretense and is committing Treason against the Constitution under the 16th American Jurist Prudence Section 177).

Whereas : 1,2 American Flag such as a gold fringe MUTILATES the flag and carries a one year prison term. This is confirmed by the authority of Title 36, Section § 176 (g). The gold fringe is a fourth color and, purportedly, represents “color of military law” jurisdiction and when placed on the Title 4 U.S.C. Section §§ 1,2 Flag, mutilates the flag and suspends the Constitution. Refer to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242, see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY.

Attorney's License? Ain't No Such Thing! ATTORNEY'S LICENSE??? AIN'T NO SUCH THING!!! Bigger text (+) ... ALL LAWYERS AND LAWYER

It is the duty of every lawful Bloodline American to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public servant(s), Children's Protection Services, Police, Sheriff's, Martials, CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations, Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law, Corporations, LLC's, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers, Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America, to all matters herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that 'GOD' promised mine and your bloodline of this United States of America for all mankind thereof.Please read read title 18 all of it''The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

Citizens(Federal) and Persons vs. People

CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.---U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542---

If one is established as a “people”, individually or collectively, then one is 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.

A people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he does not trespass.

Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative..........2. Citizens - United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship. Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G. S.C.C. 5-20-1927

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.4

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified[1] in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE STATES..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

[1] This is a BOLD LIE, it was never ratified per Article V of the U.S. Constitution (Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646 and Dyett v Turner (1968) are VERY CLEAR about this)

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified[1] in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE STATES..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

“Probable cause is not established by failing to present identification upon request by a law enforcement officer.” (Moya v. United States , 761 F.2d 322, at 325-326)

“Indeed, there is no general requirement in this country for citizens to carry any identification.” (State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706 at 709, 833 P.2d 421).

“Defendant could not be arrested for refusing to give law enforcement officer his name pursuant to a statute prohibiting obstruction of public servant in discharge of his official powers.” (State v. Hoffman, 664 P.2d 1259, 35 Wa. App. 13, 16, 664 P.2d 1259).

“A detainees refusal to disclose his name, address, and other information cannot be used as the basis of an arrest.” (State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, at 103, 640 P.2d 1061).

The state, county and city, do not own anything. Article 1 Section 8. That they only land owned by the state, county and city just be within the 10 square miles or is a Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.
The 16th Amendment was never ratified, it is illegal to tax our labor. The illegal taxation on our land, homes, cars, enforced by acts of WAR is illegal. The equally illegal licensing fees, bills for water and other municipal goods and services are criminal. Just because you’ve always committed these crimes doesn’t make them lawful.
http://openjurist.org/593/f2d/109/united-states-v-friedman
48 It was not necessary for the Government to show that either Garrity or Johnson directly participated in the two transactions in question. Each conspirator is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if he is unaware of some of the acts or actors. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); Oropeza, 564 F.2d at 322.
49 The evidence supports a finding that Johnson and Garrity were members of the continuing conspiracy and that neither engaged in affirmative action constituting a withdrawal from the conspiracy. As members of the conspiracy, Garrity and Johnson are liable for these acts.
Each conspirator is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if he is unaware of some of the acts or actors. If you don’t see a name on here, it may be because, they have already written affidavits.
FRAUDULENT CONVERSION: Receiving into possession money or property of another and fraudulently withholding, converting, or applying the same to or for one's own use and benefit, or to use and benefit of any person other than the one to whom the money or property belongs.
Article. I. Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.


THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT DON DENISON ... Wasn’t it reasonable for Chief Denison to conclude that if the Oregon ... I advocate for Toledo Police Chief Don Denison ...
Denison police chief resigns | Police | dbrnews.com
www.dbrnews.com/townnews/police/denison-police-chief...

Denison police chief resigns ... John Emswiler became the Denison Chief of Police on April 1, 2015. ... Don't Threaten.
Toledo police chief resigns from department ...

www.thefreelibrary.com › … › September 15, 2006

Toledo police chief resigns from ... chief Don Denison left for Iraq this ... Denison faces discipline from the Oregon Government Standards and Practices ...
1997 I oregontrackers was trying to stop all sales of public lands American Lands Council - Legal Summary in 90 Seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqiyZsMrqPU

The British Axillary Credation To The King and or queen of england for the pope treaty o1213,AKA BAR has overthrown our courts, made a mockery of our law and have laughed at us when we try to defend ourselves against their tyranny. The BAR admits it is a private association, and every judge in California must be part of that association. Which makes every judge a former membership in that gang. There have been judges and presidents who’ve used words like, “You have no rights in MY court room.” “It’s a god damned piece of paper, stop throwing it in my face. GWB” Either we are ruled by the rule of law, or we are ruled by gang members openly striking against the law.

BAR is foreign agent. British Accreditation Registry get it. Unregistered foreign agents


Why Britain IRS Attempted to Tax American Colonists - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-britain-attempted-tax-american-colonists-1222028
Why Britain Attempted to Tax American ... the expulsion of British rule and the creation of a ... that British Members of Parliament felt the King of Britain


SECRET TREATY OF VERONA - theforbiddenknowledge.com
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_treaty_of...

SECRET TREATY OF VERONA The ... I ask to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this secret treaty, ...
The TREATY of 1213...The MAGNA CHARTA 1215...and The SECRET ...
fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and...

On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, ... Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona.
Treaty of 1213 - The Beginning of the Lie | Truth Control
www.truthcontrol.com/articles/treaty-1213-beginning-lie

... (treaty of 1213) ... Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. "The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy

British Axillary Credation To The King

Oregon democrats change the name 2006 senate bill
Changed from this Government Standards and Practices Commission Administrative ...
sos.oregon.gov/.../sched/overview-government-standards.pdf

Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission Administrative Overview August 2000 Introduction ... by the voters of Oregon. In November 1974,
As was filed on don denison former toledo police chief,
That attack my family ,As filed, with the Oregon State Attorney General as well the Oregon state house and senate,
liknk to this is on

Oregon Government Ethics Commission - Official Site
www.oregon.gov/ogec/Pages/index.aspx

Oregon Government Ethics Commission wins the “ 2016 StateScoop 50 Innovation of the Year ” award for the new Electronic Filing System!


Banks Can't Own Property
CASE LAW
Official source for United States laws is the Statue at Large and the United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. Royer’s Inc. v United States
Statue at Large are “Legal evidence” of laws contained therein and are accepted proof of these laws in any court of the United States. Bear v United States (1985 DC Neb) 611
Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, title is only prima facie evidence of law. Preston v Heckler (1984 CA9 Alaska) 734 F2d, 1359,
34CCH FPD34433, later proceeding (1984 DC Alaska) 596 F Supp 1158
Where title has not been enacted into positive law, title is only prima facie or rebuttable evidence of law, and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had to original statue
National banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of a important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. Pollard v State, Ala 1880, 65 Ala 628
See, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer Nat Bank 1913, 61 So 47,7 Ala App 285
A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens’ Nat Bank of Cameron v Good Roads Gravel Co. Tex Civ App. 1921 236 SW 153 dismissed w.o.j
A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First National Bank v Crespi & Co.Tex Civ App 1920 217 SW 705
National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v Lumberman’s Nat Bank of Portland Or 1917 168 P 616 86 Or 324
A national bank cannot act as a broker in lending its depositors’ money to third persons. Byron v First Nat Bank of Roseburg, Or 195 146 P 516 75 Or 296
A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v Cockrill, Ark. 1897, 39 S W 60, 63 Ark 418. See, also, Keyser v Hitz Dist of Col 1883 2 Mackey 513
Officers of a national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat Bank v Humphreys Okla 1917 168 P 410, 66 Okla 186
Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower’s assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on the bank. Young v Goetting, CCA. 5 (Tex) 1926, 16 F 2d 248
Bank is liable for its vice president’s participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National City Bank v Carter CCA6 (Tenn) 1926 F2d 940
Wheeler v Sohmer, Comptroller of the State of New York
Promissory notes are only evidences of debt not debt themselves!
12 USC 3754
59 CJS § 2 Mortgages Definitions
“The literal meaning of the word “mortgage” is “dead pledge” a mortuum vadium. The term mortgage may be employed as meaning the debt secured by the mortgage, but in its true sense an ordinary mortgage is not a debt as the debt is the principle obligation, and the mortgage is generally regarded as merely an incident or accessory to the debt. A mortgage is an interest in the land created by a written instrument providing security for the performance of a duty or payment of debt and is usually evidenced by a note.
Where did the money come from that they say is owed?
How does the bank have a right to say that there’s an obligation?
References:
Caddy v Cortide NY
Testy v Collons
Baker v Citizen State Bank of Louis Park
US v Stanley
Corbin on Contracts (void contracts)
Statue of Frauds
Contract Cases
Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement, without the remedy the contract may indeed, in the sense of law may be said to not exist. And its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual the ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable and both are parts of the obligation which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract “is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement”Red Cross Line v Atlantic Fruit Company 264 US 109 L Ed 582, 44 S. Ct. February 18, 1924
It is essential to the creation of a contract that there be a mutual or reciprocal assent. Sanford v Abrams (1888) 24 Fl 181, So. 373. Ross v Savage (1913) 66 Fl 106, 63 So.
148; Mc Cay v Sever (1929) 98 Fla 710, 24 So. 44; United State Rubber Products, Inc. v Clark (1941) 145 Fla 631, 200 So. 385, Mann v Thompson (1958) Fla. App D1 100 So. 2d 634
That the assent be to a certain and definite proposition. Fincher v Belk-Sawyer Co.(1961) Fla App D3 127 So. 2d 130. Goff v Indian Lake Estates, Inv. (1965 Fla. App D2) 178 So.2d 910, Hewitt v Price (1969, Fla App D3) 222 So. 2d 247
Without a meeting of the minds of the parties on an essential element, there can be no enforceable contract Hettenbaugh v Keyes Ozon – Fincher Ins. Inc. 1962 Fla App D3) 147 So. 2d 328, Goff v Indian Lake Estates, Inc. (1965 Fla App D2) 178 So. 2d 910
What are the elements? What is it? What does it do? How does it perform? What’s going to happen later? Can it be used later? Was that fully disclosed? Each and every element there has to be a meeting of the minds! UCC
In order to form a contract, the parties must have a distinct understanding, common to both, and without doubt or difference. Unless all understand alike, there can be no assent, and therefore no contract. Webster Lumber Co v Lincoln (1927) 94 Fla1097, 115 So. 498, Minsky’s Follies of Florida, Inc. v Sennes (1953 206 F2d 1 O’neil Corporate Trustees, Inc. (1967) 376 F2d 818.
Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent of both parties, the negotiation is open and imposes no obligation on either. Goff v Indian lake Estates Inc. (1965 Fla App D2) 178 So. 2d 910. Car v Duvall (1840) 39 US 77, 10 L. Ed 361
The assent of each party must be freely given; a contract entered into as a result of the exercise of duress or undue influence by the other party, or procured by the fraud of one of the parties, lacks the essential element of real assent and maybe avoided by the injured party. Wall v Bureau of Lathing and Plastering (1960 Fla App D3) 117 So. 2d 767.
An actual assent by the parties upon exactly the same matters is indispensable to the formation of the contract. Bullock v Hardwick (1947) 158 Fla 834, 30 So. 2d 539: Hettenbaugh v. Keyes Ozon-Fincher Ins. Inc. 1962 Fla App D3) 147 So 2d 328
General Finance Corp v Stratton 1963 Fla App D1, 156 So 2d 884
Title 12 Chap 17§1841 and §1813
CFR 6000 FDIC-Bank Holding Company Act
12 CFR 25,12 BANKS AND BANKING, Sec. 25.12 Definitions
12 USC Chap 3 Subchap 1 Sec. 222; 1811 and 501a; 21
Title 62 Revised Statues
Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent





Whereas ::
COURT FEES ARE FOR PERSONS-PERSONS ARE NOT PEOPLE

*******

With regard to court fees, i, libellant, john-henry, one of the people, believe the easiest way to show the facts that we are the sovereign people, is first to show what a person is not in Title 28 U.S.C. 1914 (District Court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of the court), which requires a person or persons to pay a filing fee.

Since a person or persons are required to pay a filing fee, one should denote what a person is not according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign American people.

What a person is not:
" 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)

“The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.

“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest.” [Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]

What a person is:
Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 1028
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1).

Bankruptcy Act. "Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).

Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Hawaii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term "persons" in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181.

Foreign government. Foreign governments other wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are "persons" entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.

Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are "persons" within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.

Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries representing interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).

Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are "persons" within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are "persons" for purposes of Section 1983 in those cases in which a local government would be sue able in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.

Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made Uniform, Probate Code § 5-101(3).

U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign American people, filing fees and/or their free access to the courts.

The courts must realize the sovereign people, are not bound to pay filling fees as the sovereign people are not a person, or persons. The use of the word person is the reason the sovereign American people have been tricked into paying for filing fees. It is the use of the word person in law, and the confusion, the word person creates for the average sovereign people, when used in law.

A person is a corporation, so that’s why the courts are not supposed to be falsely charging the sovereign American people to pay filing fees. When the courts state that Title 28 U.S.C. sec 1914 requires a person or persons to pay fees, that does not apply to sovereign American people. The CODE only applies to a person or persons, which are corporations. The sovereign American people require their lawful right to free access, without fees as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Take Mandatory Judicial Notice and Cognizance under (Federal Rules of Evidence 201 (d) that “plaintiff” i.e. Libellant, has a lawful right to proceed without cost, based upon the following case law:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to relief is “entitled to free access to the natural peoples judicial tribunals and public offices in every State of the Union” (2 Black 620)

Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35]. “Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful and Constitutional Right to petition this court in this matter in which he/she is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” (Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43, NAACP v Button, 371 US 415); United Mineworkers v Gibbs, 383 US 715; and Johnson v Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747 (1969).

“Petitioner (libellant) cannot be charged a fee as no charge can be placed upon a citizen as a condition precedent to exercise his/her Constitutional Rights, his/her rights secured by the Constitution. A fee is a charge fixed by law for services fixed by public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government.” Fort Smith Gas Co. v Wisemen” 189 Ark.675 74 SW.2d 789,790, from Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a natural person entitled to relief is “entitled to free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State of the Union” (2 Black 620, see also Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35].
“Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful and Constitutional Right to petition this court in this matter in which he/she is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43

NOTICE AND CONCLUSION

So in closing it is clear that the sovereign American people, petitioners/plaintiffs/libellants must have their funds, refunded if they have paid under Title 28 U.S.C. 1914 – (District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court) or not be charged at all, as the sovereign people are entitled to free access of the courts.

Plaintiffs believe this is proper, in any form, as the people’s tax dollars fund these courts. If the people are not to have free access, then the tax dollars should stop flowing, for this purpose, because it would mean the courts, are receiving enumeration twice. Once by taxes then paid, again by the people paying for a use of the courts, when, their tax dollars already paid.

Petitioner/libellant also respectfully demands the Magistrate take judicial notice of all herein under RULE 201 (d) which are adjudicated facts.

Petitioner/libellant also gives notice to the Magistrate, that the Magistrate is bound by US Supreme Court rulings please see the following. Howlett V. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases. (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1) (1958)--States are bound by United States Supreme Court Case decisions.

i declare, swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information herein is true, correct, and complete and pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

*******

THIS SECTION IS ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT NOT LEFT

this is why it has to be done in Admiralty law: In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.the states and district courts are all run by privately hired corporation.. we are treated in court as: Executive Order 6 and 7 Vol XV app-45 Only has signature of the Secretary of the state (William H Seward) Andrew Johnson the president was against the 14th Amendment He stated it creates a DEFACTO GOVERNMENT. Then, in 1868, the 14th Amendment created a different citizen making all “PERSONS”, corporations, citizens of the “UNITED STATES” and “SUBJECT TO” the “JURISDICTION” “THEREOF”.

\ It is the duty of every lawful Bloodline American to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public servant(s), Children's Protection Services, Police, Sheriff's, Martials, CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations, Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law, Corporations, LLC's, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers, Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America, to all matters herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that 'GOD' promised mine and your bloodline of this United States of America for all mankind thereof.Please read read title 18 all of it''The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

Citizens(Federal) and Persons vs. People

CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.---U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542---

If one is established as a “people”, individually or collectively, then one is 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.

A people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he does not trespass.

Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative..........2. Citizens - United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship. Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G. S.C.C. 5-20-1927
Like · Reply · January 4 at 6:37am

“While the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the state, a treaty may override the power of the state.” State of Mo. v. Holland, 40 S.Ct. 382, 252 U.S. 416, 64 L.Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984 (1920).
“The provision of the constitution of the United States that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of that government, shall be the supreme law of the land, extends not only to treaties thereafter made, but also to those in existence when the constitution was ratified by the several legislatures.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L.Ed. 568 (1796). And;
“A treaty, as a public law, is a part of the law of every case depending in the supreme court of the United States, and need not be spread on the record, but is obligatory on the court in rendering judgement on a writ of error.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 1 Wheat. 304, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816). And’
“Treaties” are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts.” Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. 410, 12 Pet. 410, 9 L.Ed. 1137 (1838). And;
“Congress is bound to regard public Treaties.” Reichert v. Felps, 73 U.S. 160, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849 (1867). And;
“Congress cannot by legislation enlarge the federal jurisdiction, and it cannot be enlarged under the treaty making power.” Mayor, Alderman and Inhabitants of City of New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S. 662, 10 Pet. 662, 9 L.Ed. 573 (1836). And;
“A treaty is more than a contract, since the constitution declares it to be the law of the land.” Haver v. Yaker, 76 U.S. 32, 9 Wall. 32, 19 L.Ed. 571 (1869). And;
“U.S.Mo. 1920. Valid treaties are binding within the territorial limits of the states as throughout the dominion of the United States.” State of Mo. v. Holland, 40 S.Ct. 382, 252 U.S. 416, 64 L.Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984 (1920). And;
"Government is not sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power...This sovereign power in our government belongs to the people, and the government of the United States and the governments of the several states are but the machinery for expounding or expressing the will of the sovereign power . . . But it must be remembered, under our government, all sovereign power is lodged in the people; and the government, by its different departments, can exercise only such power as has been delegated to it by the people. None of these delegated powers can be by the government delegated to some one else. They are only granted to the government to be in proper cases exercised by it, and not to be given to another to be exercised by that other...Because neither congress nor the treaty-making power can grant away the sovereign powers of the government, but they can only exercise them for the people to whom they belong.” Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan. R. Co., 33 F. 900, 908-13 (1888).
See also Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan et al., 44 U.S. (3 How) 212, 220 and 229 (1845), the Northwest Ordinance and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

More history
Whereas : The following facts should wake up anyone who understands basic math...the US and all states are 100% controlled by judicial and political prostitutes and the BAR is the entity that has taken over:
THE BAR CONTROLS ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.branching out in city and counties from the east-coast to the west-coast,..(See Below)
1.) The ABA/BAR has a 100% racketeering monopoly on Justice........they control every court every law; they control the entire Judicial Branch,Worker compassion claims As mine have publicly filed,Destroying families for profits work with the judges and sheriffs, police ,dhs, dmv city county and state permit's threading lawful bloodline Americans for knowing the truth. and all
2) Up to 70% of all members of every congress are BAR members.....So the BAR has infiltrated the Legislative Branch..up to 70% BAR OATH or Constitution oath to be paid under house resolution 192 should be used to cover the way it was unattended for lawful bloodline Americans
3.) Barack Obama a former BAR member, Hillary a BAR member so they have a lock on the Executive Branch
4.) Many Governors are BAR members...........(Are you starting to see a pattern ...the evidence is blatant!)
5) Adding icing to their mafia racketeering cake is the kicker of all .............the BAR controls the FBI, the US marshals, the ATF, the DEA the ENTIRE Department of Justice via BAR member Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama
6.) And the final nail in our coffin is that the BAR controls every Sheriff in almost every Country via a BAR members called the DA.........

When one takes a birds eye view of their insidious work they will realize such infiltration started in 1783 at the Signing of the Treaty of Paris.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL FILES COMPLAINT FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST STATE EMPLOYEE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Darshan A. Sheth,
(202) 254-3617, dsheth@osc.gov All parents need to file complaint on state workers the supervisors for misappropriation of state funds. The workers involved in malicious prosecution on case where the state seeks to terminate parental rights on false allegations, proceeding case without merit. The state can fraudulently obtain federal funds for these children placed in state custody, or obtain funds through administrative child support orders from working families. Actions of malicious prosecution , denial of due process parents provide the name of the state office, provide the name of the case worker , provide the name of the workers supervisor. Include the details of the case the court case the location ,the allegations , provide the detail that the child and or children were removed before allegations were ruled substantiated or unsubstantiated. Civil right violations of due process, Obstruction of justice by state official. Misuse of state official authority, court and state records, state official intent to defraud the federal government.
I _(1)__ am writing this letter to request a former investigation for criminal activity by the following state agency being__(2)___. The state worker name involved in said criminal activity is (3)_. That individuals supervisor through said agency of (4)_, located at the address off _(5)__ in the state of (6)_, in the county of (7)_, supervisor name being ,(8)_ The laws and criminal activity involved is of the following starting with Misappropriation of state funds of the state of __(9). Funds being misappropriated by this worker are fund applied to court cost in the following court case / cases being _10)_, held at the following court (11), at the address of (12)_, in the state of (13)_. I the parent of (14)_, have / have not been accused of neglect, abuse , child endangerment. There has / hasn't been any rulings on said allegations so by proceeding with said case this is Misappropriation of state and county resources being the local justice system. and courts. This also is clear violation of civil rights in the area of Malicious prosecution occurring in the court of __(15)_ with the case being (16)_. The following is the name of the judge or judges involved in the case (17)_ The attorneys involved in the case are__(18)__for the defendant being the parents of __(19)__ and the parents name are (20)__and _(21). The attorneys for the plaintiffs being (22) and the plaintiffs in the case are __(23)_. Again the criminal activity is Misappropriation of state funds by state workers accused, Misappropriation of state resources being the courts , Civil right violation by case workers being Malicious prosecution, False pretense in court case, Misappropriation of Federal funds obtained for child involved in said allegations , intent to defraud the federal government by illegal placement of child in state custody and other civil right violation of Denial of due process in court case involving said state worker For complaints on civil right violations this same form may be used but sent it to this address for civil right violations, request of investigation Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530 Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL FILES COMPLAINT FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST STATE EMPLOYEE The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775 Refer to attachment for list of individuals specified by this investigation request 1-23
All parents need to file complaint on state workers the supervisors for misappropriation of state funds. The workers involved in malicious prosecution on case where the state seeks to terminate parental rights on false allegations, proceeding case without merit. The state can fraudulently obtain federal funds for these children placed in state custody, or obtain funds through administrative child support orders from working families. Actions of malicious prosecution , denial of due process parents provide the name of the state office, provide the name of the case worker , provide the name of the workers supervisor. Include the details of the case the court case the location ,the allegations , provide the detail that the child and or children were removed before allegations were ruled substantiated or unsubstantiated. Civil right violations of due process, Obstruction of justice by state official. Misuse of state official authority, court and state records, state official intent to defraud the federal government..

Most of all to the united nation to get out of are lives,

Police are to monitor elected and public servants if one of them break a code they are arrest them

US cops seized more property than criminals stole in 2014 – FBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYTdkSH9inM
FBI SAYS: US cops seized more property than criminals stole ...
matrixbob.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/fbi-says-us...

Nov 22, 2015 · ... 2015 According to FBI statistics, US police have confiscated more assets from American citizens than ... more property than criminals stole in 2014 ...
US cops seized more property than criminals stole in 2014 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYTdkSH9inM

Nov 21, 2015 · ... American citizens than criminals stole. ... to FBI statistics, US police have confiscated ... US cops seized more property than criminals ...
US cops seized more through asset forfeiture in 2014 than US ...
boingboing.net/2015/11/23/2014-us-cops-seized-more-thro.html

Nov 22, 2015 · US cops seized more through asset ... US cops seized more through asset forfeiture in 2014 than US criminals stole ... Boing Boing uses ...