“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840). It is abiding truth that “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court·401 U.S. 222 (1971).
Public NOTICE & WARNING TO: make sure you line number and page number , Ypour are and claiming ti be responsible adult lawful bloodline American or legal immigrant register with 1938 FARA,,,Foreign Agents Registration Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of ...
6/27/2017
EVERY/ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR EMBEZZLEMENT, IDENTITY THEFT , THIEF BY DECEPTION & EXTORTION =
FAILING TO DISCHARGE ALL DEBTS PURSUANT TO 73RD CONGRESS. SESS 1. CHS. 48 49. JUNE 5, 6,1933 HJR 192 HR 1491 PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1 PUBLIC LAW 10 CHAPTER 48 STAT 112 and/or PUBLIC LAW 73-10, 40 STAT 411 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (TWEA) OCT 6, 1917 but not limited to:
Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 73-10) was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property and gold was seized by the Foreign government = unregistered foreign agents = as collateral in the bankruptcy of the United States INC.
I refer to the Federal Government's obligation to me as:P.L 10 "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112", and P.L. 73-10, 40 STAT. 411 not "HJR -192".
The Federal Government aka Elected and public servants took away my ability to pay a debt with lawful money, but that doesn't make me a subject of Congress or of the Federal Government, and thus, their resolution does not apply to me. However, their obligation to me under their Public Law does apply to me because there is insufficient lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, which includes me. When the Federal Government took much of our lawful money out of general circulation in 1933, i.e., gold coins, thus leaving an insufficient amount of lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, i.e., only silver coins remaining, the congress was required to give the people a remedy. Public Law: "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112" is that remedy .It states that the Federal Government will pay my debts, dollar for dollar.
In 1863 the first Bank Act was passed. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (or OCC) is a US federal agency established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States.
The OCC was created by Abraham Lincoln to fund the American Civil War but was later transformed into a regulatory agency to instill confidence in the National Banking system and protect consumers from misleading business practices."The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
The Lieber Code, or General Order 100 was also created by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
The National Bank Act (ch. 58, 12 Stat. 665, February 25, 1863) was a United States federal law that established a system of national charters for banks, the United States national banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, the so-called National Bank Notes. It also established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as part of the Department of the Treasury. This was to establish a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks”, raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law proved defective and was replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864. The money was used to fund the Union army in the fight against the Confederacy. This authorized the OCC to examine and regulate nationally-chartered banks.
The above only partially begins to include the historical records and other Acts of Congress that proves the US bankruptcy of 1933 and that there is no money, only credit that the American people are the Creditors. Page 400 Congressional Record – House December 13, 1929 - the Bankruptcy of 1933 a staged event to force the Federal Reserve System world wide = the largest counterfeiting ring ever established.
All utilities companies knowingly have been sending their (customers) dividends but, in fact, making each recipient believe that dividend was an invoice for services provided by the utilities companies.
The Utilities Companies have mailed through the US Mail an intentional misrepresentation of facts, unfair business practices and each utility company and agents thereof have knowingly with forethought and malice created a fraudulent debt, defrauding the Creditor, that is the recipient of said dividends, that the utilities companies lead the recipient to believe through deception is an invoice.
The utilities companies in turn then extract through extortionate measures payment from the customers instead of the utilities companies informing those same recipients that this dividend is in actuality payment to the recipient as a charged off debt pursuant to the incorporated in entirety documented evidence provided herein.
Every/all utilities companies have failed to pay off any of the public debt but rather unlawfully redirected ill-gotten gains into private corporate accounts through embezzlement, theft by deception = Identity theft of lawful bloodline Americans , fraudulent conversion, and in violation to each all incorporated in entirety laws established through and as a result of the US Bankruptcy of 1933, wherein there is no money, only “bank Notes” = debt instruments which only discharge the debt not pay it = which are but only a promise to pay thereof.
Thus all debts are to be discharged as agreed, but the utilities companies (and banks) through their greed have not discharged any debt, fraudulently making the utility customer deeper in debt by utilities companies use of “Bank Notes” or “promissory Notes” that the utilities companies add to the public debt side of the books rather than discharging the debts as stipulated in Public Laws, House Resolutions, and House Joint Resolutions.
Additionally, the alleged invoices sent to every recipient is a dividend an/or a coupon to the recipient. The utilities companies all know this to be a fact.
The Comptroller of The Currency also knows all of the above to be irrefutable facts, but is acting as a money launderingagency by/for/through/ the privately owned Federal Reserve, in Houston Texas, et al.
The Comptroller of the Currency at County, State, and Federal level all know the incorporated documents and testimony to be true, but have yet to discharge any of the public debt, therefore have misappropriated funds through embezzlement, theft by deception, obtaining money through false pretenses, extortion and other predicate acts since the date of Comptroller of the Currency inception of 1863.
All utility companies, public which are private for profit corporations, regardless of location, are knowingly participating in the fraud and ponzi scheme with the intent to fraudulently convert this and every other country’s wealth into private industry accounts by fraudulent conveyance, embezzlement, theft by deception, creating fraudulent debts, ponzi scheme and fraud through the US Mail, just for starters.
Every judge and every attorney in America or British auxiliary registry , especially those who hold positions with several direct connections into the utilities companies bank accounts and acting as attorneys for the banks, most presumably in all other countries as well, since they all get their instructions from England the same place that all the banks get their instructions through the Comptroller of The Currency headquarters in London England, each knowing the above and incorporated to be true, since they are well versed on the US Bankruptcy of 1933 and that America still remains to date in a state of Emergency and operates under English Law, though that also is supposed to be a well kept secret.
Lawyer's Secret Oath | The Betrayed
roach1958.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/lawyers-secret-oath/
Apr 19, 2010 ... BAR stands for British Accreditation Registry Web of Justice ... Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. ..... free from British rule even today we are are still being ruled by the Queen of England.
Hiding Behind the BAR - Angelfire
www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/Hiding_Behind_the_BAR.html
Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. .... named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry ..
HJR192 otherwise known as Public Law 73-10. All debts public and private are paid for. All of these
to big to fail conglomerate corporations need to be disbanded or stopped from happening in the first
place, including the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.
“It is a clearly established principle of law that an attorney must represent a corporation, it being incorporeal and a creature of the law. An attorney representing an artificial entity must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered to act on the principal’s behalf.” See, Foreign Agents Registration Act” (22 USC § 612 et seq.); Victor Rabinowitz et. at. v. Robert F. Kennedy,376 US 605. “Failure to file the "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC §§ 219, 951. The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious.
A Lawyer can not make a claim to your rights , Only you can . Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee's mind blowing assertion in
United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania - 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947) February 26, 1947 , 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; 18 U.S. Code § 661 - Within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
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)
Title 42 § 408(a)(8) Title 42 § 408
(a) In general Whoever -
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Fraud by Trickery = Violations of Oath and Bond = High Treason = Acts of Crimes against humanity: = Slavery = Bond Servants
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432, § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and re-designated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively.
U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933
FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word "without" to citizens "within" the United States
To cover the debt in 1933 and future debt, the corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each incorporated individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the "holder" of "Title." This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant = Crimes against humanity thereof by the Federal Corporation, the Pope, Catholic Cult and International Banking community = collusion thereof = R.I.C.O. = Acts of High Treason thereof.
'THE TRUE MEANING OF THE DOLLAR''
DOLLAR'' “Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars.” Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel,Department of the Treasury, February 18, 1977. “The term dollars likewise is incorrect, which, according to constitutional definition, are monetary units, used in exchange, backed by gold and silver. Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution for the united states of America 1787-1789 set the standard of the meaning of a ''dollar'' as: ''coin Money fixed in Standard of Weights and Measures, and Article I Sec. 10 says: No State shall 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. Federal Reserve notes are fiat issues that impair the Obligation of Contracts...Our present day fiat issues are supported by more printed paper of the same; therefore, they are correctly termed Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), not dollars. Robert P. Vichas, Handbook of Financial Mathematics, Formulas, and Tables. Federal Reserve Notes cannot be redeemed in gold or silver and are openly avowed to have lost their character as money and their circulation as currency ceased when they were vitiated of all silver PER 81 STAT. PUBLIC LAW 90-29-JUNE 24, 1967. “No state can make these notes a legal tender and Congress is incompetent to authorize a state to make these notes a legal tender as the Constitution for the unites states of America is the supreme law of the land.” Section 432 (requiring creditors to accept paper money as lawful payment) is unconstitutional and void and on its face. “The common law requires a lawful consideration for any contract or note and whenever there is not a lawful consideration - - that is someone gave up something to make a contract.
The dollar does not exist anywhere outside a world of fiction.
This means there “IS NO MONEY.” It further means that since there is no money American’s signatures are used as the credit to run this country. That in turn means that it is the American people whom are the Creditors not the Debtors, as the banks and utilities companies would like everyone to believe.
The utilities companies have been operating with this knowledge with intent, forethought and malice to commit the crimes mentioned herein but not limited to.
Due to the facts incorporated herein in entirety, all debts are to be charged off, including but not limited to every alleged utilities invoice, which each/all have actually been a dividend, for which every utilities company embezzled payment through fraud, using extortion and other threats to discontinue service if “Payment is not made.”
These alleged invoices were dividends that every utilities company using deceptive business practice lead the public to believe were debts owed, when it is a fact that it is the utilities companies who owe the American public all those fraudulently received ill gotten gains plus the interest, stocks, bonds and other proceeds derived therefrom.
All utilities companies are now put on notice that all debts are to be charged off pursuant to the stipulated and incorporated herein Acts et al.
THE FIFTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS has issued a stunning ruling admitting that the United States and the federal courts have been systematically misapplying the income tax as a non-apportioned direct tax for decades. The clear implication is that literally trillions of dollars have been improperly taken from their rightful owners.
The further implication is that hundreds of men and women-- perhaps even thousands-- have been victims of legal harassment and intimidation, property seizures, character assassination and even imprisonment, all based on a fraud. At the same time, it is clear that the explosive (and, some would say, republic-eroding) growth of the federal government over the same period has been financed by this same scheme.
THE PARADIGM-SHATTERING ADMISSION by the panel of the circuit court (which has since been replicated in other circuits, as well) came in a ruling reported as Parker v. Comm'r, 724 F.2d 469. Alton Parker, an otherwise unremarkable "Fifth Amendment" tax protestor, had appealed a Tax Court decision finding him liable for taxes on conceded taxable activity.
In the appellate court, Parker raised an additional argument beyond the confused notion that completing a tax form amounted to "self-incrimination". Parker also squarely challenged the appellate court with the assertion that, as put by the panel, "the IRS and the government in general, including the judiciary, mistakenly interpret the sixteenth amendment as allowing a direct tax on property (wages, salaries, commissions, etc.) without apportionment."
The circuit court panel found itself unable to dispute Parker's allegation, and ultimately admitted its accuracy.
THE ADMISSION BY THE COURT IS (perhaps unsurprisingly) circumspectly and even deceptively made. It takes the form of a complete misrepresentation of an old (but still standing and widely-cited) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring the high court to have said exactly the opposite of what it actually says. (See the misrepresentation, and what the Supreme Court actually says, here.)
Despite the awkwardness of this approach, however, the circuit court's evasion of Parker's allegation constitutes a definitive admission of its accuracy under routine principles of law. As the Supreme Court puts it,
"Indeed, as Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, supra, which involved a deportation: "Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character." 263 U.S. at 263 U. S. 153-154. And just last Term, in Hale, supra, the Court recognized that "[f]ailure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . . if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 176. [footnote 3]."
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)
Plainly, an outright falsehood in response to an assertion is the equivalent of silence as meant in these statements of the law by the high court. In fact, falsehood such as that resorted-to by the Fifth Circuit panel simply makes clear that the circuit court recognized its duty to have validly objected to the assertion presented had it been able to do so, thus making its failure to do so that much more plainly an admission of the assertion's accuracy.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT how extensively the Parker court's admission of the misapplication of the income tax will be called-upon in legal actions for redress sure to come from victims of what is now acknowledged to have been abusive-- if not criminal-- behavior by government, tax agency, and judicial officials under the auspices of tax law. No doubt the clamor will be very loud indeed.
From the Uniform Bonding Code (UBC): 7.6 - Bonding Municipal Corporations
LAW OF THE LAND: Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign indivi...dual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdictions over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their Courts. A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally. Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again. This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE COUNTY and CITY Elected and public Servant's control.
Men and woman are sovereign – not Government(s) = Black ink on White Paper = Fraud by Trickery:
The mother allegedly abandons the child at birth as the Informant on the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH so, the 'State' (attorneys) "pick you up" and assume ownership and control over your body while your STRAW MAN = NAME remains on file at the STATE REGISTRAR'S OFFICE. Under the the Doctrine of parens patriae, "The STATE is your daddy". This is why CPS and DCF AGENTS are dispatched. They show up to claim their property. When the "STATE" becomes dissatisfied with your parenting skills or someone makes a phone call against you to an AGENT for the oppressive STATE, your child is taken. They come and take your child as part of a for-profit venture and modus operandi. The BAR attorneys want you to pay into the system to support their crooked attorney FIRM, support the BAR Association and pay the bankers fees in the unconstitutional pseudo CORPORATE COURTS = kidnapped held for ransom = inland piracy = Human Trafficking thereof.
Duress
"An agreement obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced. Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid. Like other voidable contracts, it is valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. However, duress in the form of physical compulsion, in which the party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void."
--American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress, Section 21 Corpus delicti - literally "body of the crime"
No injury or loss... no criminal case.(period.)
HERE'S SOME INFORMATION MOST OF YOU AREN'T AWARE OF:
In 1868, there was a corporation founded and in that particular company, the founders of that company called it the "United States Corporation" and they stipulated that anybody who would be a member of that corporation or worked for that corporation, would be called, not an employee but a "citizen". So today, if you are asked, ‘are you a citizen of the United States’, what you think you're being asked is, 'are you lawfully in this country to do business?' but that's not lawfully, what's being asked. They didn't ask you if you are an American, lawfully, they asked you a specific question... are you, of your own volition, out of your own mouth testifying that you are a citizen of the United States because in that way, citizen of the United States means you are an employee of a foreign corporation, operating under international maritime law. So today, the President of United States is the President of a privately owned company. The company is called "United States" and the word "President", is always the word used in corporate law - banks have Presidents, all companies have Presidents. President Trump is not the President of America. President Bush is the president of a privately owned company, privately owned out of England. We need to understand words and terms and they have been used to trick and enslave you...by signature of you rights over to the newly form CORPS
US GOV Elected and public servants aka employees laughing about stealing land also raping and robbing, kidnapping holding woman man and children for ransom as filed destroying family's for personal gain for the British foreign 1871 government contracted elected and public servants service of employment . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFGlIvY6oTw&t=629s ,,,,,,,,,Gov't employee brags about stealing land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jeLi14p-KU
Constitution lawful Bloodline American, Article II[5], Republic V 1871 British democratic Legal Democracy fraud please read about the law .The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between natural born lawful bloodline American and immigration citizens of the United States** (compare 2:1:5 with Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment). One is an, unconditional, Sovereign by natural birth, who is endowed by the Creator, Not Government(s), with certain unalienable rights; the other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.** citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the federal zone aka Washington, DC, New York City NY and the Holding Territories belonging to the United States). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses.
“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840). It is abiding truth that “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court·401 U.S. 222 (1971).
Judge Rules that Government Debt is Covered by FDCPA, Forcing Collection Agency to Defend
https://www.insidearm.com/news/00005574-judge-rules-that-government-debt-is-cover/
PAYMENT vs DISCHARGE
In short, real money like silver and gold coins PAY OFF debts, while Debt notes such as Federal Reserve Notes, merely DISCHARGE debts. And what is PAID by a free man, is NOT subject to State regulation (i.e. drugs, guns, etc.). ONLY when you DISCHARGE a debt instead of paying it off, the State REGULATES the thing that "bought" with DEBT NOTES.
Justice Department warns local courts about illegal enforcement of fees and fines
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_department_warns_local_courts_about_illegal_enforcement_of_fees_and
18 U.S. Code § 1911 - Receiver mismanaging property | US Law ...
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1911
Whoever, being a receiver, trustee, or manager in possession of any property in any cause pending in any court of the United States, willfully fails to manage and ...
18 U.S. Code Chapter 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ...
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-93
18 U.S. Code Chapter 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ... Nepotism in appointment of receiver or trustee · § 1911 - Receiver mismanaging property ...
1638. Embezzlement Of Government Property -- 18 U.S.C. § 641 ...
://www.justice.gov/.../criminal-resource-manual-1638...
There are six elements to the crime of embezzlement, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 641. These are: (1) a trust or fiduciary relationship between the defendant and ...
1643. Definition -- Property Protected By 18 U.S.C. 641 | USAM...
://www.justice.gov/.../criminal-resource-manual-1643...
Generally, jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 641 turns on the nature of the government's interest in the property which has been stolen. If that interest is sufficient, ...
18 U.S.C. 641 - Public money, property or records
://www.gpo.gov/.../USCODE-2011.../content-detail.html
Jan 3, 2012 ... Sec. 665 - Theft or embezzlement from employment and training funds; improper inducement; obstruction of... PDF | Text | More ...
8.39 Theft of Government Money or Property | Model Jury...
www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/497
8.39 THEFT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY OR PROPERTY (18 U.S.C. § 641). The defendant is charged in [Count ______ of] the indictment with theft of ...
Is a 18 USC Section 641 a felony or misdemeanor, is it also
://www.justanswer.com/.../4r8pr-18-usc-section-641-felony...
Federal law, in 18 U.S.C. 3553, defines crimes as felonies or misdemeanors based on the penalties involved. As relates to 18 U.S.C. 641, it says: ...
5 USC § 3331 Oath of office: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 81 › § 1660 Receipt of pirate property
Whoever, without lawful authority, receives or takes into custody any vessel, goods, or other property, feloniously taken by any robber or pirate against the laws of the United States, knowing the same to have been feloniously taken, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
US Constitution Article. II. Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
All civil officers are impeachable for crimes committed against me. Anything over 5 days in jail is also removal from office. It is a high crime to commit a WAR crimes by color of an unlawful office.
Under the "Nuremberg defense". Defendants were “only following orders" which specifically stated that following an unlawful (Unconstitutional) order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."
"Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section."
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State."
A living, breathing, walking, talking man/woman on the land and is still a crime victim, corpus delicti of more than just piracy. When people are victims of criminal conversion and barratry, and coercion into the "office of the person" (U.S. citizen/DECEDENT/enemy of the state/DEBTOR, then they're held as surety for a BOND, and/or collateral for an artificial bankruptcy created by the Crown Bank called FEDERAL RESERVE.
"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." Journals of the Continental Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.
Notice: All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited. This Public email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights,Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights Notice.Copy right lawful bloodline Americans , lawful Americans 2013*The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Anything stated in this email may be limited in the content and is not to be taken out of context.**Wireless Copyright Notice**. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message.Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C, 1-207.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS
Authorized representative for accounts;_______________________________________________
Autograph _______________________________________-
Right thumb print_______________
http://new.oregontrackers.com/home.html
The Original Constitution
HOW TO PROVE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; NO EVIDENCE AN ACTUAL FORM EXISTS:
How to prove a procedural due process violation:
LIFE
LIBERTY
PROPERTY
1. Show that the government has deprived* you of a non-trivial protected interest, one that the Supreme Court would recognize as falling into one of the three boxes above.
*The deprivation by the government must not be based on simple negligence (e.g., prison officials losing the personal property of an inmate.)
(Note: Critics of this atomistic approach believe that it would be more consistent with framers' intent (and more sensible) to simply require a showing of a governmental deprivation that caused a serious injury.)
2. Show that your loss of the process you claim is owed you (taking into account the seriousness of your deprivation and including the added risk of an erroneous deprivation) outweighs the government's interests in not affording the process in question.
Aspects of Due Process ("Fundamental Fairness")
1. The government must provide notice of the charges against you.
2. The government must be able to show that there is an articulated (non-vague) standard of conduct which you are accused of violating.
3. The government must provide you with an opportunity to rebut their charges against you in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time (the "hearing requirement").
4. In order to sustain its position (i.e., its deprivation of your liberty or property), the government must establish--at a minimum--that there is substantial and credible evidence supporting its charges.
5. The government must provide some explanation to the individual for the basis of any adverse finding.
Some examples of procedural protections that may be required for certain types of deprivations:
1. Elevated burdens of proof that the government must satisfy, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal cases) or "clear and convincing evidence" (termination of parental rights).
2. The right to counsel.
3. The right to a pre-deprivation hearing.
4. The right to cross-examine witnesses.
5. The right to have a neutral person review an adverse decision.
6. The right to recover compensation for a wrongful deprivation.
7. The right to be present when adverse evidence is presented to the fact-finder.
Brief on jurisdiction
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
And, you may find this interesting as well:
"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1. "The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.
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/libella nts 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
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
___________________________________________________
on this fifth day of the tenth month, Two Thousand, Fifteen A.D.
:john-henry: doe
Two Constitutions
This Petition is to allow your voice to be heard
This Petition is to allow your voice to be heard.
We the undersigned
Expect that our public employee agency Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) do their job in making our constitutional rights to feed ourselves and our families.
Our Constitution states the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The eight Fisheries Management Councils along with ODFW are working to privatize our fisheries for their personal gain. Used in their decision making, their scientific information is severely flawed. All evidence is based on a guesstimate and is NO real scientific evidence at all. It appears that the ODFW agency is not preserving their goal of protecting Oregonians Constitutional right to our food resources.
I’m a proud person to be able to feed myself and or my family, with out feeling disgraced and humiliated by being forced to seek handouts or public assistance. Being An American is a pride when you pass down the technique of being self sufficient. We demand no privatization of our public resources and our land for financial gain of public employee's or private corporations. It is a privilege to be a public employee and not an entitlement. Our coastal subsistence fisheries limit shall consist of 15 daily fish per person for the subsistence fisher person to feed their families (4% of total subsistence fishery stated by ODFW), and that ALL subsistence fisher persons will be allowed to use their boats in the mouth of all jetty jaws and bays and estuaries. Aside from donations, ODFW is funded by anyone who purchases a hunting or a fishing license or taxable equipment for hunting or fishing. Party and Charter Boat limits should be at 8 daily fish per person as requested by the industry themselves.
Signed by
Oregon Treaty of 1846
Historical Summary
The Oregon Treaty of 1846 was an agreement with Great Britain that gave the U.S. undisputed claim to the Pacific Northwest south of the 49th parallel. The states carved out of this treaty are the present states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and the southwest corner of Wyoming. This treaty with Great Britain was signed on June 12, 1846 [9 Stat. 869], and all federal land patents of these states flow from the treaty and fall under the supremacy clause of the constitution, therefore, no state, private banking corporation or other federal agency can question the superiority of title to landowners who have "perfected" their land by federal land patent. Jurisdiction by any state court is invalid, and since federal land patents cannot be collaterally attacked as to their validity or authenticity as highest evidence of title, no mortgage institution can claim title to land by its “lien." Certified federal land patents were given free and clear title with no encumbrances, then or now!
The lead case that said treaty law cannot be interfered with by a state legislature in Ware v. Hylton, [(1976) 3 Dall. (3 U.S. 199)]. In this the Supreme Court held that a treaty is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Section 2: "and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”!)...that any act of the legislature cannot stand in its way because a treaty is the declared will of the people ,of all the United States and shall be superior to the constitution and laws of any individual state." [Emphasis by the court.] In other words federal land patents put into evidence by a land owner cannot be challenged by a state court because it flows from a United States treaty, and therefore, no court has jurisdiction over title or ownership to land that traces its source to the paramount or common source of title from the United States government, banks and private corporations notwithstanding, because federal land patents were never given to corporations, only to private citizens hence the term "private land claim" or “PLC" (as we call it) used by the Bureau of Land Management as the date of the original patent.
The lead case for the Louisiana Purchase States is American Insurance Company v. Canter [(1828) 1 Pet (26 U.S.) 511] in which Justice Marshall held the power to make treaties is an absolute power of the United States government and from that power arises the right to govern it, i.e., treaty law is superior to any state laws* and is the supreme law of the land (“zoning law” included*).
THE OREGON TREATY, 1846
TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
IN REGARD TO LIMITS WESTWARD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.
The United States of America and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, deeming it to be desirable for the future welfare of both countries that the state of doubt and uncertainty which has hitherto prevailed respecting the sovereignty and government of the territory on the northwest coast of America, lying westward of the Rocky or Stony Mountains, should be finally terminated by an amicable compromise of the rights mutually asserted by the two parties over the said territory, have respectively named plenipotentiaries to treat and agree concerning the terms of such settlement -- that is to say: the President of the United States of America has, on his part, furnished with full powers James Buchanan, Secretary of State of the United States, and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has, on her part, appointed the Right Honorable Richard Pakenham, a member of her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, and her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States; who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles: --
Article I.
From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and conventions between the United States and Great Britain terminates, the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and those of her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provided, however, That the navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits, south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, remain free and open to both parties.
Article II.
From the point at which the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia River, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers, it being understood that all the usual portages along the line thus described shall, in like manner, be free and open. In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood that nothing in this article shall he construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers not inconsistent with the present treaty.
Article III.
In the future appropriation of the territory south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in the first article of this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be already in the occupation of land or other property lawfully acquired within the said territory, shall be respected.
Article IV.
The farms, lands, and other property of every description, belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia River, shall be confirmed to the said company. In case, however, the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public and political importance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole, or of any part thereof, the property so required shall be transferred to the said government, at a proper valuation, to be agreed upon between the parties.
Article V.
The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by her Britannic Majesty; and the ratifications shall he exchanged at London, at the expiration of six months from the date hereof, or sooner, if possible.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms.
Done at Washington, the fifteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.
(signed by)
JAMES BUCHANAN
RICHARD PAKENHAM
Courts Exhibit:
The Oregon Treaty of 1846 was. An agreement with Great Britain that gave the U.S. undisputed claim to the Pacific Northwest south of the 49th parallel. The states carved out of this treaty are the present states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and the south west corner of Wyoming. This treaty with Great Britain was signed on June 15 1846 {9 Stat. 869}., and all federal land patents of these states flow from the treaty and fall under the supremacy clause of the constitution. Therefore, no state, private banking corporation or other federal agency can question the superiority of title to land owners who have perfected their land by federal land patent. Jurisdiction by any state court is invalid, and since federal land patents cannot be collaterally attacked as to their validity or authenticity as highest evidence of title, no mortgage institution can claim title to land by its "lien." Certified federal land patents were given free and clear title with no incumbrances, then or now!
The lead case that said treaty1aw cannot be interfered with by a state legislature in Ware vs.Hylton [(1976)3 Dall. (3 U.S. 199)]. In this the Supreme Court held that a treaty is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Section 2: "and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary
Notwithstanding” 1)...that any act of the legislature cannot stand in its way because a treaty is the declared will of the people of all the United States and shall be superior to the constitution and laws of any individual State. [Emphasis by the court.] In other words federal land patents put into evidence by a land owner cannot be challenged by a state court because it flows from a United States treaty, and therefore, no court has jurisdiction over title, or ownership to land that traces its source to the paramount or common source of title from the United States government, banks and private corporations notwithstanding, because federal land patents were not given to corporations, only private citizens hence the term "private land claim" or “PLC (as well as we call it) used by the Bureau of Land Management as the date of the original patent.
The lead case for the Louisiana Purchase States is American Insurance Company vs. Canter [(1828) 1 Pet (26 U.S.) 511] in which Justice Marshall had the power to make treaties in an absolute power of the United States government and from that power arises the right to govern it, i.e., treaty law is superior to any state laws and it is the supreme law of the land, “zoning law” included.
Exhibit #4
lawful rights to travel page
A Woman Who Drives Without A License - And Tells How
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6mqBZEzfo
Believe in your Constitutional Rights
Comprehend you are responsible for your actions for your Constitutional Rights.
Go to the following to affirm your rights according to documents of our founding fathers:
Find Your States Constitution Here
The Constitution gives equal rights
to every color across the board
Black,Red,Yellow Green,Blue
The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between natural born Citizens and citizens of the United States** (compare 2:1:5 with Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment). One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth, who is endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; the other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.** citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the federal zone). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses.
“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.
Ed Johnston © 2013 Lawful Bloodline American All rights reserved A.K A. Lawful American