RIGHT TO TRAVEL MALLQUI VS NEW JERSEY

Error message

Warning: preg_match(): Allocation of JIT memory failed, PCRE JIT will be disabled. This is likely caused by security restrictions. Either grant PHP permission to allocate executable memory, or set pcre.jit=0 in drupal_valid_http_host() (line 736 of /var/www/vhosts/afreecountry.com/httpdocs/includes/bootstrap.inc).
55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
RIGHT TO TRAVEL MALLQUI VS NEW JERSEY

Challenged the judges jurisdiction, the judge ignored and proceeded to illegally incarcerated me. Spend 3 weeks in jail for exercising my right to travel. Open for any thoughts on the procedure on how to pursuit a federal lawsuit against the "State of New Jersey" 

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You now need to file a claim

Your next step is to file a claim against the state, your county, the judge, the police who took you and the prosecutor. When you challenge jurisdiction, they are required by law to prove it. When they did not, they not only committed perjury and violated 18 USC 241 and 242, they committed treason. Since you did in fact challenge the judges jurisdiction and he proceeded, that is worth $50,000 per day that you were imprisoned.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
How to exactly. Step by step

Where do I file this claim? At the county they arrested me ? The Supreme Court ? Also where do I get this claim form? Do they give it to me and I fill it out or do I search online and look at different templates ? I've also been doing my homework, that I have to follow federal procedures and their rules in the court. I read that I need to have everything in place or else they'll throw my case away. Thank you In advance Mr.Hamilton

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

JohnWayne
I also have challenged

I also have challenged jurisdiction and the judge just keeps rite on and moving ahead,challenged it verbally 3 times at separate court proceedings...now hes forcing me into a non jury trial this Friday!!!!

John Wayne Rossman

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
The claim is not a form

The claim is not a form, but there are plenty of real examples that have been used in court in the member forum. That is where we share our documents. You can pick any similar case and adapt yours to match. the member forum is available to anyone who pays the dues or is a contributing member. Contributing members are those who are actually doing something about the states of affairs in these united states. A contribution can be in the form of serving as a continental marshal, superior court judge or grand jurist. Active duty military are also considered contributing members.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Where do I sign up?

Let me start by saying that I really appreciate the help and am very thankful for your guidance  and of course I'm fighting the corrupt state. But how do I become a marshal or a superior court judge ? After what I had to go thru, I don't want others to suffer and be able to stand up for themselves. I've been working on a power point to wake up the simple minded "sheep" a simple intro for common law. Once I'm done I would definitely love your constructive critican if you don't mind 

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Sign up here

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Thank you!

Got it ! Just ordered some ink for my printer and will follow each step directed and will posting up the mail receipts. In the mean time what are some good links I can read in regards on how to cross examine the officer or perhaps be more aware of "legalese" or anything that can help me over all. Thank you again!

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Start listening to Bill Thornton

Listen to Bill Thornton's lecture on his site 1215.org. You can stream it while you are doing whatever allows you to listen to them over and over. I recommend listening to them at least 10 times. Also read everything on this site. You do ot need to question the cop. What you eed to do is merely file the counterclaim and make your accusations.

 

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

mopuup77
right to travel

Greetings all! Marshal David here. I have been going through the same thing, driving on revoked, Illinois. This last monday i filed the 13 page "law of the case" affidavit into the case. I also told them i needed to continue the case because of filing in federal.

Fortinbras
No, you can't sue the judge

Simple fact, judicial immunity.  The suggestion in message #2 to file a claim against the judge is an error because the judge is immune to a lawsuit, and judicial immunity covers not only him but also the prosecutor and very probably there is similar immunity covering the police and the county.  And I don't there's a way to pretend that enforcing the State's vehicular laws constitutes "levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies".   We aren't told exactly what Mallqui was accused of doing, so I don't know if he was being denied a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You have much to learn grasshopper

Yes, that is exactly what the public servants wants you to think. You should have at least gone to the case law reference on this site before you expressed your opinion. A judge only has immunity so long as he performs his lawful duties. The minute he exceeds his jurisdiction, he no longer has any such immunities. It appears that you came into this thread without reading anything else on this site. You will learn that we have case law that supports EVERYTHING we do.

We have not come across one single attorney who has been able to prove in court what you have just said and we can prove what I have professed on this site. So if you have evidence to support your stance, please bring it forward. The courts have repeatedly held that, " The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. " U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Also, the courts disagree with what you just said, because, " No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril. " Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

Your comment also reveals that you do not comprehend what a republic is or common law is. The immunities that you speak of are granted by statute. The Constitution for the United States of America guarantees a republican form of government. That specifically means each and every one of us MUST consent to government's jurisdiction and must consent to leave the common law. There are articles on this site that explains the two primary ways that government gets your consent. You should read everything on this site so you do not get suckered again to believe that a judge has immunity. You have to remember tht we have experience in court with these issues. Nothing here is just theory. It is practical experience. If you think you can prove on the record what case law has proven the opposite of, I am sure there are a lot of judges who would like to know what you know.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
You should study more on judicial immunity

Mallqui doesn't tell us what he was charged with, nor how he challenged the judge's jurisdiction, but he gives the impression his was a vehicular case, in which instance in personam jurisdiction, his physical presence in NJ, was undoubted.  

Judicial immunity protects the judge unless he acts without any vestage of jurisdiction.  For example, if the police brought an arrestee to the court in the wrong township by mistake, and the judge presides over the case (also by mistake), the judge did not have valid jurisdiction so the trial is moot but the judge is still protected by judicial immunity because it appeared to him and to the police and also presumably the prosecutor (and maybe even the defendant) that he had jurisdiction at the time even though that was an error.  Unger v. Taylor (5th Cir., March 2, 2010) 368 Fed.Appx 526 cert.den 562 US 894.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020100302118/UNGER%20v.%20TAYLOR

If the judge has jurisdiction or at least enough of what seems to be jurisdiction, even the allegation that his acts were motivated by malice or corruption will not set aside his judicial immunity.  Judicial immunity goes back to before the Founding of the Republic and has been considered absolutely essential to maintaining an unbiased and independent judiciary.

If you don't believe me, see if any other court will entertain a lawsuit against this judge.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Judges do not have jurisdiction over "people"

People as the sovereigns can choose to have their cases heard in a court of record wherein the judge is not permitted to make any decision. Judge also do not have jurisdiction over people when attempting to force people to leave the common law and be held accountable to the "code". As such, if a judge proceeds against a people using code when the people objected to the code, the judge has cease to be a judge and is no more than a trespasser like any other criminal.

"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

"Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers." Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)

The biggest issue you are having is you think "persons" are "people" and they are absolutely not. Judges have no immunity in common law when they exceed their jurisdiction.

Oh, and by the way, we have plenty of experience in including judges as defendants and they have lost. We have also placed liens on their property and will be foreclosing. I guess we weren't so wrong after all.

You should also read 18 USC 241 and 242. See if you can figure out what "color of law" is.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Much...much to learn

I agree 100% with M.R Hamilton. Now I may not be an expert but I do keep an open mind and have done my homework on this particular subject. Once you start going down the rabbit hole it, there ain't no going back. Fortinbras you must first learn their language, get yourself a nice Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition if you can find those, then watch Bill Thornton's lectures and go to 1215.org . Ive been reading just reading the website over and over and over to try and get it engraved in my head so I can teach others. United we stand, divide we fall. Not only you must learn their language, you must also learn that its statutory "laws" and not common law area a totally different thing. We are natural men not corporate fictions, they must follow their own rules we don't. We follow the common law because its common sense don't hurt anybody and don't damage anyones property. It's common sense not to do malicious things to other people even little kids know it. But like good exists so does evil and we must stand up and unite because we are not outnumbered....we are out organized. Knowledge is power.

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Update on case**

So North Plainfield Police decided to send me treating letter again saying that if i don't pay up they'll suspend my license and/or arrest me by 11/15/16 . I just opened the letter today, I know im not that capitalized name but their low IQ foot soldiers might tackle me again.

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Fortinbras
Oh, and by the way, we have

Oh, and by the way, we have plenty of experience in including judges as defendants and they have lost. We have also placed liens on their property and will be foreclosing. I guess we weren't so wrong after all.

I have no idea of what cases you might be referring to.  As for filing liens against judges, The Court Safety Improvement Act of 2007, Public Law 116-177, codified at 18 USC § 1521, makes the filing of liens against federal judges & magistrates (and other federal employees), arising out of their official duties, a felony with a prison sentence of up to ten years.  Several states have adopted similar legislation to protect state judges.  There have already been several convictions under this law.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Define Official Duties

Here you go again. Acts of the legislature not apply to people. So when a judge attempts or does hold a people accountable to the code in the absence of the People's consent to leave the common law, he is not performing his official duties. He also does not have immunity.

No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.  Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
I would think the official duties of a judge are pretty obvious

.... they include presiding over a court and the various courtroom processes, including arraignments, jury selection, trials, motions hearings, and, depending on the court, other events such as officiating at marriages, at various oath takings such as admission to the bar, naturalization of citizenship, etc.

It took me some effort to look up the very old cases you cited about deciding jurisdiction "at his own peril" - but the cases weren't about judges.  Both Prosser v. Secor (NY Supm 1949) 5 Barb 607 & Middleton v. Low (1866) 30 Cal 596 were about land assessors involved in setting property taxes.  The judicial immunity of judges have been upheld in all sorts of cases - and the only reason that judicial immunity would have been an issue at all would be in instances where the judge made an error - in which the judge had any semblance of jurisdiction even if he were mistaken about it; instances in which a judge was without judicial immunity are very few.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Judges do not get to make decisions

What does "the duties of the magistrate are independent of that of the tribunal" mean to you?

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
Looking up this half-sentence ....

I don't know where you got this half-sentence or what it's context was, but I found an Illinois decision and an Kansas decision that a magistrate's duties, independent of any statute, include recording any charges and accusations.  The tribunal, in the sense of the courtroom staff, is not generally required to do that (usually it's a job for the prosecution).

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Fortinbras has revealed he is an attorney

Fortinbras, this is exactly why we beat attorneys all day everyday. They do not read simple English. As has been repeatedly held, statutes are not laws that pertain to people. That is why NOBODY that I know of who has gotten a judgment against a judge and filed a lien has been arrested. You should know that case law supersedes all statutes, codes and regulations.

WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)

So providing statutes is futile since statutes do not apply to "people". But since you are persistently claiming that statutes apply to people and not persons, please find me ONE SINGLE statute that names people in its application.

As I have repeatedly explain to you, common law is the law of the land in these united states.

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

The term person(s) does not apply to human beings.

"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. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)).

The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language is ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530);

And just exactly who is the sovereign????

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. (emphasis added)

The people, being sovereign, are not subject to law.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

You, too, would lose in my court, because you keep bringing up codes, acts and statutes which would be ruled "foreign to this court". This is why it is so utterly easy to beat attorneys. They do not know law. They might know statutes, but as has been established, statutes are not law. That is also why I recommend to anyone filing a counterclaim to include his court appointed attorney for lying to him about being an attorney "at law".

William Blackstone complained in 1752 London that two thirds of Europe proceeded according to the common law, but one single law school in that part of Europe taught it. It did not get any better. It is also why we find that federal court judges tend to be honorable and state district court judges tend to be criminal. I can assure you that there will be more state judges being arrested for treason than federal judges. Federal judge have already progressed high enough to have learned common law.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
This is the best page I ever found

M.R. Hamilton I believe there are government agents in the internet always trying to throw dirty on good valuable information. But I called the NPPD to tell them I cant pay 3K and they told me I have to "appear" before the judge next Monday. Ive taken some days off work just to study Bill Thornton's lectures and be prepared this time, The ink came in the mail and Im going to send you my Oath as soon as coordinate with a few of my friends. But is there anything important that I should know before going to court this upcoming monday? Thank you in advance

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Fortinbras
M.R.,

M.R.,

You repeat the paragraph you used on another thread without repairing any of the errors I pointed out to you.

For example, the Flournoy case did not say that statutes are not law; it said that legislation which has been held to be unconstitutional is not law.  There is a considerable difference.

More important, the quotation you pretend comes from Rodriques v. Donavan is fake.

And there are other errors.  Really sloppy considering I had warned you about them.

I don't know what instances you have in mind of liens filed against judges, but I am aware of several people now cooling their heels in prison for having done just that.  A least one more was sued by a judge for slander of title.  Many more found their liens dissolved in record time under state laws that streamlined the expunging of liens filed against government employees.

 

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Of course people go to prison

Just because someone went to prison, does not mean that I am wrong. It means someone did not know how to proceed in common law. Here is how I know that. Judges are not allowed, by definition, to make any decisions in a court of record. So if a judge made a decision in those courts, it was not a court of record. In our opinion, the federal court judges tend to be more honorable than state judges. We have had cases proceed in courts of record wherein once the judge is given a writ of error, he behaved honorably. We have also had experience with judges who committed numerous felonies to make sure he got his wy. This by definition is treason as the judge is warring against the Constitution in an attempt to over throw the republican form of government.

We have repeatedly proven in court that the code does apply to people. Naturally, someone like you who works for the government will try to dissuade others by pointing out something wrong with aase cite. I also noticed that you pick one of cluster of case cites and made no mentioned of any of the others. I will admit, I did not vet those particular cases. But the fact remains, under common law, there are no statutes and government no matter what is require to get our individual consent to leave the common law. That is an argument that no attorney or judge has been able to overcome.

Also, the key words you included in your previous post was " makes the filing of liens against federal judges & magistrates (and other federal employees), arising out of their official duties ". The moment that any of these people exceed his jurisdiction, he is no longer carrying out his official duties, but is instead committing an injury. That is why they do not have protection. 

For example, if a judge enters a plea for someone who has refused to consent to the code, he commits no less than 6 felonies. You can read about it and the case cites in the article on the home page. The point that I have been repeatedly making and you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge is. statues do not apply to people. Were guaranteed common lawn these united states. That means if their is no injury, there is no crime. People are free to do anything they so choose so long as they do not cause an injury.

So any time that a judge tries to hold someone accountable to the code who does not consent, he has exceeded his jurisdiction and is no longer carrying out his official duties.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
The judge does not enter a

The judge does not enter a plea for someone.  The plea is entered automatically by Act of Congress under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(4), which derives from a federal law dating back to the founding of the Republic.  You will not find a case in which the judge was prosecuted because a Not Guilty plea was entered for a defendant who failed to offer a recognizable plea. 

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You need to review your history

fortinbras, you need to review your history. You have repeatedly come onto this site and made some pretty feeble arguments considering the root of the issue which is statutes are not law because we are guaranteed common law and under a republican form of government you must get my consent. This is what makes your arguments look so feeble to the rest of us. You and every judge out there cannot overcome those two arguments. The reason you cannot overcome those two arguments is because they are fact going back to the founding of these united states. If we were wrong, we would not have any judges honoring our orders as we do now. Why do you supposed most federal judges honor the orders of the court presented by the sovereign of the court if what we are saying is wrong? Yes, I do know that you are here on a fishing expedition.

However, to address you comment, there are two reasons for why no judge was ever prosecuted for entering a plea. The first is going back the the founding of the United States of America. When people were charged, it was according to the common law. They were not charged for violating a code, so more than likely people just entered a plea anyway. Even if someone refused to enter a plea, a plea being entered for someone then was not treason because the Constitution guarantees the common law and the code or statutes are not law.

What has occurred is the BAR has infested the judicial system in these untied states and used trickery and deceit to fool the people into consenting ignorantly to the code using tactics similar to those used when the common law was upheld. It is of, of course, one of the reasons that government took over education. So while the arraignment process is similar, it was changed just enough to sucker people into leaving the common law and be held accountable tot the code. The difference can be seen in the two charges below.

You are hereby charged for buglary.

You are hereby charged for violating code such and such.

As we can see by the two charges, one is for an act of burglary, which does not have to be spelled out in code, because we all kow what that it. The latter charge is for violating a code that is not contained within the common law. So if someone enter a plea in the first, he is not consenting to leave the common law, but if he enters a plea in the latter, he is consenting to leave the common law and be held accountable to the cde. In this circumstance, if the judge enters a plea for the accused, he has violated 18 USC 241, 241, obstructed justice, committed seditious contempt of constitution and treason.

The judge is als not carrying out his "official duties" because he has exceed his jurisdiction over the accused "people". As such, the judge does not have any immunity for his acts. This is in agreement with some other judges besides me.

No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril. Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)

And let us not forget that the court have also upheld that the common law is the law of the land.

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
It took me a while to figure out ...

... How a court would talk about a judge deciding "at his peril" about his jurisdiction, as you purported to quote.  But, when I bothered to look up the cases you cited, it turns out that neither Prosser v. Secor (NY Supm 1949) 5 Barb 607 nor Middleton v. Low (1866) 30 Cal 596 was speaking of judges - both cases were speaking of land assessors in property tax cases.

There have been plenty of cases upholding judicial immunity, and the only instance in which it might need to be upheld is when the judge has made an error.  The instances in which judge acted without judicial immunity are very few and far between.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
It happens everytime a judge enters a plea

Every time a judge enters a plea for someone, he is exceeding his jurisdiction. The issue you are having is judges have been getting away with criminal activity for far longer than you have been alive. Government took over our education for the specific purpose of controlling what we know. The conditioning started long before you were born. So you are not going to be able to go on y.ou experience. The cite does apply t,o judges. It specifies "any officer". That includes judges.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
perserveration much?

As I have pointed out, more than once, the judge is not responsible for entering the plea when the defendant fails to enter a recognizable plea, it is done automatically under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding state rules) 11(a)(4).  This follows a law that dates back to the Founding of the Republic.

No appellate court ever held that a trial judge exceeded his authority or otherwise did wrong by complying with Rule 11(a)(4).

parrotail parrotail's picture
reply to #21 ,

the parker county (weatherford tx ) municipal court  visiting judge did in fact enter a plea for me. I objected to the code and jurisdiction, she tried again for a plea without addressing my objections, I explained that I did not wish to cede my jurisdiction to the state and that was my reason  to not enter a plea . she then said that was fine , I'll enter a plea for him of not guilty as she looked over at an officer (cop). my court date which I did not sign saying I would appear was yesterday. I did not go , since the judge said I wasn't guilty I figure thats all I need.

 

parrotail

Fortinbras
So far, no support for your

So far, no support for your pretended quotation attributed to Rodriques v. Donavan ... and no instance of a judge being punished because a Not Guilty plea was entered for a defendant who failed to enter a recognizable plea (in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(4), as derived from the Act of 30 April 1790, §30, 1 Stat.L. 119).

I could go on and on with claims you have made that I know are without any supporting cases, but for the moment I'll settle for those two items.

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Then why are you here ?

If you're happy about your government and have no problems following these man made synthetic "laws" why are you here ? Why are u here trying to discredit people ? The rest of us are here to try to learn and make a change in the world. cuz we see that there is no government anymore just corporate policies and we refuse to back down. I don't get it fortinbrass, why'd u take the time out of your day to create an account in this website to try and throw dirt on the useful information Hamilton has given us. Unless you are a PAID government agent to try and discredit the TRUTH and hide this valuable information from the people 

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Fortinbras
"Paid government agent"?!

"Paid government agent"?!  Well then, somebody owes me a lot of money.

Still not a word about the fake Rodriques quotation, and still no example of a judge prosecuted for entering a plea of Not Guilty for a defendant who won't enter a plea.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
And still no evidence government has jurisdiction over people

You are correct. I just went to look up the Rodriques case and you are right. It is fake and has been removed from the case reference page. I stand corrected. I usually vet everything myself, but depended on someone else's information.

So, now that that is cleared up. How about you answering the questions that you have been evading since you came onto this site. What do you say?

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Fortinbras is only going on and on

You keep bringing up one case and evading the root of the argument. Typical can't-answer-the-question attorney. I tell you what. I promise not to delete your account if you do not post another stupid argument without answering the two lines below.

  1. Please provide the specific authority that grants government jurisdiction over people who have repeatedly been ruled by the courts to be sovereign.
  2. Please explain how statutes are law under common law that apply to "people" even though "people" are not specifically name therein.

I will give you a hint.

You are starting to look and sound like a typical government puppet who cannot overcome very simple arguments. Oh, yeah, that is because you can't. You keep going to one case when we have many cases. Just go the the case reference on this site, then start a thread and explain why each of them is wrong. I might start getting a modicum of respect for you if you came overcome half.

You keep parotting the same thing same thing over and over, but I get that kind of behavior from every single attorney who debates me. You will find one case out of all of them that is wrong and that is the one case you focus on. You do not provide evidence that people are not sovereign and you do not provide evidence that article 4 section 4 of the Constitution has been repealed.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
1.  Government has

1.  Government has jurisdiction over situations, locations, and occasionally people (such as citizens) , but I do not know of any instance where a court pronounced a person to be "sovereign" in the sense that he was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

2.  Statutes are legislation and they are law but not "under the common law".  When statutes are enacted they displace the common law that previously existed on the same topic; the common law persists only until replaced by legislation and then the common law is extinguished and the statutory law fills that space.

 

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
There are two things wrong with your assessment

1. People are not citizens. People have repeatedly been ruled by the court to be sovereign. As such, government has no authority to rule over them.  Citizens, especially US citizens, are subjects of government. This is according to the jurisdiction in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. Citizens have no rights as they are subject. What they have are privileges grant by government by those statute you so love.

2. According to your analogy, the common law would have been done away with hundreds of years ago, because all a government would have to do is write a statue to cover any situation. Yet the Hertado v. Calofornia case confirmed that we still have the common law in these untied states. I would recommend that you get a copy of the book that is published by the US Senate anywhere from every 3 to 20 years. It is now about 2800 pages long and includes both common law cases and other types of law. It is called The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis and Interpretation. It used to have the common law references in the index, but in an effort to further control information the index references were removed. The common law is still in there though.

Something you might want to consider, Frtinbras, is if you were right, then we would not have people issuing orders in their own courts of record and getting away with it. As you know, anyone who issues a document that purports to be an order who is not authorized to make orders get arrested. Nobody who has ever issued an order in his court that I have coach in how to proceed has ever been arrested for issuing orders. Why do you think that is the Case?

It is simple. In a court of record, which by definition proceeds according to common law, the duties of the magistrate are independent of that of the tribunal. The judge is merely a magistrate who is not permitted to make decision and orders, because he is not the tribunal. Without a jury, the sovereign of the court is the tribunal and in a court of record, US citizens, who are subjects, are not qualified to judge a sovereign because they are not members of the peerage, or nobility, the freemen.

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. Magna Carta, Article 34

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
Update on case**

I have to "appear" before the judge today to sign some paperwork and start my "payment plan". I'm going to have to start paying in order for me to stay out of jail and be able to study more and be well prepared to file my count claim. I will make sure to state that I am making a special appearance, not voluntarily under threat of incarceration and also sign any papers with "under duress" ucc 1-308  to reserve all my natural human rights. I'm taking a day off so I could listen to Bill Thornton and really learn the procedure before I move on any forward. By the way M.R I emailed you earlier, it might've gotten lost in the junk email or something but I can't pay my dues, it doesn't let me enter my card information. 

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Fortinbras
If Mallqui already has (or

If Mallqui already has (or has been assigned) a payment plan, then he's already lost a case, and he can call his return to court a special appearance, a spiritual visitation, a haunting or a visit from Saint Nicholas - it won't matter - it will be him, in court.  And it won't do him any good to say he's there or he's signing "under duress" - his signature is binding, and the court has the lawful authority to jail him for contempt (for either refusing to sign or for failing to follow through on the payment plan), so legally it's not duress either..

 

Mmallqui Mmallqui's picture
The only reason

The only reason I went was because they threaten to send their fluoride soldiers to apprehend me and incarcerate me unless I give them money and sign their fraudulent papers. That contract is void, but you never answered my question. What is your purpose of you being in this website fortinbras? You're not aiding anybody in their mission to fight back against corruption nor are you being helpful in any kind of way. 

Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

Fortinbras
Telling people that they can

Telling people that they can ignore court orders, and can legal papers and then ignore them, isn't helpful - it's steering people into deep trouble.  I am trying to spare them from following your very bad suggestions.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You still do not get it

You still do not get it. It has become very apparent that you are a government propagandist. Ignoring court orders has not been ascribed by me ANYWHERE on this site. You have failed repeatedly to overcome any of the core arguments that I have presented here. Ignoring court orders is not what I teach. What I teach is how to vacate those court orders. What you still do not grasp is PEOPLE are sovereigns and hold their own court. That is a difficult thing for the conditioned attorneys to wrap their heads around. The judge has extremely limited authority in court. The Constitution still to this day only allows judges to make decisions about issues valued at less than $20. So when you say judges "are immune when carrying out their official duties", they are not immune when exceeding their jurisdiction and they do that every time they force a people into the statutory system without his individual consent.

You forget the we do have experience in court. This is not just some theory that has not been proven repeatedly. There are honorable judges and dishonorable judges. Honorable judges know, comprehend and obey the common law. They deserve our respect and our protection. Dishonorable judges do not and in doing so violate 18 USC 241 and 242, commonly commit perjury, obstruction of justice and treason. It is treason when a judge ignores the orders of a court of record. The time is coming very soon when these judges will be arrested for their crimes. Crimes that they have been getting away with because of the ignorance of the public at large. That ignorance is now gone and the knowledge is spreading rapidly.

So when you say that I am giving very bad suggestions, you have to back that up with why the judges in these cases obey the orders of the court. These are very bad suggestions for government paid attorneys, because you cannot overcome the arguments. In every one of the orders that we have written, we always include an order inviting all parties to the action to present just cause why the orders are invalid and allow 30 days to do so. In every single case without fail, none of the attorneys or judges have ever been able to present any evidence whatsoever why the orders are invalid. Why do you think that is? It should be a simple thing to do if the orders were in fact invalid.

We do get motions from the opposition to strike the orders. They say the orders are "faux" orders or documents "purporting" to be orders, yet they are still moving the court to strike them. If they are "faux" orders, why would they need to be stricken from the record? If they were documents "purporting to be orders", why did the judges not step in and interfere with the proceedings? I can tell you why. It is because the judges were honorable and know common law unlike the idiot attorneys on the other side of the table.

You know as well as I do that people who present documents in court who are not authorized to do so, get arrested for that. Not one single case that I have advised on resulted in an arrest for the sovereign of the court issuing his own orders. Not one single case.

So if you are in fact a government (corporation) attorney, you need to know that times are going to become very dangerous for those of you who commit treason. As you know, that is a capital offense, and with the ire of the public, it is not likely that a jury of non US citizen American people will be lenient and not order the execution of the traitors. The conditioning that the government has done through taking control of the education of Americans is coming undone. The Internet has changed everything and the truth has gotten out. This naturally is scaring the hell out of the globalist corporations for whom you work.

The de jure original jurisdiction government is being reseated. The de jure government has not been seated since Truman's 2nd term on the federal level and now the people are swearing in continental marshals by the thousands. The real grand juries are being reseated in every state. You know the real common law grand juries that are chosen by the people from the people as required under common law. People are learning the truth about the fake grand juries that are seated by judges to serve as good little puppets. The grand juries that never number 25 as required under common law. We have many continental judges. I am one.

The Supreme Court of the United States has opined that it does not have the authority to question the decisions of a court of record. So if the Supreme Court says it does not have the authority to question the decision of a court of record, what makes you think that any other public servant may do so. That is what we have today. We have some public servants that still refuse to abide by the legitimate orders from a court of record. That is treason. And that is about to come to an end. So a word of warning to all of you public servants who think you are right in forcing people to abide by your code, you are walking on very thin ice and will want to make sure you are on the side of the Untied States of America when we start making the arrests and not that of the Untied States, Inc. (a federal corporation). There are too many of us now that know the truth. Taking out any of us just makes you a target for lawful action by the common law. Any time you go after any of our marshals, judges or grand jurists, we are going to rain down hell on you through the courts and we do not ever lose and now we have enforcement. You got away with ignoring us before. You will not get away with ignoring us now.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
Your last message said things

Your last message said things that are completely contrary to what I know to be true.

Your statement of what the Supreme Court "opined" about the authority to "question the decision of a court of record" baffles me.  I cannot find a decision that uses these words, and I do not know of a case that expressed this in other words.   You say you never suggested people ignore court orders - you didn't (that I know of) but Mallqui did and you let it pass without comment.  You talk about lawyers being tried for treason -- the definition for treason is extremely narrow; do you know how many people have been convicted of treason in US history??  

You talk about "fake grand juries" - I served on a real one; I have no reason to know that they are required to have 25 members -- federal law specifies between 16 and 23 inclusive (18 USC § 3321).  I don't know of anything that happened in Truman's 2nd term (I assume  you mean the one term for which he was elected President) that prevented the government from being authentic.  You seem determined not to understand the extent of judicial immunity.  

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You have much to learn fortinbras

You have much to learn. There is a case reference on this site that has many cases, most of which I have personally vetted, some of which I have not. You have all of the information on this site that you need. You keep coming back to the forum to simple argue. I have been researching this for 26 years. Naturally, especially if you are an attorney, you will not know about these things. The system that controls our information, also controls your information. If you did not go looking for the case cites that I have mentioned, why would you have found them?

You are refusing to accept the fact that judges do not have judicial immunity, once they exceed their jurisdiction. You are also refusing to accept that anyone, especially a public servant, who wars against the Constitution by forcing a people into the statutory system without his consent is committing treason. Just because government corporation servants have been getting away with criminal acts for decades, does not make it right. As a matter of fact, there is a case cite about that as well. I will let you go find it. It includes the word "habitude".

You are also refusing to accept the fact that statutes apply only to government servants, not people. I have repeatedly told you that you will not find the term people in any statute for a reason and that is they do not apply to them. The term person does not apply to people. It refers to just about anything but people. Almost all of your arguments are based on statutes. Once you grasp the concept that statutes do not apply to people, you will finally start to comprehend. People are sovereign. That makes them the highest authority regarding them. How can any government agent direct the lives of someone who is of higher authority?

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. (emphasis added) AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

If you cannot overcome these arguments here, how are you going to overcome them in court?

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
on another topic ...

Perhaps you can explain to me why I am unable to add comments to other topics on this website.

In the tax section or other sections, I can post only about 50  letters for a "subject" but not a comment itself.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Can't explain that

I do not know. There is nothing that I have in place that would affect posting different size messages in one forum over another. You do not have access to the member forum, but there is no restriction anywhere else that I am aware of.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
You have a column "Title 26 is not law" ....

.... and I wanted to respond to that, but all I was allowed to type was about 20 letters as "subject" and no comment.

I wanted to say that you seriously misunderstood the meaning of 26 USC §7806, as shown, for example in the decision in  Minor L. McNEIL v. C.I.R.,  T.C.Memo 2011-150, aff'd 451 Fed.Appx 622

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20TCO%2020110628C39/McNEIL%20v.%20COMMISSIONER%20OF%20INTERNAL%20REVENUE

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
The case has no bearing

First off, the judges opinion has no bearing whatsoever. Anyone who can read above about the 8th grade level can make the same determination that I and many others have made. Other flaws in the case are as follows.

  1. The action he filed was not in a court or record where the judge is not permitted to make any decisions.
  2. The "petitioner" was filing tax returns. If he believed that title 26 is not law, why was he filing returns and why did he simply not file a certificate in lieu of W-4 as permitted by their own code? I have not filed a tax return in over 20 years and have been in direct contact with the IRS who cannot overcome my arguments.
  3. It is obvious the judge knows nothing about to what "income" refers. Income has been defined by the courts as "gain on capital". Wages are a direct exchange for ones labor based on the value of said labor. So there is no gain when one gets paid for his labor. Even if one sells a house ten years later for double what he paid for it, there is no gain, because the house was not worth more. The value of the federal reserve note was worth less. The Coinage Act of 1792 defines a "dollar" as 371.25 grains of silver. It has never been repealed. If it takes more federal reserve notes to buy a dollar, it is not because the dollar is worth more. As a matter of fact, the federal reserve note has depreciated 3.33% per year since the year 2000 and over 16% per year since 1960. So using this calculation one could easily sell a $200,000 FRN house for $300,000 FRN at a later date and still lose money.
  4. I sent an affidavit to the IRS and it requested an extension of 45 days twice. It had defaulted by two days after the second extension. Whoever responded, naturally no name was provided, stated that my claim was "frivolous". This is a feeble way for them to say, "We cannot overcome your arguments." Any time any government agents use the "frivolous" terminology indicates he is wrong and cannot overcome the lawful argument. If the IRS actually had jurisdiction over "people", it would be able to easily point to that authority. It cannot do so. People have been challenging the jurisdiction of the IRS for decades. And those who do it correctly, get apologies when the IRS sends them a letter. I have met 2 people who quit long before I did in the late 1970's and the IRS sent them both letters apologizing for having sent them a letter about their failing to file. Only people who are "US citizens, US persons or corporations" file tax returns. It is usually only people who file returns that go to prison. I also have an article on this site that explains how the IRS wins in tax court and how to beat them.You might want to read that as well.

You should also keep in mind that every single thing on this site has been proven in court repeatedly. None of this is just theory. So when you come on this site and try to claim that what is professed here is wrong, that is like telling someone, "You did not actually have that experience." That is weak at best.

Readers here should also note that every one of the cases that you have presented were cases that took place in an inferior court. Not one took place in a court of record. Nice try though. You must be getting paid to try to discredit our arguments.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

Fortinbras
The case I cited was decided

The case I cited was decided by the US Tax Court and affirmed by a US Circuit Court of Appeals, so yes it came from a court of record.

The Coinage Act of 1792 had been repeatedly amended by 1870, as noted by the US Supreme Court in the Legal Tender Cases [Knox v. Lee](1870) 79 US (12 Wall) 457.   For example, the gold measurement of a dollar was changed in 1834 and in 1837, and the silver measurement in 1837 and 1853, and the amendments to the measurements continued after 1870.  By 1872, when the Revised Statutes were published, the only portion that remained from 1792 was the section specifying that US currency was counted in the decimal system; and even this was repealed and replaced in 1982 by 31 USC §5101.

The case you cite for income as profit on investment was one dealing with taxes on a corporation.  But the courts, including the US Supreme Court, have been clear that for individuals, taxable income is based on their wages or salaries or whatever compensation they received for their labor.  This is clearly stated in the Tax Code and clearly upheld by the Supreme Court.  The federal income tax laws apply to everyone who earns money in the US whether or not they are citizens of the US ... as well as all US citizens who are outside the US.

Fortinbras
Your don't seem to know what a "court of record" is.

A "court of record" is a court where a record is made of proceedings, something more than just the outcome.  It is usual that appeals can be made from such courts.  Courts not of record (e.g., small claims, justice of peace court) issue decisions that are challenged not by appeals but by a trial de novo in a court of record.

There is nothing about a court of record that disables its judge from making decisions.

I still have not seen anything that supports your claim in message #35 that:

. The de jure government has not been seated since Truman's 2nd term on the federal level ...

Pages

Log in or register to post comments