As the Justice Department and FBI targets innocent parents concerned about critical race theory, Judicial Watch just received a 53-page training document from a whistleblower which details how public schools are using teachers to push critical race theory in classrooms.
The training course for the Westerly School District in Rhode Island was assembled by the left-leaning Highlander Institute and cites quotes from Bettina Love, from whom the Biden administration distanced itself publicly after her statements equating “whiteness” to oppression.
The document reveals the following:
Highlander Institute partners with communities to imagine and create more equitable, relevant, and effective schools.
Highlander Institute is named after the Highlander Folk School, a social justice leadership training school and cultural center located in New Market, Tennessee known for its role during the Civil Rights Movement.
What this document shows is that yet another school district, under the rubric of critical race theory, wants to use teachers to abuse their positions to turn children into Marxist agitators. Rather than threatening parents, the Justice Department should be investigating this rampant racism being pushed by lefitst extremists in schools across America.
Judicial Watch Sues for Details on Biden Administration Shut Down of China-COVID Investigation
The Biden State Department shut down a national security investigation into China’s role in the COVID pandemic, and the American people deserve to know why.
So we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for records related to an investigation into the origins of COVID by the Bureau of Arms Control and Verification (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:21-cv-02147)).
We sued after the State Department failed to respond to a simple May 28, 2021, FOIA request for:
We took action after reports surfaced that the Biden administration shut down an investigation by the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control and Verification ordered by the Trump administration in Fall 2020 to “investigate the origins of COVID-19 and whether the virus stemmed from a leak out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.” On January 15, then-Secretary of State Michael Pompeo issued a statement saying:
The COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable. Any responsible country would have invited world health investigators to Wuhan within days of an outbreak. China instead refused offers of help – including from the United States – and punished brave Chinese doctors, scientists, and journalists who tried to alert the world to the dangers of the virus. Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one.
We’ve been very busy investigating burgeoning cover-up by Fauci and his allies:
In July 2021, we uncovered emails and other records from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials in connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, revealing significant collaborations and funding that began in 2014. The records reveal that NIAID gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also include an email from the Vice Director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
Also in July 2021, we uncovered CDC records showing that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.
In June 2021, we revealed that the NIAID under Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $826,000 for bat coronavirus research from 2014 to 2019. Also in June, Judicial Watch announced it filed Freedom of FOIA lawsuits against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the State Department for information on the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
In March 2021, we uncovered emails and other records of Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from HHS showing that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020. Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIAID’s Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.
In October 2020, we received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 300 pages of Fauci’s emails, including his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.
You can see how essential Judicial Watch’s watchdog work is in uncovering the full truth about the origins of COVID-19. And our work isn’t over by a long shot.
Judicial Watch Sues Pentagon for Videos/Photos of Afghans Clinging to or Falling from Aircraft in Kabul
Of course, the Biden administration is running from its Afghanistan disaster, but we intend to hold them to account for the catastrophic surrender.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Pentagon for videos and photos of Afghans clinging to or falling off U.S. military aircraft at the Kabul airport. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:21-cv-02543)).
We sued after the Defense Department failed to respond to a basic FOIA request for:
Images, including video, showing Afghans clinging to the sides of a U.S. military aircraft at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan;
Images, including video, of persons falling from a U.S. Air Force C-17 military transport aircraft after taking off from the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Human remains were found in the wheel well of a C-17 aircraft that had taken off from Kabul. According to the Air Force, “Before the aircrew could offload the cargo, the aircraft was surrounded by hundreds of Afghan civilians who had breached the airport perimeter. Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation around the aircraft, the C-17 crew decided to depart the airfield as quickly as possible. In addition to videos seen online and in press reports, human remains were discovered in the wheel well of the C-17 after it landed at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. The aircraft is currently impounded to provide time to collect the remains and inspect the aircraft before it is returned to flying status.”
Biden’s Afghanistan surrender was an unmitigated disaster that directly killed and placed in harm’s way our troops and U.S. citizens. And no one will ever forget the images of Afghanis falling from and clinging to our military aircraft. Adding to the Afghan scandal, photos and video of this disaster are now being hidden, contrary to the law, from the American people.
And I trust you know that this lawsuit will likely be the first of many as we seek accountability on what I consider to be the most humiliating defeat in American history.
Jail for Bangladeshi Smuggler Caught Amid Rise in Migrants from Terrorist Nations
Biden’s border crisis has been good business for transnational criminals and the human trafficking operations they run. One such criminal has been apprehended and sent to jail, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.
A Bangladeshi man based in Mexico has been sentenced to 46 months in prison for operating an “international human smuggling conspiracy” during a period in which the U.S. saw a spike in migrants from terrorist nations entering the country through the famously porous southern border. The smuggler, 41-year-old Mohamad Milon Hossain, lived in Tapachula in the southeast Mexican state of Chiapas bordering Guatemala. For years Hossain assisted human smugglers operating out of Bangladesh, South and Central America as well as Mexico to “bring numerous undocumented individuals to the U.S. border in exchange for payment,” according to federal documents.
The Bangladeshi smuggler maintained a hotel in Tapachula where illegal immigrants would stay on their way to the U.S., federal authorities say. He then provided the migrants with plane tickets and other tools so they could travel from Tapachula to Monterrey in the northeastern Mexican state of Nuevo León where a fellow smuggler took over and assisted their illegal crossing into the U.S. “Hossain was a key facilitator and smuggler of Bangladeshi nationals and his actions put our national security at risk,” said Shane Folden, the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agent in charge in San Antonio, Texas, where the case was cracked. Folden added that “HSI is committed to working with its domestic and international partners to combat this type of crime throughout the globe.”
When Hossain got arrested in late 2019 migrants from terrorist nations were trying to enter the United States through Mexico at record rates. At the time an alarming congressional investigation exposed an astounding 300% increase in Bangladeshi nationals attempting to sneak into the country through Texas alone. The feds apprehended Hossain after arriving on a flight at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. He was charged with smuggling 15 illegal aliens from Bangladesh through the Texas-Mexico border in exchange for payment from March 2017 to August 2018. An accomplice, stationed in Monterrey, where the aliens would stay before the last leg of their trek to the United States, has pleaded guilty for his role in the illicit scheme. The feds say he paid drivers to transport the aliens to the U.S. border and gave them instructions how to cross the Rio Grande River.
In the last few years Bangladesh has had a greater presence in the Mexican border region though Syria and Yemen are also well represented. Bangladesh is a South-Asian Islamic country well known as a recruiting ground for terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). The smuggling operation run by Hossain is part of a broader crisis involving a growing demographic of illegal aliens from terrorist nations entering the U.S. through the Mexican border. The government classifies them as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) and they are flowing north via Latin America in huge numbers, thanks to established Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCO) that facilitate travel along drug and migrant smuggling routes. Tens of thousands of SIAs—from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa—entered Panama and Colombia in recent years. Nearly all the SIA migrants were headed to the United States and most came from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, and India. Encounters with the special interest individuals resulted in the seizure of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents—including passports and visas—that facilitated travel from their countries of origin through the Americas, the previously cited congressional probe found.
Years ago Judicial Watch, as part of an ongoing investigation into the national security threats created by the porous southern border, uncovered that Mexico is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism. Islamic jihadists are training in southern border towns near American cities and have joined forces with Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate the United States. A few years ago, a high-ranking Homeland Security official confirmed to Judicial Watch that Mexican drug traffickers help Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks. Among the jihadists that traveled back and forth through the southern border was a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso. Another was a Saudi Al Qaeda operative, Adnan G. El Shurkrjumah, wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during his undetected cross-border jaunts.
Until next week …
They need more accountability. It is not just a race issue.
Jindal: 'Let's just get rid of the court' Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) condemned the Supreme Court on Friday following its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Just close down all the courts of injustices. Set up Common Law Grand Jury's like it should be. Of course the best option is no court and set up mediation outlets.
Democrats are thugs. Those moron Republicans that support the Dems are guilty of treason.
Other interesting links I found are ...
Not for lawyers, but this link seemed good.
BREAKING: New Questions about U.S. Capitol Police Shooting of Unarmed Ashli Babbitt
Previously secret records we have obtained show there was no good reason to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt in the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The Biden-Garland Justice Department and the Pelosi Congress have much to answer for over the mishandling and cover-up of this scandalous killing of an American citizen by the U.S. Capitol Police.
We received 532 pages of documents through a May 2021 FOIA lawsuit filed after DC failed to respond to two April, 2021 FOIA requests we submitted to the Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for records related to Babbitt’s death (Judicial Watch v. The District of Columbia (No. 2021 CA 001710 B)).
Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window in the United States Capitol. The 14-year Air Force veteran was unarmed. The identity of the shooter was kept secret by Congress as well as federal and local authorities for eight months until U.S. Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd went public to try to defend his killing of Ms. Babbitt.
On April 14, 2021, the Justice Department issued a press release stating: “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt …”
The new records include the January 6, 2021, Metro PD Death Report for Babbitt (identified as Ashli Elizabeth McEntee-Babbitt Pamatian). The investigators note that the possible Manner of Death was “Homicide (Police Involved Shooting).” The narrative description of the “Terminal Event” (Babbitt’s death) notes that “the victim was shot inside of the U.S. Capitol building. After being shot, the victim was transported to Medstar for advance life support, however after several attempts to revive the victim, she succumb [sic] to her injury and was pronounced dead at 1515 hours by Dr. [redacted] the attending physician.” Under the “Investigation/Medical History” portion of the report, the investigators wrote, Babbitt “was involved in a first amendment demonstration at the U.S. Capitol…. the decedent was shot by a member of Law Enforcement after breaching a secured room at First Street, Southeast, Washington, DC, (U.S. Capitol Building).” Under the description of the Body, the investigators note, “The decedent suffered a single shot wound to the upper portion of the left chest near the clavicle.”
In a January 6, 2021, “Incident Report,” under “Public Narrative,” the investigators wrote, “On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, Subject-1 had entered the United States Capitol during a riotous event. While inside of the building, Subject-1 had attempted to enter a secured area and was shot in the chest. Subject-1 was transported to a local trauma hospital where lifesaving efforts provide futile. Subeject-1 was pronounced dead at 1515 hours by Dr. [redacted].”
Under the “Internal Narrative” section, the investigators wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the Unites States Capitol Police was assigned as the House Chamber Commander during the day work tour of duty. At approximately 1446 hours, while providing protection to the House Chambers during a riotous act, Lieutenant Byrd discharged his issued service pistol and struck Subject-1 in the chest. Lieutenant Byrd’s issued service pistol was initially secured by members of the United States Capitol Police, Internal Affairs Division, however, the service pistol was ultimately taken by the Department of Forensic Sciences. The office involved shooting is being investigated by the MPD-IAD and is assigned IS# [redacted].
On January 7, 2021, a “Senior Police Officer/Agent” in the Metro PD Internal Affairs Division emailed an Assistant U.S. Attorney:
[P]lease let this serve as an official notification regarding a serious use of force. On January 6, 2021, United States Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd … was involved in a fatal, Use of Force (Service Pistol) approximately 1446 hours while in an area of the Capitol building known as the Speakers Lobby. Lieutenant Byrd discharged his service pistol one time which struck Ms. Ashli McEntee in her left shoulder … I will be the lead agent regarding Lieutenant Byrd’s UOF
An April 14, 2021, letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips to Metro PD Assistant Chief Wilfredo Manlapaz, notifies Manlapaz:
This office has considered the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged use of excessive force in the above-captioned case [United States Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd]. We have decided to decline criminal prosecution of the above-listed officer as a result of this incident. Accordingly, this matter is referred to you for whatever administrative action you deem appropriate.
A Metro PD Internal Affairs Division report indicates that the Internal Affairs Division interviewed Lt. Michael Byrd and another United States Capitol Police officer (whose name is withheld), on January 6, 2021, at 7:38 p.m. and the interview was recorded. The investigators note that Byrd, on duty that day since 7:00 a.m., was only equipped with his service weapon, but no ASP (telescoping baton) or OC (pepper spray). He’d last qualified on the shooting range on October 22, 2020. The report notes, “Lieutenant Byrd declined to provide a statement until he can consult an attorney.” The interviewing agent asked Byrd to have his attorney contact him.
The records include a January 6, 2021, Internal Affairs Division report of an interview conducted of a United States Capitol Police Sergeant, whose name is withheld:
Someone on the House Floor shouted that there had been shots fired. Sergeant [redacted] was advised that the sound was breaking glass, not gunshots. He radioed that the report of gunshots was incorrect, that it was glass breaking. Sergeant [redacted] was approached by an officer who advised that the sound was, in fact, gunshots. Sergeant- went back over the radio and reported that there were gunshots on the House Floor.
Sergeant [redacted] walked out of the House Chamber, into the Speaker’s Lobby and observed glass being broken out of the doors and windows at the east end of this area. He observed that an officer and Lieutenant Byrd had taken up positions and had their guns out. Sergeant [redacted] took his gun out and positioned himself behind a pillar in the Speaker’s Lobby.
A glass panel came completely out of one of the windows and a protester started to come through the opening. There was a lot of screaming and Sergeant—heard someone yelling, “get back, get back.”
Sergeant [redacted] was positioned furthest away from this barricaded door and Lieutenant Byrd was positioned the closest.
Sergeant [redacted] observed a white, female protester was climbing through an opened area where the glass pane had been knocked out. He heard a gunshot and this female fell backwards through the opening. The crowd on the other side of the barricaded east doors, began to step back and some put their hands in the air. Sergeant [redacted] observed Lieutenant Byrd step back just after hearing the gunshot. He did not see anything in the female protester’s hands prior to the gunshot.
Sergeant [redacted] never went on the other side of the barricaded east door. He also did not know that it was Lieutenant Byrd who shot his gun until he talked to him moments after it occurred. Lieutenant Byrd looked upset and stated, “I was the one who took the shot.”
In a written transcript of the interview of the aforementioned U.S. Capitol Police sergeant, it appears his name is Sergeant McKenna. He says during the interview that the woman climbing through the window was wearing a “gray sweater.” The interviewee continued:
Uh, I saw Lieutenant Byrd kinda. I don’t know if it was before or after. Cause I was trying to figure this out of, but there was at one point where I remember seeing him and he kind of went like this and then came back up again. Uh, I don’t know if that was from him taking the shot and then stepping back from that shot or if it was before that, I can’t, no matter how I tried to rack my brain, I can’t, I can’t figure out when that happened, but uh, so I don’t know if something happened to him where [sic] caused him to take the shot or not.
I actually did what I did, but, uh, I was just, I dunno, I don’t know why it was such a crazy hectic moment that I don’t know what else I could add to it.
The interviewer asks the sergeant if he saw anything in the woman’s hands as she was climbing through the window, and he replies, “I didn’t see anything in her hands now.” Asked when he realized Byrd shot the woman, the sergeant replied, “I said, what, you know? And then he was like, I was the one who took the shot and I was like …” Speaking of Byrd’s reaction the sergeant said, “No, his eyes were red. He was, you could see he was visibly upset and he just, you know, kind of comfort him and told him, you know, we gotta get outta here.” The interviewing agent asked the sergeant about Babbitt being shot, “Did you go up to her [?].” He replied, “No, no, no. I maintained my position.”
After the shooting, the sergeant said Byrd directed him and other officers to go down “into the subway.” The interviewing agent then asks the sergeant several questions, saying, “And I know this is kind of obvious, but, but, I’m gonna ask it anyhow. You’ve worked for the Capitol police department for [redacted] now.” Sergeant replies, “Yes.” The agent then asks, “This was not a typical day, was it?” Sergeant replies, “Definitely not my craziest day there.” The agent, “Nothing like this has with now, has it.” Sergeant replies, “No I’d say the closest one was when we had the, the shots fired back in 2004, 2005 in the Rayburn building …” The agent continues, “Not to pull your man card at all, but was this a frightening situation?” Sergeant replies, “Oh yeah.” The sergeant continued, “Oh yeah. I’m not afraid to say I was, I was scared shit.”
In a January 6, 2021, summary report of an interview of another United States Capitol Police officer by the Internal Affairs Division investigator, the interviewee, who was immediately behind Byrd in the Speaker’s Lobby when Byrd shot Babbitt, said “He did not see Ms. McEntee [Babbitt] in possession of any potential weapons.” The report continued, “He reiterated that he did not observe that she was armed.” The United States Capitol Police officer claimed that “Lieutenant Byrd was shaking, he did not say anything…. Byrd was nervous, teary-eyed, and appeared very upset. His voice also shaky when he called for medical assistance over the radio. Lieutenant Byrd was still very upset.”
In the January 16, 2021, interview transcript of the above United States Capitol Police officer who witnessed the shooting of Babbitt, he reported that a man with a beard in a suit attended to Babbitt after she was shot, and both he and the sergeant above believed the man was with the House Sergeant-at-Arms office, but neither provided his identity. When asked about Lt. Byrd’s demeanor after the shooting, the officer said about Byrd, “He was shaky. He was, he was teary eyed. You know, you can just tell, like, I ain’t gonna say when somebody regrets to do something, when somebody is just nervous, you know, they’ll rub their head, they’ll pace back and forth.” When asked if he heard any verbal commands given by police prior to Babbitt being shot, he replied, “Not at that point” and then “I do not recall that.”
Another Capitol Police officer interviewed on February 4, 2021, by Metro PD’s Internal Affairs Division advised that prior to Babbitt being shot, “He did not hear any verbal commands.”
Another Capitol Police officer was interviewed on February 4, 2021. In the transcript of his interview, he said that after the shooting of Babbitt, Lt. Byrd “was down and out” and “almost in tears.” He noted that when Babbitt was shot, “it wasn’t that loud”, despite having one of his ears completely uncovered. He also reported that he did not hear any verbal commands given by officers.
A January 6, 2021, telephone interview report was of a man who’d claimed to have been in the House Chambers. The man said he saw Lt. Byrd position himself behind a pillar and claimed he heard Byrd shout “loud verbal commands” stating that he would “shoot.” The interviewee also said Byrd fired twice. He went on to say that he felt Byrd had “saved several people’s lives” through his actions. According to the transcript, the interviewee “reached out” to the Metro PD to give his statement.
In the transcript of this interview, the interviewee said, “We started talking about evacuating the, uh, all the members or we didn’t really have that conversation.” He went on to say of Byrd, “He was yelling, he was giving commands. Um, he was saying, I will shoot. Uh, he was saying some other stuff. I couldn’t clearly make out what he was saying, but he was definitely, uh, giving commands, no question about it.” He continued: “He [Byrd], uh, did everything he could do…. He was by himself, we were defending the front door and they were shaking it.” He went on to claim that Byrd “fired two shots.” The interviewee said he had a “conversation” with Byrd after Byrd shot Babbitt. He claimed that Byrd was “giving commands” and “threatening to use lethal force.”
A DC Department of Forensic Sciences crime scene examination report filed January 11, 2021, indicated that among Babbitt’s personal possessions was a “Para force” folding knife.
A DC Forensics crime scene examination report dated January 10, 2021, indicated that one spent shell casing was recovered from the scene. A police service weapon from “P1” [Lt. Byrd] was turned over to the Forensic department. The police observed a blood trail from the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby doors leading down to the first floor of the House in the security area. Babbitt’s backpack contained clothing, stickers, U.S. currency, a face mask, a California driver’s license in the name of Ashli McEntee, four credit cards in the same name, gloves, sunglasses, a wallet and cigarettes. The handgun turned over was a Glock 22 .40 cal. The shell casing was SPEER 40 S&W. 15 remaining cartridges were also turned over with a magazine. A “Trump Nation” and blood-spattered “Trump 2020” flags were also recovered.
In the June 15, 2021, official Internal Affairs Division Investigative Report issued on the Use of Force shooting of Babbitt by Lt. Michael Byrd, the Metro PD investigators noted that the “Violations that led to police contact” were “Felony Rioting/Unlawful Entry” and the “Violations during police contact” was “Felony Rioting.” The investigators further noted that Babbitt had no outstanding arrest warrants, but an entry under “Previous arrests” was fully redacted.
A description of events on January 6 in another report indicates that it was a “representative” on the House floor who first shouted “Shots fired” on January 6. The investigators note, “The crowd on the outside of the previously barricaded east doors began to step back, and some raised their hands in the air. Sergeant [redacted] did not see anything in Ms. Babbitt’s hands prior to hearing the gunshot.” According to the investigators they, “recovered ‘a para force’ folding knife in Ms. Babbitt’s pants pocket.”
These records are part of our broader investigation into the death of Babbitt and the January 6 disturbance.
In September, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice seeking records related to the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.
We recently filed a motion for discovery in our lawsuit against the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for emails and videos concerning the disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The Capitol Police are trying to shut down the lawsuit by arguing that the requested records are “not public records.”
On August 3, we obtained new documents showing the Washington, DC, Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Babbitt two days after gaining custody of her body. The documents also showed that Babbitt’s fingerprints were emailed to a person supposedly working for the DC government, which resulted in Microsoft “undeliverable” messages written in Chinese characters being returned.
In May, we sued both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense for records regarding the deployment of armed forces around the Capitol complex in DC during January and February of 2021.
We also filed a lawsuit for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s communications with the Pentagon in the days after the January 6 incident.
Once again, it is remarkable that a private group, Judicial Watch is doing the basic oversight, investigative and educational work that Congress and the corrupted media refuse to do. And, as you can see, much more is coming.
DHS Ends Worksite Enforcement to Protect ‘Noncitizen Victims’ from Deportation
The Biden administration is dismantling our borders and the enforcement of laws that might serve to curtail in a small way the invasion of our nation. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports on the latest Biden assault on the rule of law on immigration matters:
In a major policy shift to help illegal immigrants in the U.S. workforce, the Biden administration is ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to end mass worksite enforcement operations that often result in large-scale arrests and deportations of undocumented employees. The administration is also directing agencies that operate under DHS, which was created after 9/11 to counter terrorism, secure borders and uphold the nation’s economic security, to protect foreigners working in the country illegally by shielding them from removal proceedings when they get caught.
The administration describes them as “noncitizen victims” and it wants to “ensure” that they are not placed in immigration proceedings when the businesses that hired them are investigated. A memorandum issued this week by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to assist illegal immigrants by taking actions to promote a fair labor market and support more effective enforcement of wage protections, workplace safety, labor rights, and other employment laws and standards. “The agencies must also develop strategies for prioritizing workplace enforcement against unscrupulous employers and, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, facilitate the participation of vulnerable workers in labor standards investigations,” according to the three-page memo.
The document, which is titled “Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, and the Dignity of the Individual,” instructs DHS agencies to develop plans to alleviate or mitigate the fear that victims of, and witnesses to, labor trafficking and exploitation may have regarding their cooperation with law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of unscrupulous employers. “These plans should, among other things, provide for the consideration of deferred action, continued presence, parole, and other available relief for noncitizens who are witnesses to, or victims of, abusive and exploitative labor practices,” the Mayorkas order states. “In addition, these plans should provide for the assistance noncitizen victims and witnesses need to participate actively in the investigations and consider ways to ensure that noncitizen victims and witnesses generally are not placed in immigration proceedings during the pendency of an investigation or prosecution.”
Federal officials at the DHS conglomerates are also instructed to identify existing or potential policies that have an impact on the umbrella agency’s role in the enforcement of employment and labor standards. This includes ICE’s worksite enforcement strategy, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DHS and the Department of Labor (DOL) and other policies that “may impede non-citizens workers, including victims of forced labor, from asserting their workplace rights.” The DHS secretary also directs the agencies to identify measures that ensure E-Verify, the government’s system to certify that employees are authorized to work legally in the U.S, “is not manipulated to suppress unauthorized workers from, or to punish unauthorized workers for, reporting unlawful labor practices such as substandard wages, unsafe working conditions, and other forms of worker exploitation.”
Under a bold header titled “Immediate Guidance” Mayorkas orders American federal agents to “cease mass worksite operations” and consider prosecutorial discretion—the authority to decide not to enforce the law against certain people—for workers who are victims of, or witnesses to, workplace exploitation. “The deployment of mass worksite operations, sometimes resulting in the simultaneous arrest of hundreds of workers, was not focused on the most pernicious aspect of our country’s unauthorized employment challenge: exploitative employers,” the DHS secretary memo states. “These highly visible operations misallocated enforcement resources while chilling, and even serving as a tool of retaliation for, worker cooperation in workplace standards investigations. Moreover, such operations are inconsistent with the Department’s September 30, 2021, Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law and the individualized assessment they require. Given these concerns, please ensure we no longer conduct mass worksite operations and instead refocus our workplace enforcement efforts to better accomplish the goals outlined above.”
Targeting Trump: Durham Uncovers New Clinton, FBI Connections in Russia Probe
The coup attempt against President Trump, with its maliciously bogus accusations of a Russian conspiracy, has never been properly adjudicated, but there is a glimmer of hope. In Judicial Watch’s Investigative Bulletin, Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, examines the recent indictment by special counsel John Durham.
The wheels of justice grind slow—much to the exasperation of, well, everybody. In April 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed federal prosecutor John Durham to get to the bottom of the Russia mess: the sensational allegations, both before and after Donald Trump’s November 2016 presidential election victory, of Trump connections to dirty Russian money, dirty players, and dirty deeds.
Testifying before a Senate subcommittee, Barr said he wanted a review of “both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.” Durham’s mandate: investigate the investigators—particularly the FBI. What did the FBI know about Trump’s accusers and when did they know it?
Last month, more than two years after his appointment, Durham delivered.
In a single count false-statements indictment of a middling Washington player named Michael Sussmann, Durham presented damning evidence of collusion between the Clinton presidential campaign and the FBI in a scheme to destroy Donald Trump.
Sussmann spent twelve years as cybersecurity prosecutor at the Justice Department before joining the prominent Washington law firm Perkins Coie. At the firm, Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee in matters related to the Russian hacking of its email servers and “met and communicated regularly with the FBI” about the case, according to the indictment. At the same time, Sussmann “was also advising the Clinton campaign in connection with cybersecurity issues.”
Perkins Coie had many big clients, but in 2016 none bigger than the Clinton presidential campaign. The Sussmann indictment notes that the Clinton team hired “Law Firm-1” as counsel for the election and that “Campaign Lawyer-1” acted as the campaign’s general counsel.
Aside from Sussmann, no one is identified by name in the indictment. But so much other additional information is provided, connecting the dots is not difficult. News reports, for example, quickly identified “La Firm-1” as Perkins Coie and “Campaign Lawyer-1” as Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias.
Keep an eye on Elias’ he’ll play an important role later. And remember the context: in 2016, Trump was widely viewed as the likely loser of the election, so Perkins Coie represented a kind of administration-in-waiting for many ambitious souls.
The Clinton Connection
“Sussmann is not a small fish,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Sussmann is a big fish in a small pond of co-conspirators who were targeting Trump—including Hillary Clinton.”
The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied to the FBI—that is, lied to “the FBI General Counsel”—at the time, James Baker—in a September 19, 2019 meeting, when he delivered documents claiming to show communications between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Kremlin-connected Alfa Bank.
“During the meeting,” the indictment notes, “Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allegations to the FBI.” Sussmann told the FBI he was not delivering the Alfa Bank report “for any client,” when in fact he was working for two very important clients: the Clinton presidential campaign and “a U.S. technology industry executive (‘Tech Executive-1’) at a U.S. Internet company.”
“Tech Executive-1” was soon revealed by media reports to be Rodney Joffe, a senior vice-president at the internet security firm Neustar. Not noted in the indictment but of interest to followers of the human comedy, Joffe was angling for a top job in the new Clinton administration.
Using Perkins Coie billing records, Durham nails the Sussman connection to Joffe, Elias, and the Clinton campaign. Sussman, the indictment states, “coordinated and communicated” about the Alfa Bank allegations “during telephone calls and meetings with Elias and Joffe, which he “billed to the Clinton campaign.”
Joffe got plenty of help in his scheme to show a Trump connection to Alfa Bank, including three computer scientists. The scientists are not named in the indictment, but later were identified in news reports.
Joffe “exploited his access to non-public data” and enlisted “the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university” who were analyzing Internet data in connection with a “pending federal government cybersecurity research contract,” the indictment notes.
In the indictment, Durham presents considerable evidence that Sussman, Joffe & Co. had little interest in the truth about Alfa Bank. The “storyline you have”—the storyline of a Trump connection to the Kremlin’s Alfa Bank — “does not make much sense,” one of the computer scientists emails Joffe. Another computer scientist emails the team, “we don’t see the money flow, and we don’t see the content of some message saying ‘send the money here.’”
But, of course, the truth was not the point. The point, the goal—the only goal—was to get the FBI to open an investigation into Trump and Alfa, and then leak the story to the media, dealing a deadly blow to the Trump campaign.
Durham quietly nails this down with another damning connection—the role of the investigative firm Fusion GPS, identified in the indictment as the “U.S. Investigative Firm.”
Aficionados of the Russia scandal will recognize Fusion GPS. It is the originator of the notorious Steele Dossier — the crazed and influential compendium of Russia-related smears against Donald Trump. The Sussmann indictment reminds us that Perkins Coie was the money behind Fusion GPS. The middleman between the investigative firm and the Clinton campaign? Marc Elias.
“Throughout the Presidential campaign,” the indictment notes, “the U.S. Investigative Firm”—that is, Fusion GPS—worked with Perkins Coie, “members of the media, and others to gather and disseminate purported evidence of Trump’s ties to Russia.”
The Perkins Coie billing records show that Sussman and Elias met with personnel from Fusion GPS about Alfa Bank. Sussmann billed the meeting to the Clinton campaign.
Sussmann and Joffe — “Tech Executive-1”— also “coordinated…with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign” on data and written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media, the indictment notes.
Elias, according to the indictment, speaks with Sussmann about efforts to interest the media in the story. Elias also exchanges emails about Alfa Bank with senior Clinton campaign officials. They’re not named in the indictment, but news reports identify them as campaign manager Robby Mook, communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan. Sullivan currently serves as the Biden Administration’s national security adviser.
As Sussmann’s September 19 meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker approached, the scheme kicks into high gear.
For the conspirators, everything rides on September 19 meeting. It is not an encounter of strangers. Sussmann is a familiar figure to the FBI’s Baker. And as a longtime Washington hand, Baker surely knows of Perkins Coie’s role in the Clinton campaign.
Sussmann comes to the meeting prepared—very prepared.
The indictment notes that Sussmann offers to Baker “three ‘white papers’ along with data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel” between Trump and Alfa Bank.
According to the indictment, Baker seems unconcerned about Sussmann’s motives. Sussmann states he is not presenting the extensive, highly detailed material “for any client.” Baker concludes Sussmann is just “acting as a good citizen merely passing along information,” the indictment reports.
An FBI investigation commences. The news leaks. The media report that Trump is under federal investigation for connections to a suspicious Russian bank.
For Sussman, Elias, Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign: mission accomplished.
For the FBI, the charitable explanation for this seemingly colossal act of Keystone Cops stupidity—believing that “good citizen” Sussmann was merely wandering in with reams of technical documentation about a leading presidential candidate — is that Baker immediately realized that Sussmann was lying, and let him, in order to draw out more evidence of the scheme.
The more sinister explanation is that the FBI was hearing exactly what it wanted to hear. It used the Alfa Bank allegations to undermine a presidential candidate viewed with alarm by many of the bureau’s leadership.
The big question now: is this the beginning of the Durham revelations, or the end? Is Durham tying up loose ends — the statute of limitations was about to run out on the Sussmann false-statements case — or will he press on?
Certainly, there are many unanswered questions.
Most importantly: what is the degree of FBI and Justice Department culpability in triggering unethical and possibly illegal probes of Trump?
What role did Jake Sullivan — then a key Clinton campaign official and now the national security adviser to President Biden — play in the Alfa Bank affair and other efforts to tarnish Donald Trump with Russia allegations?
What role did other top officials of the Clinton campaign play in the Alfa Bank affair and other efforts to tarnish Trump?
How did cybersecurity expert Rodney Joffe and his team of computer scientists access private computer data and what else, if anything, did they do with it? Were crimes committed?
What role did Fusion GPS play in accessing private computer data and what else, if anything, did they do with it?
One clue to Durham’s intentions: following the Sussmann indictment, he hit Perkins Coie with additional subpoenas for documents. Investigators “appear to be sharpening their focus on the Democratic political machinery during the 2016 campaign and efforts to tie Trump to Russia,” CNN reported.
Until next week …
Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024
© 2017 - 2021, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions | Unsubscribe
VIEW IN BROWSER
He would know that the vaccinated carry the bio weapon.
Targeted Individuals - And The Freemason Connection
Let's start this article by just briefly explaining exactly what a Targeted Individual is. In essence, a TI or Targeted Individual has been placed into a maze of psychological and many times physical warfare tactics which is orchestrated by federal law enforcement.
From community harassment tactics known as "Organized Stalking" and various other invasion of privacy and violations of basic constitutional rights to invisible physical torture through the use of highly targeted overexposure to electromagnetic radiation. If you would like more details of the astonishing tactics deployed against targeted individuals, please visit my website at TorturedinAmerica.org.
The purpose of this specific article is to describe the link between the abuse of targeted individuals and various community organizations, specifically the Freemasons. Many targeted individuals are so confused and disoriented by the array of psychological tactics being used against them, they often rationalize the abuse strictly as a Freemason attempt at implementing a New World Order. The conspiracy-minded individuals among us believe it is an attempt by a secret society of social elites to control the masses. My theory is slightly different.
I believe community organizations, such as the Freemasons, are nothing more than front line harassers used in an attempt to shield the police from obvious exposure during their many acts of harrassment and violations of individual rights. I've heard the Freemasons have a saying that "we're not the cops, we help the cops". And I'll explain how they are used for that purpose.
When an individual is targeted they are subjected to a constant "negative environment" campaign which has been given the name "Organized Stalking". Everywhere a targeted individual goes in public they are tracked and surrounded by angry, hostile participants. All the time, everywhere they go, 24/7/365. If this type of activity was perpetrated solely by law enforcement personnel, it would be rather easy with the use of a video camera to prove a case of extreme law enforcement harrassment. Rather than being constantly surrounded and violated by members of the police, community organizations such as the Freemasons are deployed on the front line. Being a member of a "secret society", nobody (besides federal law enforcement and fellow Freemasons) knows who is and is not a member. A private investigator, running license plates for instance, will return an assortment of what appears to be random citizens, with no apparent connection to law enforcement, many of whom live or work in the area of where the harrassment is occuring.
Organizations such as the Freemasons are simply a buffer used to shield law enforcment during these types of extreme harrassment and entrapment campaigns. And distract a targeted individuals energy and drain their resources by having a target persue what will only appear to be random citizens from every walk of life.
Now when a targeted individual complains about the abuse they are experiencing, they can easily be documented as showing signs of paranoia or some form of mental illness which will in turn discredit all furture claims made by the targeted individual. During these harrassment campaigns the police are undoubtedly among the participants but for the most part keep a safe distance from the target. Organizations like the Freemasons are used by and therefore protected by the police so no investigation will ever be done. The crimes and violation of rights they commit are endorsed by our federal law enforcement agencies, in fact they are a law enforcement harrassment tool.
Understand that one of the primary goals in an operation like this is to get the targeted individual to make what appear to be fantastical claims that will not be able to be proven in order to discredit them and create the perception or diagnosis of mental illness. The accomplishment of this goal will allow the perpetrators to bring the harassment to a new, more intense level since the targeted individual has now been professionally diagnosed or at least documented as showing symptoms of mental illness. Other obvious goals include incarceration, from a targeted individual lashing out from the constant abuse or institutionalization. Either of which accomplish the ultimate goal of removing the targeted individual from society.
If you would like to read more about the horrific abuses being perpetrated against
targeted individuals, please visit my website at TorturedinAmerica.org
A website where you can ask questions is so Pro Marxist and hates America that they censor true conservative thought
Jesuits often use race wars
Restore America First Act
Only those born in the United States legitimately can run for public office, and President of the United States
Only those elected or hired in public offices, including :The Speaker , cabinet members, Secretary of State, Department of Justice, CIA, FBI, etc. can only received funding from Pro America entities. Those promoting violence and hatred for American Heritage will not be allowed to run for elected and , judges of local and federal courts and many public offices. Any and all public officials that are bribed by George Soros, Bill Gates, Big Tech and the World Bank or anti American companies or hatred for USA foreign powers will not qualify for public offices and will be Treason.
The Constitution will be required for all grade levels kindergarten through high school. And Pro American Heritage courses, class work and speakers, as well as requirement for parents to be involved in the educational courses through parent meetings. Critical Race Theory is pure anti white and garbage pushed down the throats of grade school children and teaches hatred for American ideals and Capitalism.
The Speaker of the House can no longer have the power that has continues to be abused by current office holder. More accountability and oversight of this office should be considered.
The Bill of Rights will be re introduced and enforced.
Sports should no longer have influence on politics.
There is a lot of thought and ideals that should be included here but Congress should expand on the suggested ideas for creating a pro American law to protect Christian beliefs and ideals.
Write Marjorie and tell her to pass this suggested bill idea.
Rome District Office
P.O. Box 1527
Rome, GA 30162
Phone: (706) 290-1776
GREENE FOR CONGRESS, INC.
3 Central Plaza #142
Rome, GA 30161
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS: YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED! “YOU ARE INTERACTING WITH A INDEPENDENT CREDITOR AND POLITICAL POWER HOLDER AND YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE! AGREEMENT By proceeding against notice, you agree to testify under full commercial liability and oath of office or for the public record before a jury that you and associated parties are proceeding lawfully and that you fully understand the nature of your actions under state uniform DMV commercial codes, common law, and international admiralty/maritime law. THIS NOTICE OF WARNING FOR VIOLATIONS IS HEREBY SUBMITTED UPON DEMAND OF A “DRIVER’S LICENSE,” REGISTRATION OR PROOF OF INSURANCE, and therefore is part of the OFFICIAL RECORD of any ensuing action and must be introduced as evidence in said action. It is noted that willful suppression of evidence is a felony; any cause for action may result in administrative UCC remedy and even action at law. NOTICE TO OFFICERS/AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES: This document is not intended to harass, intimidate, offend, conspire, blackmail, coerce, cause anxiety, alarm, contempt or distress, or impede any public duties. IT IS PRESENTED WITH HONORABLE AND PEACEFUL INTENTIONS AND IS ONLY STATING THE TRUE FACTS AND IS A SAFEGUARD TO PROTECT MY NATURAL BEING FROM THE ABUSE OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL. Any affirmation contrary to this verified statement of facts will comprise your stipulation to committing a fraud upon the court. AFTER BEING SERVED WITH THIS NOTICE, 1. HONORABLY AND PEACEFULLY RETURN TO YOUR VEHICLE AND READ THIS NOTICE IN ITS ENTIRITY. TAKE NOTICE OF THE FEE SCHEDULE HEREIN FOR DETAINMENT AND DELAY OF THE SOVEREIGN, AND SECURED PARTY. 2. SEEK COUNSEL FROM A SUPERIOR OFFICIAL IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING STATED HERE. CONTACT YOUR LIEUTENANT RIGHT WAY BEFORE PROCEEDING. 3. ANY AND ALL COMMERCIAL STATUTORY OFFICIALS THAT BECOME INVOLVED WILL BE CONSIDERED A ‘PARTY TO THE ACTION’ AND BECOME A LIABLE DEBTOR AS SAME SUBJECT TO EVERYTHING HEREIN TO THE SECURED PARTY YOU ARE DETAINING. 4. FILL OUT THE OFFICER NOTIFICATION SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE PROVIDING BADGE NUMBER, NAME, PRECINCT, LIEUTENANT, AND A PERSONAL ADDRESS WHERE CREDITOR MAY INVOICE THE DEBTOR. 5. RETURN THESE DOCUMENTS [PRIVATE PROPERTY] IN GOOD ORDER TO THE SECURED PARTY YOU ARE DETAINING AT ONCE. 6. LEAVE THE PRESENCE OF THE SECURED PARTY AT ONCE. 7. ALLOW THE SECURED PARTY SAFE PASSAGE AND FREE NON-COMMERCIAL TRAVEL WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. 8. RECEIVE HONOR AND BE AT PEACE. “I, THE INDEPENDENT NATURAL, FLESH AND BLOOD MAN DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION OR CONSENT FOR YOU TO INTERACT WITH, DETAIN OR DELAY ME IN ANY WAY!” I WILL BE HONORABLE TOWARDS YOU, AND I WILL NOT PROVIDE, SHOW OR DISCLOSE, PROVIDE ANY PRIVATE INFORMATION SUCH AS NAME OR BIRTHDATE; ANY STATE LICENSES, ID CARDS, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PAPERS, AS IS MY RIGHT UNDER COMMON LAW JURISDICTION! NOTICE TO THE PRIVATE MAN OPERATING AS A JURISTIC POLICE OFFICER I present this notice to you in peace and I recognize that you are also a man who abides by common law. I realize that you are just doing your job as a commercial public office holder; however it is imperative that Sovereign Free Men give lawful and proper notice that we will not allow public officers to trespass illegally on our God-given common law rights. I honor you as a natural man, and I do not wish to contract with you in any way and do not grant you the permission you lawfully require to proceed with any commercial contract.
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
IF I AM FORCED TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST MY WILL, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ACTION UNDER DURESS AND PROTEST WHICH HAS FULL REMEDY AT ONCE AT LAW! IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT INTELLIGENT PEACE OFFICERS HAVE A DUTY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STATUTES AND LAW AND THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE STATUTES AGAINST A FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND ARE IN FACT BREAKING THE LAW. I HAVE THE AUTHORITY LAWFUL RIGHT AND POWER TO REFUSE ALL INTERACTION WITH PEACE OFFICERS WHO HAVE NOT OBSERVED ME BREACH THE PEACE WHEREAS PERMANENT ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE BARRING ANY PEACE OFFICER OR PROSECUTOR FROM BRINGING CHARGES AGAINST A FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND UNDER ANY ACT CREATED BY A FICTICOUS BODY. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE UCC REMEDY This is actual and constructive notice that you are not to violate the prerogative rights of this independent natural and free being secured party by detaining him/her. Please assist in his passage without delay. Any violation of his human rights, at law, will be remedied through administrative UCC remedy at law for trespass on rights. You are a public servant subject to the Independent. An Independent, free person flesh and blood being and secured party cannot possibly be, and is not subject to DMV Statutory Uniform Commercial Codes, etc. COMMON LAW NOTICE OF RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT REGULATION ‘THE USE OF THE HIGHWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION IS NOT A PRIVILEGE BUT A COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF WHICH THE PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RIGHTFULLY BE DEPRIVED.” - Chicago motor coach v. Chicago, 337 iii.200, 169 ne 22, 66 alr jur (lrst) highways, sec. 163 inparamateria. I AM NOT IN ANY "JURISDICTION," FOR I AM NOT OF SUBJECT STATUS. IF YOU PROCEED, YOU ARE COMMITTING AN ACTION UNDER GLOBAL AND UNIVERSAL RESTRAINT BY WHICH YOU ARE BOUND. Be it known to all who call themselves police officers, "government," their "courts," agents, corporations and other parties, that I am a natural, freeborn sovereign individual, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated. I may voluntarily choose to comply with the "statutes" which others attempt to impose upon me, but no such "statutes," or their "enforcers," have any authority over me. I am under different jurisdiction and any corporate statutory UCC codes, papers, services, benefits, summons, warrants, contracts, use of physical force, arrest attempts, incarcerations, or other action on your part is not authorized or permitted under jurisdictional mandates and will be considered an international crime under GLOBAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL JURISDITION WHICH IS THE LAW THAT BINDS CORPORATE ‘PERSONS’ AND OFFICE HOLDERS ONLY. UNLESS I HAVE WILLFULLY HARMED SOMEONE OR SOMEONE'S PROPERTY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND THERE IS A WITNESS TO AN ALLEGED CRIME, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY, RIGHT OR BUSINESS FOR PULLING ME ASIDE, TRESPASSING OR INTERACTING WITH ME IN ANY WAY, ESPECIALLY UNDER DURESS AND PROTEST. UNLESS I, THE NATURAL AND FLESH AND BLOOD PERSON, AM OPERATING IN ADMIRLTY/MARITIME COMMERCE, YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION AND ARE COMMITING AN INTERNATIONAL UCC CRIME! I AM NOT ENGAGED IN OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AND AM ENGAGED IN PUBLIC VEHICULAR TRAVEL. I HAVE NOT BREACHED THE PEACE, OR
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
COMMITTED ANY CRIME, AND AM THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FURTHER DELAY OR PENALTY, AND DEMAND THAT YOU LEAVE MY PRESENCE AT ONCE IN PEACE. YOU ONLY HAVE JURISDCTION OVER FICTIONAL CORPORATE ENTITIES CONDUCTING COMMERCE AND YOU CANNOT INTERACT, CONTRACT IN ANY WAY WITH A FLESH AND BLOOD DISTINCTION AND INDEPENDENT, CREDITOR AND SECURED PARTY! I am a sovereign private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, and non-individual, not subject to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people. You are cannot lawfully cite me as a sovereign because your state legislature can only regulate what they create and the state does not create sovereign political power holders. You can only interact with a particular office known as "person." I am not a state “person” and you are not authorized lawfully to regulate or interact with me as a private man in any way. The United States of America is a common law jurisdiction of free men and women. I AM NOT A "UNITED STATES ‘CITIZEN’." I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any "monarch" or any corporate "commonwealth," "congress," "federal," "state," "territory," "county," "council," "city," "municipal body politic," or other "government" allegedly "created" under the "authority" of a "constitution" or other "enactment." I am not subject to any "legislation," department, or agency created by such "authorities," nor to the "jurisdiction" of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their "authority" therefrom. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION, LICENSE, OR INSURANCE TO TRAVEL FREELY IN MY AUTOMOBILE! I am not receipt of any evidence or document that says I am required to have a driver’s license or permission to Travel Freely, show such proof of permission and Since no notice is given to people applying for a driver's (or other) license that: they already have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND VOLUNTARILY. A driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities. Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. This is not TRUE AT ALL, and is statutory fraud! No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. According to law, I DO NOT NEED A LICENSE, TAG, REGISTRATION OR INSURANCE TO USE MY PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE PUBLIC ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, and YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW AS BY INTERACTING WITH MY NATURAL BEING IN REGARDS TO YOUR STATUTORY COMMERCIAL POLICIES. I have not committed any crime under common law, and am therefore not subject to any further delay or penalty. I demand that you leave my presence at once in peace. The government-created alternate corporate-fictional, UPPER CASE NAME ON A driving license is not a living soul and you holding public office are a corporate entity without a living soul which cannot possibly interact with the living soul and secure party and agent, so I will be on my way in peace! I the SOVEREIGN SECURED PARTY AND CREDITOR have lawful authority to use the debtor as transmitting utility in rightful and lawful activities such as operating an automobile for free travel, without permission from any and government officials including policy enforcers [peace officers], illegal government agents, sheriffs, judges, and state troopers. Legal fictions such as [the entity and public office referred to as POLICE OFFICER], or STATE TROOPER, JUDGE, OR CONSTABLE, etc., LACK A SOUL and cannot exert any police powers over those who are blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and, I have a right to Travel Freely without having to have permission or pay for the use or enjoyment of it. FEE SCHEDULE THERE IS A $2,000.00 PER HOUR FEE, BILLABLE TO ALL OFFENDING PARTIES FOR ANY AND ALL VIOLATIONS MENTIONED HEREIN BY ANY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TOWARDS MY NATURAL BEING. I, THE INDEPENDENT AND SECURE PARTY AND CREDITOR, CLAIM MY FEE SCHEDULE FOR
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
ANY TRANSGRESSIONS BY PEACE OFFICERS, STATE TROOPERS, DETECTIVES, MARTIAL LAWMEN, TERRORISTS, ANTAGONISTS, MILITIA, POLICE POWERS, GOVERNMENT PRINCIPALS, AGENTS OR JUSTICE SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS IS: $2000.00 (TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR) OR PORTION THEREOF IF BEING QUESTIONED, INTERROGATED OR IN ANY WAY DETAINED, HARASSED OR OTHERWISE REGULATED AND $20,000.00 (TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR) OR PORTION THEREOF IF I AM HANDCUFFED, TRANSPORTED, INCARCERATED OR SUBJECTED TO ANY ADJUDICATION PROCESS WITHOUT MY EXPRESS WRITTEN AND NOTARIZED CONSENT. Furthermore, I claim the right to use a notary public to secure payment of the aforementioned fee schedule against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way. Notice: Using a fee schedule to lawfully collect damages does not constitute operating in commerce! NOTICE AND WARNING OF LACK OF JURISDICTION I HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTATION UNDER COMMON LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME, THE INDEPENDENT NATURAL MAN. YOU ARE UNDER INTERNATIONAL ADMIRALTY/MARITIME JURISDICTION, AND YOU ARE ILLEGALLY OPERATING AND ACTING UNDER ANOTHER JURISDICTION: UNIFORM COMMERCIAL STATUTORY JURISDICTION AGAINST MYSELF, THE SOVEREIGN NATURAL AND FREE MAN WITH INDEPENDENT IMMUNITY IN BOTH ILLEGAL JURISDICTIONS! AS I ABIDE FIRMLY UNDER DIVINE AND INDEPENDENT COMMON LAW JURISDICTION AND HAVE LAWFULLY PRESERVED ALL MY RIGHTS THEREIN YOU ARE HELD AT ESTOPPAL AND VOID OF ALL AUTHORITY OF ANY SORT AT THIS TIME AND YOU CANNOT PROCEED IN ANY WAY! ADMIRALTY/MARITIME OR ALLEGED STATUTORY JURISDICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO MY INDEPENDENT NATURAL AND FREE MAN! The name on any driving instrument [OR ANY COMMERCIAL CONTRACT] is not my name! It is the name of a government-created fictitious corporate body set in UPPER CASE LETTERS to resemble my name without my consent or conscious knowledge. THIS FACT ALONE MAKES IT A UNILATERAL WORTHLESS DECEPTIVE CONTRACT, VOID AND UN-ENFORCEABLE. Using IT to drive is not necessary by law and does not cause a joinder of contract between your office as a corporate entity and my free man. I am distinguished as separate and set apart from this UPPER CASE CORPORATE FICTION. I am established as the sovereign secure party and agent for this alternate government-created identity. I have established FIRST RIGHT OF CLAIM in the amount of $15,000,000.00 over the corporate fiction per a filed commercial security agreement, schedule a, and UCC-1 financial statement revoking the trading of the government forged corporate fiction’s birth certificate to the world bank as surety for UNITED STATES National debt, via the U.S. securities market. I have filed to revoke the illegal use of the corporate fiction’s social security number, and all other permits, licenses and contracts issued for ill commercial gain by any government, corporate body or other agency. All compelled government benefits regarding the sovereign natural and free-man have been waived by me including all licenses, permits, government services, and other so-called benefits. The secured party has no liability to any corporate or government body and is not subject to the same. MY UCC-1 FINANCING STATEMENT AND ITS ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION IS AN INTERNATIONAL STANDING CONTRACT WHICH CANNOT BE BREACHED, OVER-RIDDEN OR IMPEDED BY ANYONE , ANYWERE, ANYTIME! My natural real non-corporate name is under a copyright notice and anyone using it illegally or without my permission is liable for copyright infringement and severe penalty. The fee schedule claimed for any use of my natural copy written name is: $1,000,000.00 per incident and is also collectable by notary and subject to further collection efforts and credit reporting for non-payment. I, have never been, am currently not, or will never be liable for this fictitious entity's debts, matters or affairs [including DMV or commercial highway police matters] and there is no matter in regard to me as the two identities are different. THE UPPER CASE FICTIONAL ENTITY IS A FICTITIOUS GOVERNMENT-CREATED CORPORATION
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
SETUP FOR GOVERNMENT USE AND I, AM A NATURAL AND FREE MAN DOMICILE ON THE LAND OF CONTINENTAL AMERICA, NON-RESIDENT, NON-DOMESTIC AND A LIVING SOUL NOT CREATED BY ANY FICTIONAL CORPORATE BODY OR GOVERNMENT, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ITS CONTROL, CONGRESS, FOR-PROFIT LEGISLATIVE OR MAN-MADE FOR-PROFIT UCC CODE RACKETEERING. I HAVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, AM FREE FROM CONTROL AND I LIVE AND ABIDE FULLY BY THE COMMON LAW, THE ONLY LAW, WHICH IS GOD’S LAW! I HAVE FULL LAWFUL RIGHT [NOT GRANTED PRIVILEGE] TO TRAVEL FREELY IN ANY MANNER, AND BY ANY TYPE OF CONVEYANCE, WITHOUT PERMISSION, LICENSES, TAGS, INSURANCE, STATUTORY RULES, HARASSMENT OR INTERACTION BY ANY POLICE ENFORCERS FREELY IN ANY CITY, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL AND GLOBAL JURISDICTION YOU CAN NAME! I have independent rights and as a natural and free being of the land, all rights for managing maneuvering directing guiding driving and travelling in any form of motorized conveyance whatsoever e.g. Automobile truck motorcycle and the like without any requirement for applying for and without the obligation for obtaining any government license permit certificate permission and the like of any kind whatsoever. I have the right of movement, the right of moving myself from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life with permission from any entity whatsoever! When the state allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes, written code, and not law) for its operation (charters, or persons). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing to travel and all other licenses cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. This is of no concern to me! If I am not using the highways for profit, I cannot be required to have a driver's license, insurance, registrations, or tags. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS [AS DEFINED AND USED IN THE COMMERCIAL STATUTES THAT CREATED THE VEHICLE CODE] If the correct application of the statute in question is not clear, or understood, here is an exact legal and factual definition of the terms used in connection with this point of law. These terms do not, in their legal context, mean what some assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in their instant use as is the case at the moment! AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as: "The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200. While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120. The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232. The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. LEGAL FACT: AN AUTOMOBILE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN USE FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES, WHILE A MOTOR VEHICLE IS A MACHINE WHICH MAY BE USED UPON THE HIGHWAYS FOR TRADE, COMMERCE, OR HIRE. MY CAR IS AN AUTOMOBILE. MY AUTOMOBILE IS MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I CAN USE IF FOR FREE PRIVATE TRAVEL WITHOUT PERMISSION. THIS IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEDGE!
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
TRAVEL The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as: "The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717. "Traveler One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309. "Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034. Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another. Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler and travelling is a right and not a privilege needing permission. LEGAL FACT: I AM A TRAVELER TRAVELING IN MY PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE WHICH IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVELDGE REQURING LEGISLATIVE STATE PERMISSION. DRIVER The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as: "Driver One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940. Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
LEGAL FACT: I AM A NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT I AM A DRIVER BY LEGAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITION! I AM A NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT I AM CONDUCTING COMMERCE ON THE HIGHWAY! I AM NOT A DRIVER WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATE ENTITY BY YOUR DEFINITION! OPERATOR Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case. "It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658. To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both. LEGAL FACT: AN OPERATOR OPERATES IN COMMERCE, LICENSED FOR HIRE! I AM A NOT AN OPERATER OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE. TRAFFIC Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic": "...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26. Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain." In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. "Traffic Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307. Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: "..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them." The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt: "The word 'traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18. Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. LEGAL FACT: TO BE IN TRAFFIC MEANS TO BE IN OPERATING IN COMMERCE AND IS A CONDSIDERED A PRIVELEDGE UNDER STATUTORY CODE! I AM A TRAVELER AND NOT OPERATING IN THE TRAFFIC OF COMMERCE. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS OF HIGWAY TERMS: POLICE OFFICERS [COMMERCIAL POLICY ENFORCERS], STATE TROOPERS, THE DMV, AND RELATED AGENCIES ONLY HAVE POWER TO REGULATE, HAVE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OVER, BUT ARE LIMITED TO REGULATING COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ONLY ON THE STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS AND OTHER PLACES OF TRAVEL. THE POLICE HAVE NO JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER OVER A FREE SOVEREIGN MAN TRAVELING PRIVATELY IN AN AUTOMOBILE ON ANY STREET, ROAD, HIGHWAY AND OTHER PLACE OF TRAVEL! FURTHERMORE, NO PERMISSION IS NEEDED TO TRAVEL FREELY INCLUDING A DRIVER’S LICENSE, PERMIT, PICTURE ID, REGISTRATION, TAGS OR INSURANCE! These facts are CLEAR UNDER STATE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODES REGULATING DMV AND POLICE POWERS OVER THE HIGWAYS, AND MOST PEACE OFFICERS AND OTHER OFFICIALS DON’T REALIZE THEY ARE PARTY TO SEVERE CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST FREE MEN AND WOMEN OF CONTINENTAL AMERICA! UNLESS YOU PROVIDE PROOF OF MY OBLIGATION TO HAVE A LICENSE, PERMIT, REGISTRATION, TAG OR INSURANCE, TO TRAVEL NON-COMMERCIALLY, AND PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR JURISDICTION OVER A FLESH AND BLOOD BEING, AND PROVIDE PROPER REBUTTAL FOR THE REQUIRED PROOF OF CLAIMS LISTED BELOW, THEN I ADVISE YOU IN HONOR AND PEACE TO CEASE AND DESIST AT ONCE AND ALLOW ME RIGHT OF WAY! PROOF OF CLAIM REQUIRED BEFORE YOU PROCEED: I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that you have the authority or jurisdiction over me as a non-corporate man on the highway or anywhere for that matter! I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that you are have been granted consent to conduct any activities such as pulling me over, stopping me, detaining me, delaying me, harassing me, causing duress, making threats, inciting violence, displaying or using deadly weapons or force against myself to get me to enter into a jurisdictional contract with you. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that I am obligated to apply for or to have a driver’s license, tags, insurance, or permission to travel freely on the highways. I am not in receipt of any evidence or document that says I am required to have a driver’s license or permission to travel freely, show such proof of permission. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that notice was given to myself or anyone applying for driver's (or other licenses, permits, or insurances) that I/we already have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that any of the terms ABOVE [used by the DMV AND RELATED AGENCIES] which refer to COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ONLY on the highway apply to me as a natural being using the highways to travel freely in the private venue and not for the purpose of commerce. IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THIS PROOF AT ONCE, THEN YOU CANNOT DETAIN, DELAY, CITE, ARREST, CAUSE DURESS, HARASS MY NATURAL BEING UNDER THE CODES THAT ALL POLICE OFFERS
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
ABIDE BY! I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that my true natural identity is the fictitious corporation which YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO INTERACT WITH ILLEGALLY, disguised in upper case letters [including the name on a driver’s license which I waived the benefit to use] to resemble my name and was or was not created by the government by forgery on a birth certificate without my authorization or knowledge as a secondary alternate fictitious identity for their ill financial gain and said government did or did not pledge all my life’s worth, labor, property and physical body as value and surety for a fictitious national debt by commercially trading this forged birth certificate for no less than approx $1,000,000.00 on the world securities exchange giving full ownership of this upper case commercial corporate fictional body: and all its false value to the corporations, federal reserve and world bank! Prove to me this is not the biggest lie and most heinous crime in history! YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE THIS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, UNDER PERJURY AND FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY before you even speak to me further! I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that I am or am not a natural and free man of the United States and you or congress has any power over me or any non-resident natural man or woman. I do not live in Washington, D.C.., Guam, Puerto Rico, or any other federally-held and congressionally-controlled territory which makes me a citizen of the United States. I am not a citizen of the United States and not subject to congress. Congress has exclusive rule over a given territory and I am not part of that territory. I am domiciled in as a sovereign territory fully protected from tyranny [and all police force] by the constitution [which you have ignored] and free from any direct rule of congress or other socialist or Marxist government over myself. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that you or any government official has jurisdiction over me and my property as the sovereign natural free man. The only criminal jurisdiction possibly applicable is admiralty/maritime where there was an international /maritime contract involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the court was operating in an admiralty jurisdiction. I have never been under any international maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be presented to me. If this is not the case, I demand a list of rules of defense for the misleading system of statutory jurisdiction. If there has been a crime committed under common law which must be recognized at UCC 1-103, I demand you bring forth proof the injured party and complaining witness at once. "WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1.308, FORMERLY 1.207", I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that I have not waived all benefits of any compelled government contracts or agreements (including all court documents and any contracts, or documents in the possession of peace officers [including driver’s license, summons, warrants, etc…] listing the name of the upper case corporate fiction), making such contracts void and unenforceable. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM there was full consideration on my part and for my conscious, voluntary, knowledgeable, consent; full intent, and authorization of all compelled government contracts or agreements (including all traffic citations court documents and any contracts, or documents in the possession of peace officers listing the name of the upper case corporate fiction), where such contracts are void and enforceable. This will include bringing forth an original enforceable commercial corporate contract. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that I understand the nature of any commercial charge or statutory commercial citation you may present. If civil, it is an equity matter. If criminal it must fall under international admiralty/maritime or common law jurisdiction. If [statutory/ codes of commerce for corporations], I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM of any hidden or non-disclosed rules of defense under this jurisdiction. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM is brought into evidence that you are moving under common law and bringing your statutes into harmony with such as required under uniform commercial code 1-103.6 in your damaging actions. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that the United States government has or has not been bankrupt since 1933 and its natural and free men are its debt surety slaves and enter your finding and statement thereof into the public record. I ALSO DEMAND IMMEDIATE PROOF that there is anything existing referred to as “money” in the united states or any “federal reserve notes” that aren’t counterfeit to pay any alleged debt anywhere or use as a payment for goods and services, and that there is substance in place such as precious metals for this “money” in any form anywhere! I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that you as a statutory police officer [policy enforcer] are NOT a commercial capturing agent for a fictional government-created UNITED STATES Commercial Property [of flesh and blood human bodies] and the illegal arrest thereof that leads to grossly deceptive commercial court cases where the
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
people are coerced and tricked by false contracts, actions, and language into receiving commercial criminal fines and charges, and worst of all having ILLEGAL BID BONDS [set by the ADMIRLTY court and sent to the UNITED STATES. District Court] then sold in commerce to corporations, and traded on the securities market for thousands and even millions of dollars while the property or chattel [the flesh and blood bodies] are deposited into warehouses [jails and prisons] under torturous conditions until the bond matures, and that this whole heinous crime against humanity and be willing to testify to this as not being the truth and nothing but a lie under full personal commercial liability, for the public record. I DEMAND PROOF OF CLAIM that you are, or are not offering me an ACTION OF A SECURITY INTEREST. IF YOU CANNOT OR DO NOT BRING FORTH ALL OF THIS PROOF UNDER A COMPLETE AFFIDVIT OF TRUTH, THEN I DEMAND YOU DO NOT DETAIN OR HARASS ME FURTHER AND DO NOT APPROACH MY NATURAL BEING IN ANY WAY WITHOUT MY EXPRESS WRITTEN AND NOTARIZED CONSENT AND ALLOW ME TO GO IN PEACE! IF YOU BROADCAST, SEND OR INQUIRE INFORMATION USING MY NAME OR ANY PRIVATE INFORMATION PERTAINGING TO MYSELF OVER A RADIO, COMPUTER OR OTHER DEVICE, YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY COPYRIGHT, INVADING MY PRIVACY AND DIVULGING PRIVATE DATA TO A 3RD PARTY. THERE IS A $1000, 000.00 FEE FOR EACH INFRACTION AND COPYRIGHT VILOATION. IF I COHOOSE TO DO SO, I WILL ALSO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROFIVE PROOFS OF CLAIM AFTER THIS NOTICE, AND FILE A COMMERCIAL LIEN AGAINST YOU PERSONALLY BY DUE PROCESS, SEIZING YOUR LAND, HOME, VEHICLES, ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY, SPOUSES PERSONAL PROPERTY AND STOP YOUR PERSONAL CREDIT AT ONCE FOR A PERIOD OF 99 YEARS OR UNTIL I CHOOSE TO REMOVE THE LIEN. IF YOU CAUSE DURESS, OR DAMAGE TO ME, THREATEN OR INJURE ME IN ANY WAY, PREPARE TO STAND PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR IT! ANY INJURY BY ANY POLICE ENFORCER ON MY NATURAL BEING WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ACT OF TERRORISM AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC. Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my free-will and common law activities and rights after having been served this notice and commits such transgressions will be dealt with personally in a proper legal fashion in courts of higher authority! MY COMMON LAW RIGHTS AND CLAIMS I CLAIM COMMON LAW JURISDICTION, I DO NOT CONSENT, AND I WAIVE THE BENEFITS! I make valid reservation of common law rights, preserve reservation and prevent the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppal. “WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UCC 1.308 FORMERLY, 1.207” I DECLARE THAT THE GOVERNMENT-GENERATED UPPER-CASE CORPORATE NAME, SOUGHT FOR COMMERCIAL SURETY OR LISTED ON ANY GOVERNMENT OR COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT WHICH RESEMBLES MY NAME, IS NOT MY NAME OR IDENTITY, AND HAS BEEN LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED AS SUCH. I BEING THE SECURED PARTY, HAVE ESTABLISHED A $15,000.000.00 [FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLAR] LIEN AGAINST THE DEBTOR YOU ARE REFERRING TO AND HOLD FIRST RIGHT OF CLAIM. I, as the secured party have filed the UCC-1 Financing Statement and related documents providing me with sovereign administrative judgement and supreme control of the corporate fiction, [ens legis] and all of its affairs. I, as sovereign and secured party, am exempt from all levy and seizure of property including my flesh and blood body, and relieved of all liability from the corporate fiction against my natural free man, having full sovereign immunity, and retroactive supreme authoritative powers of nullification of all activities pertaining to this corporate fiction. Any and all claims made against the corporate fiction are null and void and without force and are discharged before commencement. Revocation of power of attorney: I hereby revoke, rescind, cancel, and make void from the beginning, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to any "tax file/identification number" and/or "social security number" assigned to me, as it pertains to my "birth certificate," and as it pertains to any and all other numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments" issued by any and all "government" and quasi-"governmental" departments or agencies, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my sovereignty and/or property. I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or "gratuity" associated with any of the aforementioned numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments." my use of any such numbers, "licenses," "certificates," or other "instruments" has been for information purposes only, and does not grant any "jurisdiction" to anyone. I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property. Take notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void from the beginning all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, "governmental" departments, agencies or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts. I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am competent to make this affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my inalienable rights and my specific right not to be bound by any "contract" or "obligation" which I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, intentionally, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion. NOTICE OF DAMAGE FEE COLLECTION PROCESS At my discretion as sovereign, you and all associated public officials [backup police enforcers, etc…] are liable for any financial damages incurred and accrued per FEE SCHEDULE herein and served to the private name and home address of the public office holder by notary. After bill is presented, payment in full is due on receipt for the total duress, trespass, detainment and delay time or other damage inflicted upon the sovereign and secure party during any encounter with a police enforcer! Any unpaid and overdue balance that goes 30 days past due will be forwarded to a collection agency and if not collected then, will be placed with a credit bureau and listed on your personal credit file. NOTICE OF FURTHER ACTIONS I claim that anyone who after having been presented with and served this NOTICE AND DEMAND: Interferes with my free-will and COMMON LAW activities and rights and commits further unlawful transgressions Does not cease and desist at once to being a party to unlawful actions described herein, Does not provide point by point rebuttal proof of claims within the required time frame of [30 days], or Continues to ignore this NOTICE AND DEMAND without reply or action, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL COMMENCE IN ORDER AND BY DUE PROCESS: 1. Filing of a notice of default 2. IMMEDIATE FILING OF COMMERCIAL LIEN AGAINST ALL PERSONAL ASSETS LAND AND PROPERTY OF ALL INVOLVED PRIVATE NAMES OF PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS WHO ARE PARTY TO THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY DESCRIBED HEREIN. 3. Immediate full disclosure of criminal activity on the public record and incident details made available to local and regional news media. 4. Potential loss of public office by person[s] party to unlawful actions described herein. 5. Filing of Criminal complaints/charges without immunity from your public office or other judicial official. [Such immunity does not exist!] 6. Potential fines, and incarceration of the private individual(s) due to the serious nature of PUBLIC OFFICER HOLDERS [LEGAL ENTITIES OR CORPORATE FICTIONS] violating INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE by interacting with a natural flesh and blood man.
Court of Human Rights
OFFICIAL NOTICE AND WARNING TO POLICE ENFORCERS
CHR@OfficialGov.org | 1.888.530.2282 | CourtofHumanRights.org
PROOF OF SERVICE By Personal delivery On __ (date) __, I_________________________________________ personally delivered this NOTICE to (Police Officers Name) ____________________________________________ from (department/location)
____________________________________________________. I also declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on ___________ (date) ______________ at ____________ (city/state) ________________ _______________________________________ Secured party, and the independent, natural free being of the land
Judicial complaint- case laws
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [and Treaties] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. +++
Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own prejudices. [386 U.S. 547, 568].
A judge is liable for injury caused by a ministerial act; to have immunity the judge must be performing a judicial function. See, e. g., Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 ; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1642-1643 (1956).
The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompatible with the judicial function.
When the state is one of the perpetrators and violators, there can be no expectation of just, indeed any, relief from it. The State cannot cause a federal violation, and then try to prohibit litigants from seeking redress in the federal courts for those same violations (i.e. the state cannot violate our fundamental rights, and then try to have us dismissed out of federal court for seeking vindication of those rights) ' "We have long recognized that a state cannot create a transitory cause of action and at the same time destroy the fight to sue on that transitory cause of action in any court having jurisdiction", Tennessee Coal, Iron & R, Co. v. George, 233 U.S. 354, 360 (1914)' cited in Marshall v. Marshall (2006).Judges' oath of office includes the undertaking to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. Any Judge violating such undertakings loses jurisdiction, resulting in his orders being VOID, and he himself commits a treasonable offense against the United States.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
FRAUD UPON THE COURT (By The Court)
Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, (as most attorney's do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective - invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.
"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal Law"
1. Who is an "officer of the court?"
A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894):
"The extent and limits of what is known as the 'police power' have been a fruitful subject of discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every state in the Union. It is universally conceded to include everything essential to the public safety, health, and morals, and to justify the destruction or abatement, by summary proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance. Under this power it has been held that the state may order the destruction of a house falling to decay, or otherwise endangering the lives of passers-by; the demolition of such as are in the path of a conflagration; the slaughter of diseased cattle; the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food; the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities; the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance, and of interments in burial grounds; the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities; the compulsory vaccination of children; the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with contagious diseases; the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and habitual drunkards; the suppression of obscene publications and houses of ill fame; and the prohibition of gambling houses and places where intoxicating liquors are sold. Beyond this, however, the state may interfere whereover the public interests demand it, and in this particular a large discretion is necessarily vested in the legislature to determine, not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 Sup. Ct. 357; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. 6. To justify the state in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear-First, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations; in other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts. Thus, an act requiring the master of a vessel arriving from a foreign port to report the name, birthplace, and occupation of every passenger, and the owner of such vessel to give a bond for every passenger so reported, conditioned to indemnify the state against any expense for the support of the persons named for four years thereafter, was held by this court to be indefensible as an exercise of the police power, and to be void as interfering with the right of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Henderson v. Mayor, U.S. 259. A similar statute of California, requiring a bond for certain classes of passengers described, among which were 'lewd and debauched women,' was also held to show very clearly that the purpose was to extort money from a large class of passengers, or to prevent their immigration to California altogether, and was held to invade the right of congress. Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275. So, in Railroad Co. V. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, a statute of Missouri which prohibited the driving of Texas, Mexican, or Indian cattle into the state between certain dates in each year was held to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the constitution, and not a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state, though it was admitted that the state might, for its self- protection, prevent persons or animals having contagious diseases from entering its territory. In Rockwell v. Nearing, 35 N. Y. 302, an act of the legislature of New York which authorized the seizure and sale, without judicial process, of all animals found trespassing within private inclosures, was held to be obnoxious to the constitutional provision that no person should be deprived of his property without due process of law. See, also, Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick. 121; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; In re Cheesbrough, 78 N. Y. 232; Brown v. Perkins, 12 Gray, 89. In all these cases the acts were held to be invalid as involving an unnecessary invasion of the rights of property, and a practical inhibition of certain occupations harmless in themselves, and which might be carried on without detriment to the public interests."
TO ALL PEACE OFFICERS and AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW
You are currently hindering movement of the LAWFUL TRAVELER that presented this to you. You are also being audio and video recorded. I wish to cause no controversy, yet I would like to ask you and your associates to respect the importance of properly identifying yourself ESPECIALLY if acting under COLOR of LAW. Failure to read and/or heed the directives of this notice could possibly result in the use of “reasonable force” to avoid false arrest as needed. This is known as resisting unlawful arrest, and is a justification for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest, flight to avoid prosecution, assault, or even murder). Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as:
The person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping or robbery.
The reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator with the intent of victimizing the defendant.
The reasonable belief that the defendant would be the victim of police brutality if taken into custody by that individual.
Please also take notice of the following UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 18, PARAGRAPH 13, SECTIONS 241 and 242.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
”If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
For more info visit:
FREEDOM from GOVERNMENT . US
sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
I would advise you and your fellow officers of the ramifications of these CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS and DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW violations, remedy will be sought in the form of civil lawsuits in both PUBLIC and PRIVATE capacities of each offending individual.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that you or your officers may see myself or others traveling in my car with tags that read “PRIVATE PROPERTY”, “NOT FOR HIRE”, “FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY”. This is formal notice that you may not violate UNITED STATES CODE when I am traveling in my car either, ESPECIALLY if I am displaying private tags. Or countless Supreme Court decisions on the right to travel. For more information, refer to – http://freedomfromgovernment.us/driver-licensing-vs-right-to-travel/
If you disagree with this assertion of my duty to be honorable, to honor all my contractual obligations made without fraud, and to be honorable means that I must do the right and moral thing, without causing harm or using unnecessary force when required regardless of what I am told; I will offer that it is your duty to honor my wish as a peaceful inhabitant of this land. If you dispute anything in this message or do not provide witnesses with first-hand knowledge and/or evidence that any code, statute, policy, or constitution is applicable to my body without my first having sworn a binding oath, you need to provide this feedback, testimony, or evidence within TEN (10) days of receipt of this message or acquiesce to this notice.
Notice: Failure by recipient in their private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims. Take heed of your actions this day
DEFENCES IN CRIMINAL LAW: HOW TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND WIN A CRIMINAL CASE IN COURT
Isack KimaroLast Updated October 21, 20206 mins
The court is not a commonplace to common people. Having a criminal case might be stressful and sometimes finding a good lawyer to defend you against the republic might involve some complications.
Worry not! Here you will learn the basic criminal defenses which you may raise in criminal cases depending on the circumstances of your case.
Hey! Before that, it is worth noting that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. That simply means once you’re facing a criminal charge it is not a defense to tell the court that you didn’t know that what you have done is a criminal offense punishable by law.
Ok, now! Let’s see the defenses.
DEFENCES IN CRIMINAL LAW
In criminal law, defenses are generally into two forms, there are partial defenses and full defenses.
Partial defenses are defenses that do not exonerate you from liability but it may help by reducing punishment or by being convicted with lesser offense example it may convert murder into manslaughter.
Full defenses are the opposite of partial defenses; they are absolutely exonerating you from criminal liability. They set you free. For more insights see the following defenses.
1. Bonafide Claim of Right
This is the full defense. It applies only to offenses relating to properties example theft, malicious damage to property etc. it simply entails that you dispose of the property of another person in utmost good faith, honestly and without fraud, in respect, of that property.
You were employed as a house servant by another person. Once you are accused of theft You may defend yourself by admitting that you took clothes from that person room by opening the window and “pole fishing” because that a person had dismissed you from your employment owing you three months wages and that person had failed to pay the wages due to you despite repeated requests, you decided to take his clothes.
To successfully use this defense, you must prove to the court that
2. Mistake of Fact
This defense may be full or partial depending on the circumstance of your case. It applies to all mistakes of facts but not law.
For example, if you were caught hunting in a restricted area where hunting is illegal and you say that you were not aware that you crossed the boundary from the non – restricted area here you’re pleading mistake of facts. Therefore you may be excused.
To successfully use this defense you must prove to the court that the mistake was honest, reasonable and mistaken belief.
This defense has a lot of complications because it is an assumption of the law that every person is sane (sound mind) and possesses a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crime until proved otherwise to the approval of the court.
To succeed in this defense you must clearly prove that at the time you committed a crime you suffered a disease of the mind which made you incapable of understanding what you were doing as this requires the proof from a professional doctor.
This defense operates only as a partial defense. Because once successfully raised it doesn’t lead to the release of the accused but instead, the accused is detained as a criminal lunatic.
Intoxication simply means influenced by drugs or alcohol. This defense might not serve you if you are a habitual drinker or drug user. Because to succeed with this defense you must prove to the court that
This defense is partial.
Compulsion is the act of forcing someone to do what he is not willing to do by using force on him or threatening to use force on him. Example when robberies enter your home and force you to kill your spouse, To succeed with this defense you must prove that
A married woman has a defense of compulsion by her husband if the offense charged with is any offense other than murder or treason. Committed in the presence of her husband and is committed under his coercion.
6. Self-Defense/Defense of a Person
This might be the defense you may like most. This defense allows you to use any reasonable force to defend yourself depend on the nature of the assault or to prevent the commission of a violent offense to another person.
The test which applies in this defense is ‘reasonable force test’.
That means you must use reasonable force once defending yourself.
Example use of a knife to defend yourself from a person who has a knife to harm you is a reasonable force but once you use firearms (pistol) it may be an unreasonable force.
You can use this defense only where there is a possibility of death or grievous harm.
HOW TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND WIN A CRIMINAL CASE IN COURT
In our life, we never know when we will fall into the hands of the state/republic and being accused of an offense.
It is from that view where the essence of this post can be found. Being accused of an offense is not a good thing. It may cause depression.
In some instances, you may be convicted simply because you failed to defend yourself properly. I don’t wish that to happen to you and here I will share important things to consider when defending yourself in a criminal case.
How to win a criminal case in court
Apart from several criminal law defenses that you can raise to defend yourself but all in all, defending yourself is an art.
An art to convince the court that you’re not liable for the offense charged so the court can set you free or sentence you with a lesser punishment.
When you do not have money to hire a lawyer or you wish not to hire a lawyer due to some reasons know to yourself you may consider the following things when defending yourself so as you can win your case.
1. Understand the elements/ingredients of the Offence Charged
This is a foundation for defending yourself.
Every offense in law has its ingredients.
Court considers each element of the offense before judge you.
You can get the ingredients of your offense by considering the wording of the section which provides for the said offense as stipulated on ‘charge’.
The technique in defense is to undo any of the ingredients to make the offense unjustifiable.
Consider the following example to get my point
Assume you are charged with an offense of Stealing contrary to section 258 (1) of the Penal Code. That section provides that
“A person who fraudulently and without the claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the use of any person other than the general or special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen steals that thing.”
From the above provision, the following important elements of stealing can be drawn
So when defending yourself in a stealing case you must direct your evidence to show that you did not fraudulently take the thing or you have a claim of right over the thing or the thing is not capable of being stolen. By doing that the chance to found not guilty is higher.
If you will fail to determine the ingredient you may ask a lawyer or someone with the proper knowledge to help you.
Confidence entails authority and authenticity. Be confident when defending yourself. Regardless you truly did the offense or the matter has been cooked for you.
Confidence will add credit to your evidence.
I know it’s hard for a normal person to be confident before the court but try to build one.
3. Avoid Contradictory Statements
Contradictory statements will spoil your evidence. It will show that you’re lying. For example, when you give your evidence you said: “on the date of the event I was home with my family, I didn’t steal from anyone”.
But when asked by the state attorney you say “on the date of event I was out with my friends, having fun”. This contradiction raises doubts. It may cost you. Be straight forward and remember everything you said to avoid contradictions.
The bad contradictions are those which go to the root of the elements of the offense you're charged with.
The clarity of your explanation gives credit to your evidence. Be clear. When necessary adduce documentary evidence to clarify your point.
5. Attack the prosecution evidence (prove them wrong)
A criminal case is like a movie. The court was not present at the scene of the crime. It only judges you basing on the story (evidence) it receives from both sides.
When defending yourself you have to convince the court that your story is a true reflection of what happened and the prosecution side story is a lie.
6. Mind your conducts/demeanor
Courts consider your conduct throughout the case even in Judgment. While defending yourself be humble, address the court with respect. Make your integrity a priority.
7. Call witnesses (choose them carefully)
Witnesses are the key players in your defense. They can help you win or ruin your case. Call only witnesses who can prove or disprove specific elements/facts of your case. Rank them according to their importance.
There is no minimum or a maximum number of witnesses. Many witnesses do not mean that you are going to win. The quantity does not matter but the quality.
My aim here was to share with you defenses in criminal law and how you can use them to win a criminal case in a court.
Failure to defend yourself in a criminal case will entail that you agree with everything adduced by the prosecution side and the court will judge you solely based on the prosecution side evidence. In this case chance of found guilt is high.
Editor-in-chief and founder of sherianajamii.com. Holder of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Mzumbe University and Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from Law school of Tanzania. General competence in substantive and procedural laws. Much interested in commercial laws and litigation. Lawyer by profession and blogger by passion. Currently a board member at Mkalama Paralegal Center (MPACE)
Subject: COURTS ARE FREE IF YOU DON'T READ AND LEARN THIS YOU WILL END UP
PAYING BETWEEN 300 AND 600 DOLLARS TO FILE A COURT CASE!
COURTS ARE FREE IF YOU DON'T READ AND LEARN THIS YOU WILL END UP PAYING
BETWEEN 300 AND 600 DOLLARS TO FILE A COURT CASE!
Plaintiffs, think the easiest way to show the facts, are we the sovereign people, first show what a
person is not; in the law. So we have our basis of the claim considering 28 U.S.C. 1914 –(District
court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court) which requires a person, or persons, to pay a
filing fee. Since a person, or persons, must pay the filing fee; one should denote what a person, is
according to law in the second to properly show both sides of the coin. Starting with the Supreme
Court decisions which denote the sovereign American people are not a person. Please see the
" '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)]
We now know what a person is not, so let us see what a person is, the following definition of person
was found in BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 5TH EDITION PG 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, part¬nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).
Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of equal protection and due process
provi¬sions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v.
Fasi, D.C.Ha¬waii, 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, offspring (biological property, never use child), spouses,
creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav¬ing 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
repre¬senting interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time
to time and must be determined according to the particular pur¬poses 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 Sec¬ tion 1983 in those cases in which a local
govern¬ment 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 §
Now we must examine Supreme Court decisions, to get a definitive answer. Do the sovereign
people have to pay filling fees; or are they entitled to free, access of the courts?
The courts must realize the sovereign people (not sovereign citizens, never use that false term),
are not bound to pay filling fees as the sovereign people, are not a person, or persons. The use of
the word person the reason the sovereign; people have been paying for filling 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 that is why the courts are not to be charging,
the sovereign people to pay filling fees falsely. They state the under Title 28 sec 1914 that
persons or a person must pay, so when the sovereign people, point out that only apply s to person or
persons which is a corporation, and the sovereign people need the law, that says the people or a
natural person, is required to pay filling fees, or receive free access as ordered by the Supreme
Court. Take Mandatory Judicial Notice and Cognizance under (Federal Rules of Evidence 201
(d) that “plaintiff” ie Libellant has a lawful right to proceed without cost, based upon the
following case law:
The US 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, see also
Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35]. Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful
and Constitutional Protected 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
Hinkel, 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 Protected 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 Hinkel, 201 US 43,
NOTICE AND CONCLUSION IN LAW ( How you want to set it up)
So in closing it is clear petitioners /plaintiffs must have their funds, refunded if PLAINTIFFS 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 had already paid. Petitioners also respectfully demands the
Magistrate takes judicial notice of all herein under RULE 201 (d) which is adjudicated facts.
Petitioners 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/We 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 & pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn
declarations under penalty of perjury
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction
or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional Protected Right." Sherer v. Cullen
481 F. 945:
Supreme courts ruled "Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime"“In every prosecution
for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the
crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
"In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime
itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. "
People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161,
1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
"As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable
controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication
because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. " People v. Superior
Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain
such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the
standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to
ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims
asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular
case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some
injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335
Please Make Amends Honor thy Oath Elected and public servants, title 5USC2906-3331 0ath of
office, title 18 241-242-
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW-THE B.A.R. ASSOCIATION IS UNDER THE VATICAN OWNED CITY
OF LONDON WATER AND SEWER UTILITY AND THEY'RE COMMITTING TREASON AND WAR
CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA BY VIOLATING ARTICLES 16 AND 70 OF THE LIEBER CODE.
NOW THERE IS A REMEDY FOR CORRUPT JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS. BTW, THEY ARE NOT
JUDGES. THEY'RE BROKERS AS B.A.R. ATTORNEYS.
It is No injury or Property damage to any offspring (biological property), woman or man, thus the
State CORPS can not be an injured party that would be A lawful American's by Honoring thy Oath
office of servitude to God; false allegiance to the Treaty of 1213 of religious, cult, organizations are
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Title 5 2906 3331-3333. Whereas Their is title 18 241
242.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 subject to the jurisdiction of
the Fourteenth Amendment" ... Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.
"The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree;
income the 'fruit.' The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the
seed... and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and
plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit." Waring v. City of Savennah.
60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.}
Lawful Bloodline native 1868
Except for all city county and state immigrants servants State, county and municipal (city) employees
work, respectively, for those distinct divisions of government. All are public servants.
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 offspring (biological property) for ransom as filed
destroying family's for personal gain for the British foreign 1871 government contracted elected and
public servants service of employment Federal law,
When any officer , Judge , Attorney , Elected and Public Servants of the court has committed
"fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or
In 1994, the United States Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a Judge's attitude
or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162
(1994). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any
proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d
1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is
important that the litigant not only actually receive Justice
Affidavit of Truth
Document no: ____________________
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
I, John Doe, of the House of Doe being a living breathing soul and one of the people of the Republic of Your State do hereby present to you my NOTICE of Truth and Facts for the purpose of correcting any and all records. This is NOTICE and DEMAND that said records be corrected to reflect the truth of my status.
First, be it noticed that as one of the people, natural-born on the free soil, operating in the private under my full commercial liability, that I accept your oath of office as a public servant having sworn to uphold and defend the original organic constitution for these united states of America which was ordained and established by “we the people.”
Equality under the law is paramount.
Be it known that I, John Doe of the House of Doe, am not lost at sea, dead, missing, nor bankrupt. I maintain in excess of $21.00 in silver coin at all times.
I am not a “thing”, “chattel”, a UNITED STATES “vessel”, franchise, nor any form of corporate fiction created by any tontine limited liability scheme devised for corporate profit.
I am NOT an infant, an indigent, incompetent, an imbecile, nor a ward of the state.
I do NOT consent, nor authorize, anyone to speak for me, represent me, nor make determinations on my behalf.
I was born on the free soil of one of the individual sovereign states of the union which is a foreign state to the UNITED STATES INC. and foreign to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES INC. which is located within the 10 square miles of Washington D.C.
I am an American by virtue of my birth upon the soil of my country and, as such, I do not, and never have been, your current definition of a citizen of THE UNITED STATES.
I am not, and never have been, a resident of your UNITED STATES INC. jurisdiction as I have never lived within the 10 square miles of Washington D.C., nor in any of the federal territories as defined in your many codes, statutes, and by the courts.
I am NOT a “person” nor “individual” nor any other form of fiction having been created by you as described and used in your various acts, codes, or statutes and, not being a “fiction” but a living soul, I do not recognize your fictions nor your fictional rule making as they do NOT apply to a living soul or the people.
I am not a member of your church and I do not practice your religion.
I have never agreed to act as surety nor an accommodating party for any commercial limited liability scheme nor do I consent to act as one now or at any point in the future.
All presumptions and assumptions by you or your minions are hereby rebutted in full.
I have never entered into ANY contract whereby I agreed to waive my natural UNALIENABLE rights to any corporate fiction posing as a government or agency thereof in exchange for privileges or benefits. Unalienable rights cannot be waived by contract even with consent, as they are UNALIENABLE. The courts have so ruled and you are aware of this.
I am not a “subject of”, nor have I ever sworn allegiance to, THE UNITED STATES INC. knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily.
I DO NOT OWN a social security number. The number I applied for was applied for prior to the age of consent, was applied for in protest, under duress, and was coerced and misrepresented to me. It is NOT mine and never has been mine as it is owned by the social security administration. I was never qualified to apply for such a number to begin with, as I have never been a government employee or public official in any capacity whatever. The number is used to identify your straw man creation and is not mine. For identification purposes only, his identification number assigned was xxx-xxx-xxxx. I do not and will not use that number in the future.
I am not a “taxpayer.”
I am not a “tax Protestor.”
I am not, and never have been, a public official, a government employee, a government contractor, a resident, a corporation, a trade or business, a UNITED STATES citizen nor any other form of fiction.
I have never had a “taxable income.” I have had no “profit or gain” Any monies obtained by me have been in an even exchange of my time and labor for equal measure in trade. I value my time in specie money of gold or silver. Any past use of your counterfeit tender insurance script called Federal Reserve Notes was out of necessity since all real money has been stolen from the people of this land and shall not be construed as consent on my part.
ANY and ALL past monies withheld from me in the form of federal income taxes, state income taxes, or social security were taken from me and obtained through devise, fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion. Said monies were taken from me unlawfully by virtue of fraud and are owed in full to this living soul as the courts have so held regarding fraud.
Any information anyone has or which may have been submitted to the contrary is erroneous, fraudulent and misleading.
I have never entered into any contract with any corporate government knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily. No such contract could be valid as such a contract would be between unequal parties with no opportunity for negotiation of terms. A valid contract would require the signatures of both parties, valid and valuable consideration, full disclosure of facts, and a meeting of the minds. No such document exists.
ANY and ALL claims of any such adhesion contract being in existence anywhere are based upon a fraud and anyone perpetuating a fraud is guilty of aiding and abetting a fraud as well as perjury of oath.
I claim my natural God-given rights as one of the sovereign people of the Republic of Texas to live by God’s laws and the common law of this land.
I will not forsake the laws of God or place the rule of man, or the laws of man, above those of God in any way especially not via any commercial entanglements with fictions.
I defend the rights of all men to live free upon the land and to pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without interference by another man or any of his fictional creations, which is my duty as one of the people.
I have the unalienable right to travel about the country of my birth in my private conveyance, or via the method of my choosing, without hindrance by any man or public official and without the need for anyone’s permission, license, permit, or papers.
I have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms without restriction or impairment and that right “shall not be infringed.”
I have the right to eat, drink, and consume, as I find necessary and fitting for my own well-being or survival, and no man or government shall claim any right to restrict my freedom to do as I deem necessary to preserve and maintain my life and health. (The Law of Necessity; which is the highest of God’s laws)
I live by the golden rule. I commit no crime. For a crime to be committed there must be an injured party. A crime requires an injury to one of the people, damage to the property of one of the people, or fraud. A fiction cannot be an injured party and no fictional government may lawfully claim such a status in a court of law, nor act upon one of the living people.
I demand and expect proper lawful due process in all matters. In the absence of having witnessed my commission of a “crime” there is NO probable cause for interfering with my efforts to conduct my private affairs as I see fit without interference.
I do not recognize your inferior courts. Your courts are merely administrators in your corporate scheme for plunder and they have no jurisdiction over a living soul or the people.
I recognize only true common law Courts of Record. (Black’s Law 4th ed. and prior.)
I object to, and do not recognize, any nisi prius courts.
As one of the sovereign people of this land I am entitled to hunt, fish, or grow food as I deem necessary to sustain my life and my well-being without interference or hindrance, licenses, permits, or permissions.
Any and ALL of my personal property belongs to me, John Doe of the House of Doe, and I claim all lawful and equitable title to said property.
My personal property, including private conveyance, has been purchased via the exchange of my time and labor and, thus are not subject to any lawful claim by any other entity. Any fiction, or agent of any fiction, so claiming is guilty of perjury of oath and violation of my unalienable rights to be secure in my property and my person.
My use of bank accounts, federal reserve notes, auto insurance or others shall not be construed as having contracted nor consented to waive my rights as these are essentially compulsory since all the real money belonging to the people has been taken unlawfully.
Let me be perfectly clear; I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR SYSTEM, YOUR CONTRACTS, NOR YOUR COMPELLED so-called benefits of your commercial agreements. I waive ALL benefits.
The name John Doe of the House of Doe is common law copyrighted. The use of this name in any form, in any order, no matter capitalization, spelling or misspelling shall be subject to a fee of $10,000.00 for its one time use. If it is used for profit or gain, the fee is $1,000,000.00. If it is used more than three times in one year with the intention of acquiring profit or gain the fee is $10,000,000.00. You are noticed.
I do NOT RESIDE anywhere. My abode or domicile is wherever I may decide it to be at any given time, may be subject to change, but is always outside THE UNITED STATES and U.S. territories.
I do NOT reside in any federal postal zip code, federal territory, military territory or corporate zone.
I do not accept free residential mail delivery, as I have no “residence.”
My name and mailing address must be used precisely as I have listed them or the offender will be guilty of Title 18 USC section 1342 “intentional mail fraud.”
My choice of whether or not to use state issued license plates on my private conveyance or my decision to purchase liability insurance for my protection when traveling shall NOT be construed as having waived my rights nor as having consented to obey, perform, or be liable under any commercial scheme. These decisions will be made at my discretion and shall not be construed as having consented to enter into any “contract” with any fiction. For identification purposes only, your straw man’s expired driver’s license was number 02485248.
A law merchant contract is a nullity in law.
A “presumed contract” is perjury of oath.
A common law contract between two living souls is the ONLY valid contract.
A contract with ANY FICTION is a Nullity.
ANY RESTRAINT upon my liberty will be considered an arrest.
ANY arrest without lawful due process and lawful probable cause are actionable and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and will include, but not be limited to, damages for every constitutional right violated, my lost time, lost opportunity, costs and fees incurred recovering my damages.
Any arrest without proper due process will be considered unlawful and will result in aggravated kidnapping charges against the individual responsible along with any accomplices in said act as a conspiracy under color of law to deprive me of my rights.
I reserve the right to resist any unlawful arrest attempt with lethal force if necessary. (See John Bad Elk v U.S. 177 U.S. 529)
“In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining 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.”
Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators 3 US 54 (1795) at p 93
Your courts have no jurisdiction over a living soul and no government or agency can concern itself with anything other than corporate artificial persons and the contracts between them.
Your statutes and codes do not apply to living souls but only the fictions you create to act upon. As previously stated I am not a fiction, a person, an individual, or “whoever.”
I have no birth certificate. The straw man you created has a birth certificate. You created the fiction so you can be the surety and accommodation party for your creation.
You are NOT authorized to serve any commercial process on me.
As a living soul and a free man upon the land, I ask nothing of government and expect nothing of government except to be left alone.
As a living soul I will travel where I wish, as I wish, when I wish, and I will travel armed or unarmed as I deem necessary for my own safety and protection, as is my right.
I am not “qualified” to be a “registered” voter and any records indicating such a qualification are hereby rebutted and any existing autograph on such registration, past or present, is hereby rescinded. Any prior application by me was a mistake in fact and law.
I am not a “driver” nor an “operator” of a “motor vehicle.” I do NOT own a “motor vehicle.”
I have never consented to be a party to any Cesti Que Vie trust in any manner. Any presumption to the contrary is hereby rebutted.
Any reference in the past, on any document completed by myself, as to my being a citizen of these united states was based upon my understanding of the term as used in common everyday usage at the time I so indicated. It is not to be construed as having understood the meaning of the term as used in your statutes and words of art for deceiving the people into becoming a citizen of THE UNITED STATES. Said indications on my part were my mistake in Law and in Fact and are hereby corrected with Notice.
Any and ALL implied powers of attorney presumed to have been granted by me are hereby permanently revoked and rebutted.
I, John Doe of the House of Doe, sui juris, a living flesh and blood man, a creation of Almighty God, a national American sovereign neutral non-combatant by law, declare to all Corporate combatant FEDERAL and/or STATE agents and/or 3rd parties that I am not a corporation and/or UNITED STATES/STATE “person, resident, employee or officer, citizen, created fiction or vessel” but I am one of “We The People” and I am accepting all Oaths and Affirmations declared Under Penalties of Perjury “so help me God” and returning any/all actions from the same being brought/sought against me for want of Contract and Geographical Jurisdiction and Venue.”
From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of my natural common law rights and, as such, Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio my signature on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any federal or state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me.
Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.
You have 30 days to rebut the above point by point with points in law. Non-positive law in the form of statutes, acts, or codes are not applicable. Rebuttals must be under penalty of perjury and made in your full commercial liability.
Said rebuttal must include the wet ink signature of the official rebutting any of the above along with a copy of your surety bond or the bond number and the name of the issuer of said bond.
A failure to respond will attest to, and confirm, the truth of all points contained herein and those points shall stand as the truth in law as regards this living soul.
Notice to principles is notice to agents and notice to agents is notice to principles.
My yeas being yeas and my nays being nays.
Further affiant sayeth not.
John Doe of the House of Doe
Propria persona, proceeding sui juris
coutesy source: Constitutional Law Group-Rick Martin
Key to Winning – Subject Matter Jurisdiction https://youarelaw.org/key-to-winning-subject-matter-jurisdiction/
November 11, 2017November 11, 2017 MJT challenge, jursidiction, law, legal, tax
WHEN YOU CHALLENGE SUBJECT JURISDICTION, IT IS TO BE SHOWN AND PROVED BEFORE COURT PROCEEDS. PERIOD, BUT NOT IF YOU DON’T MAKE IT AN ISSUE, YOU LOSE. YOU MUST MOVE YOUR COURT.
If you are arguing about the strawman, all capital letters, or anything else, citizenship, etc – you are missing they key to it all…Just make the accuser prove it exists.
In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”).
Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction. Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”).
The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make them.”) (“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) (“The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.” In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) (“Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute.”); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) (“The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute.”); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) (“Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”).
“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” See Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. “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.” See 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.” See 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.” See 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.” See 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.” See 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.” See 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.” See Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308.
“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.” See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. “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.” See Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” See Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” See Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. “Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” See Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. “No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.” See Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). “The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof.” Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 (d). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” See Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910. “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.” See Owens v. The City of Independence, 445 US 622 (1980). “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.” See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. “In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.” Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”). “Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction.” Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”).
The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make them.”) (“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) “The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.” In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) (“Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute.”); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) (“The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute.”); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) (“Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”);
Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights.
In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable.
[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.
A majority of states including Michigan have followed the English rule to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, ‘Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983’ 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969), pp. 326-27 and 29-30). Also as early as 1806, in the United States there were recognized restrictions on the power judges, as well as the placing of liability on judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction. In Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806), the Supreme Court confirmed the right to sue a judge for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
Judicial immunity may only extend to all judicial acts within the courts jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but it does not extend to either criminal acts, or acts outside of official capacity or in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ see Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional provisions or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020 (1981).
As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), ‘[w]here there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.’ The constitutional requirement of due process of the law is indispensable:
“A judgment can be void . . . where the court acts in a manner contrary to due process.” Am Jur 2d, §29 Void Judgments, p. 404.
“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.
“Moreover, all proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.” Olson v. Leith 71 Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342.).
The jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases, and is said to be essential, necessary, indispensable and an elementary prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power. US v Cotton, 535 US 625 (2002); Joy v Two-Bit Corp., 287 Mich 244; 283 NW2d 45 (1938); Prosecuting Attorney for Ingham County v American Amusement Co. Inc., 71 Mich App 130; 246 NW2d 684 (1976), cf, 21 CJS “Courts” § 18, p, 25. Without such jurisdiction existing, an order entered by the court is absolutely void. In re Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532, 544; 315 NW2d 524 (1982). Therefore, a defense based upon the lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time. Menna v New York, 423 US 61, 62-63 (1975)(citing People v Carpentier, 446 Mich 19; 521 NW2d 195 (1994) cf, Fox v Board of Regent of Michigan University, 375 Mich 238, 242; 134 NW2d 146 (1965).
SUMMARY: Jurisdiction is not just important it is everything and is rarely properly challenged when one has an attorney, who tends to want to argue by the hour until there is a settlement, vs attack the main issue…jurisdiction (*and the court rarely has it in No Harmed Party Cases).
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+
AFFIDAVIT OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS UCC 1-308/1-207
PUBLIC ) maithem jasem ali house of sarraj: ,sui
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL ) juris, All Rights Reserved UCC 1-308/1-207 Notice to agents is notice to principles ) Notice to principles is Notice to Agents )
Applications to all successors and assigns ) All are without excuse
Let it be known to all that I, maithem jasem ali house of sarraj explicitly reserves all of my rights. See UCC 1-308 which was formally UCC 1-207. “§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights. (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.” I retain all of my rights and liberties at all times and in all places, nunc pro tunc (now for then) from the time of my birth and forevermore. Further, I retain my rights not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally with FULL DISCLOSURE OF FACTS presented to me. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. I am not ever subject to silent contracts and have never knowingly or willingly contracted away my sovereignty and or God given rights. Violation fee of my liberty is $250,000 USD per incident or per 15 minutes or any part thereof. Wherefore all have undeniable knowledge.
AFFIDAVIT Affiant, maithem jasem ali house of sarraj, sui juris, a natural born citizen of Georgia in its dejure capacity as a republic and as one of the several states of the union created by the organic Constitution of the United States of America 1777/1789. This incidentally makes me an American national and a common man of the Sovereign People, does swear and affirm that Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the best of Affiant's firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
____________________________________________ sui juris
maithem jasem ali house of sarraj date_____________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WE THE PEOPLE, et al
) CASE No. 1:04CV01211
v. ) JUDGE: Emmet G. Sullivan
UNITED STATES, et al )
I, __________________________________________, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am a party to the action captioned above; I am over eighteen years of age.
2. I have properly petitioned Defendants for a Redress of Grievances relating to:
a) The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution.
b) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act.
c) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor.
d) The money and “debt” clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System.
3. By communicating information, expressing facts and opinions, reciting grievances,
protesting abuses and praying for answers to specific questions, I have given expression
essential to the end that government defendants may be responsive and accountable to the
Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and that changes may be obtained by
lawful and peaceful means.
4. The Defendants have failed to properly respond to my Petition(s) for Redress.
5. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on my part, as a citizen, to
meet peaceably with other citizens for consultation with respect to public affairs and to
effectively petition the government defendants for a redress of grievances.
6. The Right to Petition is among the most precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights; the value in the Right of Petition as an essential element of self-government is
7. The unfettered Petition for Redress is the only non-violent approach in a constitutional
Republic for the free individual and the free minority to hold their servant government
accountable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the ballot is merely for the majority: my
behavior in this matter is the epitome of good citizenship.
Printed Name :______________________________________
Sworn to before me Address: ___________________________________________
this ________day of ___________________________________________
____________, 2004 Phone: ___________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
AFFIDAVIT: RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE
KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMB-MEN BY THESE PRESENTS; that i: Joe-Henry: King, BEING
FIRST DULY SWORN, deposes and says as ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS,
COURTS, BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS, PUBLIC
SERVANTS, TRUSTEES, CORPORATE ENTITIES AND FICTITIOUS ENTITIES:
i am: a NON-CORPORATE: NON FICTITIOUS: NON-RESIDENT: living, breathing, flesh and
blood, naturally born: man and inhabitant, and now affirm, secure, claim and defend my
UNALIENABLE, SELF-EVIDENT, and INHERENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL, UNREGULATED,
UNMOLESTED AND UNRESTRICTED, upon public walkways, waterways and highways, and to
transport my personal, private, lodial, and/or allodial property, in/with my private automobiles
and/or conveyances, unhindered by any private, corporate or statutory law, code, ordinance,
Department of Motor Vehicles regulation, so called “requirement”, or person.
My unalienable RIGHT TO TRAVEL is affirmed and protected by my Creator; by the organic
Constitution of the several united states (1789), specifically the ninth & tenth amendments; and
by the organic Bill of Rights (1791,) and also upheld numerous times by various courts, including
the Supreme Court, in support of that right. i now explicitly, and without prejudice or recourse,
RESERVE, ASSERT, CLAIM and DEFEND my Right To Travel. Because i can, so long as i do not
damage property or injure parties.
i expressly RESERVE ALL RIGHTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE or RECOURSE HEREIN AND
HEREAFTER. This AFFIDAVIT becomes constructive filing, administrative Notice and an
evidentiary document submitted upon request or demand of a “Driver License”, registration, or
proof of insurance, and as part of the Official Record of ANY ensuing action. THIS AFFIDAVIT
MUST be introduced as evidence in ANY said current or future action.
i: Joe-Henry: King, am NOT a corporate 14th Amendment “person”, “Operator”, “Resident”,
“Trustee” or “Operator of a motor vehicle”, as defined in both Bouvier’s and Black’s law
dictionaries, as i am a NON-FICTITIOUS AND NON CORPORATE AND NON-RESIDENT flesh
and blood man whom is NOT FOR HIRE. i do NOT utilize the public walkways, roadways,
highways or “waterways” for commercial purposes EVER. i am an Article IV Section II State
Citizen for the California Republic. The corporate and/or administrative laws, codes and
statutes also clearly define that a “driver license” is for “drivers” and “motor Vehicles” are
involved in commerce only. i am not a driver or operator of a motor vehicle, unless by deception
of those legal definitions. My PRIVATE and self-propelled “conveyance”/”automobile” is for
“travel” between point A and point B, and is for non-commercial use, and for my enjoyment and
convenience ONLY. Anyone in my automobile is a “Guest” and not a “passenger”. Therefor i
declare my private automobile/conveyance/property is not a “motor vehicle”, as clearly defined
by legal dictionaries, corporate laws, codes, statutes, the corporate State of California
Department of Motor Vehicles, and adequately and clearly defined within United States Code
(U.S.C.). These are YOUR definitions and corporate creations, not mine.
i declare my automobile with a “VIN” of __________________, with attached noncommercial
common law plates (pictures attached as “exhibit A” for your records), as my private
Page 1 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
property, household goods and personal conveyance. My Domicille/ Travel ID No. is _______
(pictures attached as “exhibit B” for your records), and is not a contractual document nor a
document that grants jurisdiction in ANY circumstance.
Moving forward, i cannot in Good Faith apply for a STATE OF CALIFORNIA Driver License as i
would be committing PERJURY. I would have to swear, under oath, that I am a “resident”
(agent), “surety”, “trustee” and/or “franchisee” of the corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA when
the established FACTS by AFFIDAVIT herein directly contradict that i am any of those legal
definitions. i CAN NOT be any of those above definitions AND be a living flesh and blood man at
the same time, although i can act as the “Authorized Agent’ for the separate “person” the STATE
OF CALIFORNIA created to have control over my body, assets and property, and to be a
beneficiary of the UNITED STATES indebtedness. My current Driver License was obtained
because I wasn’t given full disclosure (fraud) and it may be kept as a form of identification, or in
the event that I do ever choose to be for hire, but is NOT my consent to be subject to for-profit
statutes, codes or regulations where there is no damaged property, losses or injured parties with
a verified & bonded claim.
ANY action or unverified claim against me lacking articulable and reasonable suspicion that i
committed a crime against an injured party, and/or is carried out without obtaining a warrant
based on that same articulable and reasonable suspicion PRIOR to me being detained, violated,
coerced or impeded is hereby and hereafter declared NULL and VOID ab initio. ANY act to
deprive me of ANY of my constitutionally protected or self-evident rights or inalienable rights or
unalienable rights or inherent rights or Common Law rights is an act of aggression, the
deprivation of my rights, false imprisonment, a violation of their Oath of Office, and a felony in
addition to being a federal crime pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C (criminal code), Title 28 U.S.C. (Civil
code), and/or, but not limited to Title 42 U.S.C. (civil rights). I reserve all remedies and
recourses in such matters, including but not limited to, holding all parties PERSONALLY
LIABLE for of deprivation of rights, extortion, coercion, kidnapping, false imprisonment,
racketeering, conspiracy etc. pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 1985 & 1988 and the
applicable Uniform Commercial Codes. Precedent for damages has been set at $USD 1.8 million
“public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful
authority by invading Rights” _Alecio vs. Woodward, 406 F2d 137t_
This AFFIDAVIT also certifies that I have completed and passed all tests measuring my
competency to safely travel or control my conveyances or private automobiles upon the public
roadways, highways, and even land defined as “waterways” by any State (as well as passed all
tests to drive or operate a motor vehicle in a commercial capacity in the future if I ever so choose
to use the public roadways or highways in such capacity). I am NOT an administrative slave and
as long as I continue to be a peaceful, careful and responsible man, I do NOT need anyone or
anything’s “Permission” to travel; or to exercise ANY of my rights; or be compelled to relinquish
ANY of my rights or property under the threat of violence or coercion; or to register ANY of my
private property or possessions, despite the phony colorable “laws” created by lobbyists and
corporations in their own self-interest, and then prosecuted in fraudulent “colorable” courts that
have self-proclaimed “authority” over the free and sovereign naturally born inhabitants or
People for We the People, and whom also prosecute innocent and peaceful People and Citizens
for for-profit victimless “crimes”. i expressly do not consent to these obscene corporate bylaws,
Page 2 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
nor do I waive ANY of my inalienable rights, unalienable rights, self-evident rights, inherent
rights, Natural rights, Creator endowed rights, Constitutionally protected rights, Common law
rights or any other rights not mentioned in this Affidavit, for any reason, EVER.
Please refer to the Laws, case law, codes and statutes below in support of my claim
of rights in this Affidavit
All immunity of the United States, and all liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and
State officials have been waived under commerce, according to the following US Codes:
Title 15 USC, Commerce, Sec. §1122, “Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and
(a) Waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. The United States, all agencies and
instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the
United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall not be immune
from suit in Federal or State court by any person, including any governmental or
nongovernmental entity, for any violation under this Act. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity
by States. Any State, instrumentality of a State or any officer or employee of a State or
instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the
eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of
sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or
nongovernmental entity for any violation under this Act.
Title 42 USC, Sec. §12202, “State immunity”
A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United
States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this
chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter,
remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to
the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any
public or private entity other than a State
Title 42 USC, Sec. §2000d–7, “Civil rights remedies equalization”
(a) General provision
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.],
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting
discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. (2) In a suit against a State for a
violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law
and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are
available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.
00. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 gives immunity in Administrative Court to the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) only when an action is brought by the people against a public,
Page 3 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
agency or corporate official / department. Under Title 5 USC, Commerce, public offices or
officials can be sanctioned.
Title 5, USC, Sec. §551:
(10) “sanction” includes the whole or a part of an agency—
(A) prohibition, requirement, limitation, or other condition affecting the freedom of a person;
(B) withholding of relief;(C) imposition of penalty or fine;(D) destruction, taking, seizure, or
withholding of property;(E) assessment of damages, reimbursement, restitution,
compensation, costs, charges, or fees;(F) requirement, revocation, or suspension of a license;
(G) taking other compulsory or restrictive action;
1. Justice is required to be BLIND while holding a SET OF SCALES and a TWO-EDGED
SWORD. This symbolizes true justice. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (60
stat 237) would allow the sword to cut in either direction and give the judge immunity by
holding his own court office accountable for honest service fraud, obstruction of justice, false
statements, malicious prosecution and fraud placed upon the court. Any willful intent to
uncover the EYES OF JUSTICE or TILT THE SCALES is a willful intent to deny Due Process,
which violates Title 18 USC §1346, “Scheme or Artifice to Defraud,” by perpetrating a scheme
or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. This is considered fraud
and an overthrow of a constitutional form of government and the person depriving the honest
service can be held accountable and face punishment under Title 18 USC and Title 42 USC
and violates Title 28 USC judicial procedures.
2. Both Title 18 USC, Crime and Criminal Procedure, and Title 42 USC, Public Health and
Welfare, allow the Petitioner to bring an action against the United States and/or the State
agencies, departments, and employees for civil rights violations while dealing in commerce. Title
10 places all public officials under this Title 10 section 333 while under a state of emergency.
(Declare or undeclared War this fall under TWEA.)
CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE
The corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA has failed to state the meaning or clarify the definition
of words. The places before the Court legal definitions and terms, along with NOTICE OF
FOREIGN STATE STATUS OF THE COURT. This court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4(j), is, in fact and at law, a FOREIGN STATE as defined in
Title 28 USC §1602, et. seq., the FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT of 1976,
Pub. L. 94-583 (hereafter FSIA), and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction in the above captioned
case. The above-mentioned “real party in interest” (Joe King) hereby demands full
disclosure of the true and limited jurisdiction of this court. Any such failure
violates 18 USC §1001, §1505, and §2331. This now violates the PATRIOT ACT, Section
800, Domestic terrorism, and the USA FREEDOM ACT.
3. There are three different and distinct forms of the “United States” as revealed by this case
Page 4 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
“The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does
mean three completely different things, depending on the context.” Hooven & Allison Co. vs.
Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States v.
Bevans, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 336 336 (1818).
The Court and its officers have failed to state which United States they represent, since they can
represent only one, and it’s under Federal Debt Collection Procedure, as a corporation, the
United States has no jurisdiction over the Petitioner. As an American national and as a
belligerent claimant, Petitioner hereby asserts the right of immunity inherent in the 11th
amendment: “The judicial power 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 of any Foreign State.” This court, by definition is a FOREIGN STATE, and is misusing
the name of this Sovereign American by placing Petitioner’s name in all capital letters, as well as
by using Petitioner’s last name to construe Petitioner erroneously, as a “person” which is a “term
of art” meaning: a creature of the law, an artificial being, and a CORPORATION or ens legis:
“Ens Legis. L. Lat. A creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a natural
person. Applied to corporations, considered as deriving their existence entirely from the law.” —
Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951.
4. All complaints and suits against such CORPORATION, or ens legis, fall under the
aforementioned FSIA and service of process must therefore be made by the clerk of the court,
under Section 1608(a)(4) of Title 28 USC, 63 Stat. 111, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2658)
[42 FR 6367, Feb. 2, 1977, as amended at 63 FR 16687, Apr. 6, 1998], to the Director of
the Office of Special Consular Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, in
Washington, D.C., exclusively, pursuant to 22 CFR §93.1 and §93.2. A copy of the FSIA must
be filed with the complaint along with “a certified copy of the diplomatic note of transmittal,”
and, “the certification shall state the date and place the documents were delivered.” The
foregoing must be served upon the Chief Executive Officer and upon the Registered Agent of the
designated CORPORATION or FOREIGN STATE.
5. MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, or STATE COURTS lack jurisdiction to hear any case since they fall
under the definition of FOREIGN STATE, and under all related definitions below. Said
jurisdiction lies with the “district court of the United States,” established by Congress in the
states under Article III of the Constitution, which are “constitutional courts” and do not
include the territorial courts created under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which are
“legislative” courts. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L.Ed. 966 (1873), (See Title 28
USC, Rule 1101), exclusively, under the FSIA Statutes pursuant to 28 USC §1330.
6. It is an undisputed, conclusive presumption that the above-mentioned real party in interest is
a not a CORPORATION, and, further, is not registered with any Secretary of State as a
CORPORATION. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Prosecuting Attorney [PUT THE
PROSECUTORS NAME HERE] has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted to
the Petitioner. This is a FATAL DEFECT, and, therefore, the instant case and all related matters
must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of in personam, territorial, AND subject
matter jurisdiction, as well as for improper Venue pursuant to the 11th amendment Foreign
7. Moreover, the process in the above-captioned case is not “regular on its face.”
Page 5 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
TABLE OF DEFINITIONS
Regular on its Face -- “Process is said to be “regular on its face” when it proceeds from the
court, officer, or body having authority of law to issue process of that nature, and which is legal
in form, and contain nothing to notify, or fairly apprise any one that it is issued without
Foreign Court: The courts of a foreign state or nation. In the United States, this term is
frequently applied to the courts of one of the States when their judgment or records are
introduced in the courts of another. Foreign jurisdiction: Any jurisdiction foreign to that of
the forum; e.g., a sister state or another country. Also, the exercise by a state or nation
jurisdiction beyond its own territory. Long-arm service of process is a form of such foreign or
Foreign laws: The laws of a foreign country, or of a sister state. In conflicts of law, the legal
principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation. Foreign laws are
additions to our own laws, and in that respect are called “jus receptum.”
Foreign corporation: A corporation doing business in one State though chartered or
incorporated in another state is a foreign corporation as to the first state, and, as such, is
required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions in order to do business in such first
state. Under federal tax laws, a foreign corporation is one which is not organized under the law
of one of the States or Territories of the United States. I.R.C. § 7701 (a) (5). Service of process
on foreign corporation is governed by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 See also Corporation.
Foreign service of process: Service of process for the acquisition of jurisdiction by a court in
the United States upon a person in a foreign country is prescribed by Fed R. Civ. P. 4 (i) and
28 U.S.C.A. § 1608. Service of process on foreign corporations is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
Foreign states: Nations which are outside the United States. Term may also refer to another
state; i.e. a sister state.
Foreign immunity: With respect to jurisdictional immunity of foreign states, see 28 USC,
Sec. §1602 et seq. Title 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Sec. §1101(14) The term
“foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or
territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
Profiteering: Taking advantage of unusual or exceptional circumstance to make excessive
profit; e.g. selling of scarce or essential goods at inflated price during time of emergency or war.
Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute the term may
include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal
representative, trusts, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act,
§2(1). Definition of the term “person” under Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75,
Subchapter D, Sec. Sec. §7343
The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a
member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty
Page 6 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
A corporation is a ”person” within the meaning of equal protection and due process provisions
of the United States Constitution.
Tertius interveniens: A third party intervening; a third party who comes between the parties
to a suit; one who interpleads. Gilbert's Forum Romanum. 47.
Writ of error coram nobis A common-law writ, the purpose of which is to correct a judgment
in the same court in which it was rendered, on the ground of error of fact, for which it was
statutes provides no other remedy, which fact did not appear of record, or was unknown to the
court when judgment was pronounced, and which, if known would have prevented the
judgment, and which was unknown, and could of reasonable diligence in time to have been
otherwise presented to the court, unless he was prevented from so presenting them by duress,
fear, or other sufficient cause "A writ of error coram nobis is a common-law writ of ancient
origin devised by the judiciary, which constitutes a remedy for setting aside a judgment which
for a valid reason should never have been rendered." 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law. § 1610
(2004).“The principal function of the writ of error coram nobis is to afford to the court in
which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact
not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a
motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding.” Black's Law Dictionary.,
3rd ed., p. 1861; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 b., p. 145; Ford v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 718,
229 S.W.2d 470.At common law in England, it issued from the Court of Kings Bench to a
judgment of that court. Its principal aim is to afford the court in which an action was tried an
opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment
was rendered. It is also said that at common law it lay to correct purely ministerial errors of the
officers of the court. Furthermore, the above-mentioned “real party in interest” demands the
strict adherence to Article IV, section one of the Constitution so that in all matters before
this court, the Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State; and to Article IV of the Articles of
Confederation, still in force pursuant to Article VI of the National Constitution, so that
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial
proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State," selective incorporation
notwithstanding. The lex domicilii shall also depend upon the Natural Domicile of the abovementioned
“real party in interest.” The lex domicilii, involves the "law of the domicile" in the
Conflict of Laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign"
law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.
DECLARATION OF STATUS AND RIGHT OF AVOIDANCE
The above-mentioned “real party in interest” hereby declares the status of a “foreign state” as
defined in 28 USC 1331(b)(1), as “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,” (in the
instant case, “otherwise”), (b)(2), “an organ (a vital part) of a foreign state” and (b)(3),
“neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c)” (a corporation,
an insurer, or the legal representative of a decedent, an infant or an incompetent), “nor created
under the laws of any third country.” Furthermore, the above-mentioned “real party in interest”
is not an artificial, corporate “person” as defined and created by PUBLIC STATUTES, and is not
Page 7 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
a juristic person which may be “affected” by PUBLIC STATUTES; but, is invested with and bears
the status, condition and character of “a sovereign without subjects.” The above-mentioned
“real party in interest” is always and at all times present in his “asylum home state” of
DOMICILLE and inhabitance, which is “the common case of the place of birth, domicilium
originis,” also referred to as Natural Domicile, which is “the same as domicile of origin or
domicile by birth,” (See Johnson v. Twenty-One Bales, 13 Fed.Cas. 863; Black’s Law Dictionary,
4th edition), which is the source and the seat of his [her] sovereignty and immunity.
Accordingly, the above-mentioned “real party in interest” exercises his Right of Avoidance and
hereby rejects the offered commercial venture and declines to fuse with or to animate the abovementioned
Defendant in Error, or to stand as STRAWMAN [PERSON], which is defined in
Barron’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, (1996), as “a term referred to in commercial and property
contexts when a transfer is made to a third party, the strawman [person], simply for the purpose
of retransferring to the transferor in order to accomplish some purpose not otherwise
permitted,” i.e., obtaining jurisdiction over the above-mentioned “real party in interest” or
relying upon the rebuttable presumption that the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is a
corporation. The definition also contains the admonition to “See dummy,” which, at that entry is
therein defined as “a strawman; a sham.” The above-mentioned party is, NOT a strawman, NOT
a sham, and is certainly NOT a dummy. This DECLARATION OF STATUS constitutes a
conclusive presumption, of which the court is bound to take NOTICE, that the “real party in
interest” is NOT a corporation; and, the administrative court can exercise no jurisdiction
whatsoever over the “real party in interest” or in the above-captioned case, but is duty-bound
according to the due process of the law, to which the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is
a belligerent claimant, and by the Rule of Law to DISMISS [OR REVERSE] it.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – PERSON
"This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and
also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to
grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its
proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition
with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or
character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition." --
American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910.
The following case citation declares the undisputed distinction in fact and at law of the
distinction between the term “persons,” which is the plural form of the term “person,” and the
word “People” which is NOT the plural form of the term “person.” The above-mentioned “real
party in interest” is NOT a subordinate “person,” “subject,” or “agent,” but is a “constituent,” in
whom sovereignty abides, a member of the “Posterity of We, the People,” in whom sovereignty
resides, and from whom the government has emanated: "The sovereignty of a state does not
reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People,
from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty,
then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is
true, both in reference to the federal and state government." (Persons are not People).--Spooner
v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943: "Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and
is, in the people" --Glass v. Sloop Betsey, Supreme Court, 1794. "People of a state are entitled to
all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." --supreme Court, Lansing v.
Page 8 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
Smith, 1829. “The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their
capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..." --Supreme Court, 4 Wheat 402.
"The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate
what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what
they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in
the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own
pleasure." --Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581. "While sovereign powers are delegated to ...
the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people”--Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,
page 370. "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the
United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no
power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." -- Julliard
v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign,
and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- Wilson v. Omaha
Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979). "Since in common usage the term ‘person’ does not
include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." --
U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941). "In common usage, the term ‘person’ does
not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." --
U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947). "Since in common
usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are
ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- US v. Fox 94 US 315. "In common usage the word ‘person’
does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to
exclude the sovereign." -- U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: The
following two case citations declare the undisputed doctrine, in fact and at law, that the word
(term of art) “person” is a “general word,” and that the “people,” of whom the above-mentioned
“real party in interest” is one, “are NOT bound by general words in statutes.” Therefore, statutes
do not apply to, operate upon or affect the above-mentioned “real party in interest:” "The word
`person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes
in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., --Church of Scientology v. US
Department of Justice 612 F2d 417, 425 (1979).
“The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of
prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the
King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former
sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good
and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general
and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) he shall not be
bound." -- The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "In the United States,
sovereignty resides in people.” --Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330). "A Sovereign is exempt from suit,
not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground
that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right
depends." --Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – LACK OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs,
493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In our judicial system, few more serious threats to
individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of
Page 9 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights. In The Case
of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the
Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings
would be void, and actionable.
When a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously,
there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or
process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of
the cause, there the whole proceeding is before a person who is not a judge, and actions will lie
against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.
A majority of states including Virginia (see, Va. Code §8.01-195.3(3)), followed the English
rule to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or
jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, 'Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983' 79 Yale L. J.
(December 1969), pp. 326-27 and 29-30).
Also as early as 1806, in the United States there were recognized restrictions on the power of
judges, as well as the placing of liability on judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction. In Wise
v. Withers, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806), the Supreme Court confirmed the right to sue a judge
for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute.
In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a
judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or
was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and
the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). The Circuit Court overturned this
case and the judge was liable.
Judicial immunity may only extend to all judicial acts within the court’s jurisdiction and judicial
capacity, but it does not extend to either criminal acts, or acts outside of official capacity or in
the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' see Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). “When a
judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional
provisions or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial
immunity is lost.” --Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct.
As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley
v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), 'where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no
discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.' The constitutional requirement of due
process of the law is indispensable: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived or life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation." Article V, National Constitution.
“A judgment can be void . . . where the court acts in a manner contrary to due process.” --Am
Jur 2d, §29 Void Judgments, p. 404. "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. “Moreover, all proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as
Page 10 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
invalid.” --Olson v. Leith 71 Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342. “In criminal cases, certain constitutional
errors require automatic reversal,” see State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 88, 139 N.W.2d 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – RECIPROCAL IMMUNITY AND FOREIGN AGENT
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IMMUNITIES ACT, PUBLIC
LAW 79-291, 29 DECEMBER 1945(Public Law 291-79th Congress) TITLE I Section
2.(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by
whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process
as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly
waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract. (d) In
so far as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of
importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and
the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which
international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances
to foreign governments.
Section 9. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations and of
their officers and employees, and members of their families, suites, and servants, provided for in
this title, shall be granted notwithstanding the fact that the similar privileges, exemptions, and
immunities granted to a foreign government, its officers, or employees, may be conditioned
upon the existence of reciprocity by that foreign government: Provided, That nothing contained
in this title shall be construed as precluding the Secretary of State from withdrawing the
privileges exemptions, and immunities herein provided from persons who are nationals of any
foreign country on the ground that such country is failing to accord corresponding privileges,
exemptions, and immunities to citizens of the United States. Also see 22 USC § 611 - FOREIGN
RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE; and, 22 USC § 612, Registration statement, concerning
the absolute requirement of registration with the Attorney General as a “foreign principal,” due
to the undisputed status of the court and its alleged officers and employees as FOREIGN
AGENTS, described supra. This requirement shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to,
an affidavit of non-communist association. 800, 807 (1966).
Only a response that meets the following criteria qualifies as a sufficient verified
1. Any rebuttal must be made via a sworn affidavit, verified and/or affirmed by a
signature under the penalty of perjury, or by a signature under the full commercial
liability, of the affiant(s) thereof; and
2. Any response must be made as a presentment to the Notary Public named below,
under the Service by and respond to address given below, and received by said
Notary Public no later than ten (10) days from the postmark of this presentment. Please be
advised that any response not made via sworn affidavit, verified and/or affirmed by a
signature under penalty of perjury, or by signature under the full commercial liability of the
Page 11 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
affiant(s) thereof will not be accepted and is deemed acquiescence and administrative default.
SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE.
Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 1745 (1) and executed “without the United States”, I
affirm under penalty and perjury under the laws of the united states of America that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my faith, belief and informed knowledge.
Respondents have TEN (10) days after the filing this Affidavit to:
A) Rebut these facts point by point, or
B) Admit to the Facts herein.
There is no “Option C”. As knowledge is ever expanding, the deponent may amend this
document at any time. And further deponent sayeth not.
Respectfully prepared by your peaceful and responsible friend who is not at war or your enemy.
For The Record, To Be Read Into The Record -
Notice To Agent Is Notice To The Principal - Notice To The Principal Is Notice To The Agent.
In Good Faith, Truth and Honor,
I Am: Joe-Henry: King, Living Natural Man, Sui Juris In Propria
Persona, All Rights Reserved without Prejudice/ 1-308; U.C.C. 1-
Authorized Agent for: JOE HENRY KING, a “Person”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i, Joe King, a real, live, flesh and blood, breathing, non-fictional, non-corporate,
and organic being, born of a Natural Mother by natural live birth on land, do solemnly, sincerely, and
squarely Affirm that the foregoing facts contained in this constructive Judicial Notice By Affidavit of
Special Appearance are true to the best of my knowledge, Culture, Customs, and Beliefs, being actual,
correct and not misleading, etc. and being the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth.
The use of Notary below is for identification only and such use does NOT grant any jurisdiction to
Please direct responses to third party public witness. Failure to cure will constitute, as an operation of
law, the FINAL admission of the facts set forth in the Presentment by Respondent(s) through tacit
procuration to the Presentment and the whole matter shall be deemed res judicata and stare decisis.
Response by Respondent(s) must be served on Claimant exactly as provided:
c/o Notary name, Notary Public
1332 Main Street
Some City, state zip
Page 12 of 13
AFFIDAVIT: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice
(1) This “Affidavit: Right to Travel and Public Records Notice”
(2) Commercial Security Agreement
(3) Property List
(4) Judicial Notice by Affidavit of Special Appearance
(5) Notary’s Certificate of Service dated (date you notarize and send this)
Further Affiant Sayeth Not.
Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and all rights reserved,
___________ ________, (date)
Joe King, Principal, by Special Appearance in Propria Persona, All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-308; U.C.C. 1-103
My Hand and Mark as Subscriber
Date:_________________ Common Law Seal:_______________________ On this _____ Day of______,
20____, before me, The Notary Public in for __________________________ (California), personally appeared the above signed
on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that he has executed the same.
Printed Name_________________ ______________
My Commission Expires_____ ________________
Page 13 of 13
TO: ____________________________ Date: _____________________
By authority of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation, I do hereby exercise my right to refuse to submit to or to administer the Covid 19 experimental gene therapy injection heretofore known as the “Covid 19 Vaccine.”
The United States Government has extraterritorially prosecuted, convicted and executed Medical Doctors who have violated the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation. Aiders and abettors of Nuremberg Crimes are equally guilty and have also been prosecuted, convicted and executed.
Every court of law in any location has original jurisdiction (Universal) to hear and try Crimes Against Humanity; and violations of the Nuremberg Code are classified as Crimes Against Humanity, which carry a maximum penalty of Death.
You are hereby put on NOTICE that any further effort to coerce, intimidate, persuade, trick or compel me to receive any experimental gene therapy injection (“Covid Vaccine”) or any other medical device, drug or procedure against my will, implicates you as aiding and abetting in the Capital Offense of a Crime Against Humanity. I hereby reserve my rights to swear to a criminal complaint against you in the nearest available law enforcement agency or court of law. I do not contract with you in any way and expressly deny any contractual relationship with you.
I hereby reserve my rights and put you on NOTICE that you may also be liable for civil damages under various Tort claims including but not limited to: negligence, fraud (in the Inducement), Assault, Battery, Intentional Inflication of Emotional Distress, Loss of Consortium, Trespass and Products Liability. You are hereby notified of potential liability and this NOTICE shall serve as actual NOTICE in support of these claims.
Delivered to: _____________________________ (name of person on notice) BY HAND DELIVERY
Badge Number (other ID) ______________________ (medical or law enforcementm if applicable) from _________________________________ (agency, facility or hospital)
on this _______ day of 20___ at: _______________________________ (place) at ____:______ AM/PM
By: __________________________________ (Complainant/You)
***Please complete the empty sections and hand deliver this NOTICE to the individual seeking to cause the injection (or other coercive act) and take a picture of both this completed NOTICE and the person you delivered it to and file a copy of this completed notice with your nearest Law Enforcement office, County Registrar, County Court, District Attoreny, Attorney General and your legal counsel. Please be aware that some states require all parties to a conversation be aware that your interactions are being recorded and as such, you should inform all people present that you are recoding pictures, audio and/or video of your interaction. Please keep all such recordings/pictures for evidence and take notes about the circumstances while it is fresh in your memory. All of this may be used as evidence or support for you claim.