| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Akira
Junior Member
USA
22 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Feb 2004 : 18:43:28
|
To My Brothers in Christ Jesus,
Comes Now, this bondservant of Christ, grateful to Almighty God for My Liberty in Christ, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Matter, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Writ, revealed both in His Testament written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him:
Thru the blessings of Jesus, the Christ, I have been given, what he tells me, are two major swords in our battle against the unrighteous. The lessor of which, I present today. I have seen bits and pieces of this information everywhere, but no one seems to have "put it all together".
It is my righteous joy and solemn duty, to share this info with you, praying that you may call his Holy Name, seek His Guidance, hear His Words, and join me in wielding His "Sword of Truth" for His Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFECTED COMMON LAW ARGUEMENT FOR NO LICENSES ! (and more)
This arguement was perfected by Carl Miller, a Counselor at Law for over 25 years. Know these arguements inside and out. Read the complete cases, the Judge may test you. Memorize the rhetoric, and practice before a mirror and friends. When in court, give your arguements as quickly as possible, as it will impress the judge. Also, make a point to have your costs written up in a proposed order for the Judge, already attached to your brief, it intimidates the heck out of the district attorney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Constitution is an Iron Clad Contract, enforceable in a Court of Law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR HONOR:
I'm Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, here before this honorable court.
I am an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law.
(Counselor at Law addon: "I'm not a participant in any tautine schemes, of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes." )
"I'm just your average "Joe"...., Joe Blow from Kokomo, down on the street and I live, work, and travel at the common law. "
(Counselor at Law / Right to Work addon: " A workman is worthy of his hire, and I have a Right to Work and Contract MY Labor and MY skill and MY Time of Life as I see FIT. Not as some 3rd party arbitrary and coprecious BAR Association sees fit." )
I am standing as my own "a-counsel". I have appointed myself as my own attorney and I am ready to procede in my administrative and procedural matters.
At this time , your honor, may it please the court, I motion for dismissal with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
(when the Judge asks "why"... give your arguements, as follows...)
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)
Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "
(Clearly establishes a right to travel.)
(Travel addon: "The State of Xxxxxxx arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a priviledge, and issued a license and a fee for it." )
Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
And If They Do ............
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
That Means You Can't Punish Me.........
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”
I submit your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil task, because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit that Prosecution Counsel's burden is to prove I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit that, and specificly proclude that, he cannot perform his task.
Byars v. United States 273USR 28 (1927):
“Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
And I Am That Beneficiary !!!
WHEREFORE your Honor, I pray before this Honorable Court for your Just and Lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this badly frivilous and spurious case. I have a proposed order, which outlines my costs, in my brief, your Honor, may it please the court.
(now sit down, shut up and be humble ! )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By removing Shapiro v. Thompson you have a arguement against ALL state issued licenses.
In theory, all rights should be defendable using the above arguement(s) as a "springboard".
For example: Access to your children after Article I courts gave you "visitation" or a Protection from Abuse Order
Use the right of travel arguement, plus:
Maxim of law: Government can only control what it creates. (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.)
"God blessed me with my children. God alone may take them from me, unless you can lawfully show damages in an Article 3 common law court."
Hurtado v. California 110 US 516 (1884):
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526 (1964):
"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 (1913):
"the claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime."
(and when you go see your children anyway...)
Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):
"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution."
Mulger v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887):
"The courts..... are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm.... Can We Make This Work?
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 says:
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
If the Constitution is to be liberally construed in MY favor, based on MY "plain english" interpretation of what the Constitution says, then.........."
Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit clause, Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America read in conjunction with the Constitution of Xxxxxxx, no member of the bar can sit as judge or magistrate of any court of record. Any member of the bar that sits or attempts to sit on this court of record is in contempt of this court.
I believe the "Titles of Nobelity Amendment" was our Founding Father's "hind sight" attempt to clarify Article 4 section 1 and to reemphasize the extreme importance of securing government from a clearly percieved external threat.
Anyway, you get the idea..............
If they give you a hard time about jurisdiction, use one or two of the court cites listed below in "additional Ammo" or use this approach to "move them" to a common law court.
http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuris/filemgmt/visit.php?lid=14
Make certain to get a copy of the Asset Forfeiture Manual at Sui Juris.net
http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuris/filemgmt/visit.php?lid=59
Now go kick their butts!
For HIS Glory,
Akira
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been individually endowed by Almighty God with certain unalienable Rights. That among these are the Right to:
1) Life
2) Own, Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Body;
3) Reproduce;
4) Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Children;
5) Liberty;
6) Defend All Rights Of Myself, My Family, And My Fellow Man;
7) Own, Possess, Move and Convey Property;
8) Pursue Happiness;
9) Privacy;
10) Worship God in my own way;
11) Free Speech, Teach, Publish and Assemble;
12) Keep and Bear Arms;
13) Cultivate, Possess, And Bestow All Fruits Of Nature And Of Nature’s God In Accordance With The Will Of Almighty God As Recorded In Genesis Chapter One Verse Twenty Nine;
14) Contract;
15) Establish Commerce;
16) Free Enterprise;
17) Unimpeded Movement;
18) Own, Possess, Maintain And Operate A Means of Travel;
19) A Republican Form Of Government;
20) Be Presumed Innocent;
21) Assistance Of Counsel;
22) Due Process Of Law, Equal Protection of Law
23) Know The Nature And Cause Of Any Accusation Or Action Against Me And To Be Provided With A Written Copy Thereof;
24) Confront All Accusers;
25) Trial By Jury In A Court Of Record According To The Rules Of The Common Law;
26) A Speedy Trial;
27) A Writ Of Habeas Corpus And All Other Common Law Rights;
28) Be Free From Standing Under Any And All Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, Or Rules Conflicting with The Common Law;
29) Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances
30) Earn A Living;
31) Be Secure At All Times In The Exercise Of All My Rights, Unencumbered By Any Liens Or Unlawful Trespass Of Any Kind.
32) Hunt and Fish
33) ?????????? ( contributions welcome )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL AMMO
Cohens v Virginia, 6 wheat (19 U.S.) 264, 404 (1821):
Chief Justice John Marshall said "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution."
Ramsey v. Allegrie, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 611, 631 (1827):
"If the common law can try the cause and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction."
Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.) 409 (1792); Article #6 Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. All judicial officers of the united States are bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):
"The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former."
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635 (1886):
"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 (1927):
“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”
Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190 (1955):
"the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."
Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941):
Justice Douglas maintained that "the privileges and immunities clause was the proper basis for the holding and further insisted that freedom of movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the states and recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before the 14th Amendment was ratified."
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,125 (1958):
"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta."
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983):
"you can not be charged with failure to identify, until you have been charged with a crime."
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966):
"Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!"
“In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self incrimination.”
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”
American Juris Prudence
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 163:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; .
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 260:
"In the addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulations are reasonableness, impartiality and definiteness or certainty."
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 717:
"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 with viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have the occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience or pleasure."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 81:
"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 98:
“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”
(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 114:
“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 117:
“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 177:
“Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law”
(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:
“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260:
“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”
16 Am. Jur. 2d, Const. Law Sec. 543:
"No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or any wise destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."
MISC
Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”
Title 18 sect 2381 - Capitol Felony Treason:
"In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason."
Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
"Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about."
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991):
"A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity."
Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”
“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”
(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)
“Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followers of Christ are not afraid to be thrown into prison, because we are free in Christ, no matter where we are. And they are the ones who are in prison no matter where they are, because they are the slaves of sin (Romans 6:16-23).
Ephesians 6:11-20, "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak." |
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2004 : 23:46:26
|
My Dear Akira,
While your posting is quite lovely, and I thank you for the useful information contained in it, you do make one error. The U.S. Constitution, is not and never was applicable to the People of this land. It was not ratified by the People. It was ratified by the states and is only applicable to the States, employees of the U.S. Government, and citizens of the U.S. Territories. This fact has been upheld in numerous court cases. Everything you have cited is for those only and not for the general masses of People.
Thursday about 2 weeks ago, I had a judge tell me in court and on the record that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to me, and that he cannot be made to apply it to me. And, you know what, he is right. The U.S. Constitution only applied to him in that situation, and I made him painfully aware of that.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
 |
|
|
Akira
Junior Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2004 : 17:30:31
|
Brother Lewish,
Thank you for responding. I was hoping someone would.. lol
I have read many of your posts over the past year.. and it is a pleasure to speak with you. Forgive me however, as I don't completely understand your answer as written. I question the relevance, constructiveness, and motivation behind your comments, as I found them a bit self serving, and somewhat irrelevant. If it were not for the 'newbies" reading these posts, it is likely I would not respond. But this is not about me.... or you. (forgive me)
IT IS ALL FICTION ! (Can of worms time....)
It is extremely difficult to discuss one aspect of our situation in any detail, without getting way off topic.
You are right, the people never ratified the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights. I have found Spooner's arguements very enlightening and the recent docs from North Carolina via the Informer as well..
By your own words...
"The U.S. Constitution, is not and never was applicable to the People of this land. It was not ratified by the People. It was ratified by the states and is only applicable to the States, employees of the U.S. Government, and citizens of the U.S. Territories. "
Therefore, because the "We the People" Constitution was never ratified (by the people), the Federal Government is not lawful, and never was, period. Since power only flows downhill, doesn't it instantly become irrelevant what the so called "federal government" did, and has done from that moment on? Of course is does. It is of no consequence to "We the People" if the unlawful defacto federal government adopted an identical Constitution or whether they labeled their stockholder/employees as 14th amendment citizens, or as freemen or anything else. The Judge only has his "corporate charter", and fellow members of the corporation masquerading as a de jure government. This defacto federal government "appears to exist" only as a commercial entity, without any lawful authority. Therefore it controls no territories, nor people, and cannot make any contracts, outside that commercial venue, or can they?
On it's face, the Constitution was never about rights, it's a business contract, with job description. The Bill of Rights is the document we want to refer to. However, had the Constitution been ratified by the people, the Bill of Rights was not. Had the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights both been properly ratified, and were lawful contracts, the Constitution's provisions would have been violated numerous times (all else being equal) and we would still be faced with the same choice we are faced with today.... whether to stand against an ungodly, unlawful, defacto government or not.
"Seeing thru the game is not winning the game."
If what the Informer is offering from North Carolina can be taken at face value, coupled with King John's? giving England and her possessions to the Pope in 1213, it would appear the Pope owns everything. Perhaps this is true. The next logical question then becomes, is this deceitful "secret government", and its facade, lawful? In God's eyes, I am sure it is not. From a Contract/Commercial perspective, we know it is "legal", and it may also be contractually lawful, getting it's sovereignty from the King. So, in fact, our defacto federal government may be a facade for a "lawful" secret government, by the Pope, thru the King of England. What a mess! As such, this is great material for why we should exercise our Christian right of avoidence whenever possible. Presently, however, I believe all this info is
of little value when we find ourselves in court.
"Locks only keep out honest people"
In court, we are dealing with truth AND fiction, where any truth is extremely well hidden, and fiction is presented as truth. Since there is no real law, there are no real rules. Caesar, when cornered, can and will do as he darn well pleases, and as shown, may be doing so lawfully! However, if he is still playing his "Article I/Article III lawful court facade/game" and is concerned with his "false image" and "saving face" and perpetuating "the game", he will acknowledge the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court decisions and our manipulation of them. Sadly, the Article I Legislative/Administrative Tribunals may actually be the "secret government's" lawful court, and that Article III courts are entertained only for our amusement.
We must never confront, challenge or corner the Judge. We must always be humble, and lead the Judge to the answer we want, in many "baby steps". In common law jurisdiction, we aren't there for the Judge, we're there to teach the District Attorney a lesson in law.
As long as Big Brother is still "in the closet" and playing his game, then any "presumably" lawful arguement should work. These arguements worked "more than 99% of the time" for Carl Miller, who perfected these techniques over his 25 year career as a Counselor of Law. I guess the question becomes, why did these techniques work for Carl Miller, and you claim they won't work now? As more people become educated, and as more Judges are increasingly "boxed in", Judges will be more and more tempted to burst from their closet and cut us down in fits of self-righteous defiance. This sounds like what has happened to you.
I concede that it is imperative to know all the rules of all the game(s) until we know the truth. We are still a bit from that, though, we are getting close. Until Big Brother comes out of the closet and confesses the truth, we can't be sure exactly what the game is, only that it is a game, a very serious game and that we don't know all the rules. We have no choice but to examine and prepare for all possibilities.
If the Judge accepts me as being in "tic tac toe" jurisdiction, then I am happy, cause I am a great tic tac toe player. If he accepts me as being in "common law" jurisdiction, then I am happy, because I know the common law. Even if he wants me to be in a "federal 14th amendment citizen" jurisdiction, I am happy, (in the short term, anyway) because I know the rules of the game well, and can win. If I find myself in a secret government jurisdiction with no published laws or rules, I have a major problem.....
Same Idea, a different approach...
All my male relatives hunt deer. I do not, and never will. Deer hunting is far from a sport, as it's represented. There is no sport in hunting at all.
On a good day for the hunter, he gets a deer... he wins !!
On a bad day the hunter goes home empty handed, but this is only a tie. The hunter cannot "lose", as the deer can't shoot back and the hunter can't die.
On a bad day for the deer, he loses, and dies.
On a good day, he only ties, and gets to live another day... he can never "win" and take the hunter home for the supper table.
The deer can't "win", and the hunter can't "lose".
Our situation is the SAME ! We cannot "win" until we can "shoot back" ! Until then, our wins are only ties, to live and fight another day. Shooting back is almost a total waste, until we can "see" them clearly and target their weak spots. Even then, we can never win until we are ready, as a group, as a well educatred LARGE group, to take a stand. Till then we must
be content to tie, and pray for our Lord's intervention to help us win, in an otherwise winless situation.
For a bondservant of Christ, it is all irrelevant. We are arguing "their" law... man's law... not HIS law. If we are true to our convictions, and are prepared to die for HIM, nothing else is relevant. Without HIM, I am nothing, and as such, I will never win. With HIM, I can be anything He wishes me to be, and thru HIS will, I am able to vaquish all comers, if He so chooses, ratified Constitution or not. It is far better to live for Him in pain, than for nothing, in comfort.
I am not suggesting we "tempt the Lord Thy God" by jumping into a pit of fire with no protection, and expect to survive, a fool's foley. But frankly, until Caesar comes out of his closet, whether we win or loose is primarily dependant on the whim of the Judge that day, and how much of his "poker hand" he is prepared to expose... and once exposed, any success we have in satan's court will be by Devine Intervention alone.
My advice is to learn thoroughly, all arguements for all jurisdictions. Only this way will we, thru his will, have a trump card for everything they throw at us. I have attempted to provide one such trump card here.
As a Bondservant of Jesus, the Christ, the common law is the only jurisdiction even moderately worthy of acquiecing into, since all other codes, rules and regulations, stand in morality and sin... but that's another post...
I appreciate the critisism, it sharpens my tools and prepares me for battle !
If anyone has relevant court cites, or possible additions to my "unalienable rights list", please post them.
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." Isaiah 33:22
for HIS Glory,
Akira
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2004 : 21:05:54
|
Brother Akira,
tis a pleasure to converse with you. I and also Brother Robert {oneisraelite} on this forum, travel about without tags-licenses-insurance. I monitor many different thought forms on the issue of traveling the King's highWay, without being molested. It is an ancient problem. I agree with your thoughts. Let's not bring a knife to a gun fight!
Ever notice that Isaiah 33:22 states that Yahuweh is The supreme judge [supreme court} our Lawgiver {Congress] and King {president}?
I played baseball till age fifty, and while on the field, paid attention to the enemy team, and found it to be of an advantage for my team, to steal the other side's signs. With that in mind:
All Federal buildings {most likely all State buildings}, government buildings, have a Masonic ceremony in laying the foundation stone, at the initial construction. The building is dedicated to the craft of Free Masonry. And for what purpose? {J-D-M and vengence?}
Fact; George Washington's generation was initiated into the craft, in the third degree, with the tetragrammation being the "lost word"...YHWH, pronounce it as you will.
Fact; this mystical word was changed in 1798. And why? For it was the lynchpin, the peg, to place all on. The word now stands as MaHaBoNe...which is a total corruption, done on purpose.
Fact; 1776 is exactly 2520 years {the great 7 times} from when the norther House of Israel started going into captivity for their sins, and the sins of their father's.
Ben Franklin and Robert Morris had to borrow money, at usury, to provide for the troops in the field, who were sick and tired of rotten lying kings and Pope's. Men were losing their feet to freezing and gangrene, while the common American's were watching and waiting to see who would win the fist fight. For the sheeple will obey any victor. {This is still the reason people don't follow Yahushuah [Jesus] for they think the jews and caesar won}.
Isn't the district attorney...the accuser of the brethern?
Dosen't the blood atonement make all "His" innocent? {unless there is in injured party}
Could the black robed administrator {judge] really be a Levitical man holding {yes FICTIONAL but oh so real} power to judge Truth? {Matrix movie...dang this steak is PRETEND, yet so real}
{Pilate was so bumfuzzled, he asked "what is Truth" 1973 years ago}.
Are they looking for men-builders who do not deny the Chief Cornerstone?
Yahushuah told Phillip, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father".
Is True America in 'abeyance' till the real sons appear? Using hebrew, figure out what MaHaBoNe means.
An obelisk is errected on a grave site of a man of Israel who died without producing sons. {hint-George washington was sterile-physically}
The Master told me {us} not to cast pearls before the swine...and I am so tired of being turned upon and being rendered...which was my fault, for not heeding His words.
To him that has, much shall be given.....
Brother Robert and myself were both busted for traveling about as Father's sons, and were to appear in their court, on the same day, the first day of the sacred year, called, in Roman time 2001...in a hick town, Marshall, in western Carolina. Robert came in chains, and was released for time served...a few days. He stated he served the King and His law, enough said. I wrote, and had served non-statuary abatements, stating basically, clear up the misnomer of the NAME, and come get me. They never have found that guy called ROBERT JAMES SURNAME. {and I converse with the chief of police weekly-a neighbor}
Yahushuah stated, in Truth, if they are not against us, then they are working for us. So Lewis, et al, consider my friend Pearl, a 60 something, woman, staying in North Dakota, who is fighting for her right, to eat of the Tree of Life, and live freely...and move about, in her private property, on the King's HighWay. A grandma, 60 + years old, who was sentenced to jail for 'wanting' to be the King's Daughter.
It must tickle the cockles of My Father's heart...little puny nobodies {from the WORLDS account}, who are Standing up, and say, "My Daddy is King, leave Me alone. Kinda like the spirit David acquired, while caring for the sheep. Kinda like the spirit Yahushuah {Jesus} acquired. Heck, kinda like the spirit the disciples acquired at their pentacost experience.
Kinda like the spirit John Bunyon acquired, that sustained him through twelve years in prison, for not APPLYING for a license to preach the good news.
Kinda like the spirit one can acquire, if, and if, they ask for that set-apart spirit, from their creator Father, The EverLiving One. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2004 : 22:11:34
|
No man can serve two masters;
Neither can evil thoughts abide in a mind
Filled with the Light of the Law.
|
Edited by - Manuel on 02 Mar 2004 22:12:43 |
|
|
|
Servant of All
Regular Member
Israel
41 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2004 : 03:36:40
|
To the bretheren of the ecclesia of Yahshuah,
While I do indeed find much value in the discourse here among us, I am respectfully wondering if the terms "self-serving" and "irrelevant" should be renedered to any polite exhortation from a fellow follower of Yahshuah Immanuel. Enough said.
I do admit being a newbie, student and a child in this sojourn toward the Kingdom of YHWH, even though I may be a joint-heir through the Anointed One and fellow Royal Prince of the Father. That being said, is it simple-minded to act the part?
Yahshuah has commanded me to "make disciples" of men on this planet for Him and I must obey Him in that. I am to represent Him in negotiations for reconciliation of these future disciples to His Father YHWH. I must Go when He says "GO", turn when He says "TURN" and stand when He says "STAND". Nothing can be allowed to interfer with this obedience.
The League of Nations of Earth agreed, in the Vienna Convention of 1961, to formalize provisions relating to the treatment of representatives of one Nation to another. Since I represent the King of kings, and He has already been recognized as Head of Mission here in North America, I have the distinct honor of being able to obey the Head with certain immunities to prosecution. If the Nation of North America ever decides to rescind their recognition of The Head of the Mission, this convention also provides safe passage back to the sending Nation for all representatives. Of course, this is tantamount to declaration of war upon the Anointed One of YHWH and it would be my duty to actively and loudly negotiate reconciliation as they pack me and my family up for the trip.
(This is a fairly extensive document for actual porting here but is worth reading and considering.)
I find myself unqualified when it comes to being able have the silver bullet for every situation, other than the Word of YHWH and His Spirit who applies it. I must be able to stand upon that in the face of everything.
I am in favor of non-statutory abatements and have used them. This is what led me to live, move and have my being without benefit, privelege, or opportunity from anyone but my King. No license, insurance, or permit needed to simply do what the Sovereign of my Home Nation tells me to do.
Let's keep kickin' this around and I will continue to digest wih open ears and an open heart.
May God Almighty bless you richly as you trust and obey Him more today!
In His service,
Philip the least |
|
|
|
Akira
Junior Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2004 : 13:56:32
|
To my Brothers is Christ,
Thank you my Brothers, for responding. I appreciate each and every word.
Philip: your point is well taken. If I have offended Lewis, or anyone else, I offer my most humble apologies.
As stated, I have been reading Lewis' comments here for the past year, and found many of his observations very insightful. Because of his acknowledged understandings in these matters, I was taken back a bit, at the contents of his reply, as they seemed most uncharacteristic of him. My observations were of his comments, not of the man. If these comments had been made to me privately, I would not have offered such observations, but for the sake of those just beginning this trek, I believe it was necessary. I believe it would have been irresponsible of me, NOT to share my observations. However, I intended no malice.
Our situation is very overwhelming.
As an ATV rider/racer, I learned a long time ago, when racing thru the woods at "break neck" speeds, you MUST look for, and concentrate "on the holes", (the "path") between the trees. If you look at the trees, you hit the trees. if you look at the holes... you "hit the holes" and go through them.
Or, put another way,
"Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal."
Clearly, at the time of his post, Lewis, at least appeared to be, very disheartened, and discouraged, and with obvious good reason. Most all of us suffer with momentary losses of faith, and get angry, and seek to lash out, at one time or another. But, to offer such a "negative" without offering a remedy or the details regarding his appearence, so we may "qualify" his comments, and use what is appropriate for our individual situations, is very disheartening.. Not all of us, including myself, are in a position to use commercial redemption.
I only question the constructiveness of his offering, especially when so many come here seeking insight and hope. To acknowledge an obstacle, and give credit and energy to the overwhelming enormity of it all, is only to do a dis-service to Him, Ecclesia.org and all who come here seeking truth and answers.
Christ is the light and the way. All hope rests in him.
At this time, it is of paramount importance that we welcome each and every seeker and offer facts and truth about our situation, but more importantly, hope and encouragement to all those who seek. More than anything else, what we lack is numbers. Let not a discouraging word be heard, for all things are possible with Him.
Again, I apologize.
For HIS Glory,
Akira |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2004 : 15:54:50
|
Robert-James said: The Master told me {us} not to cast pearls before the swine...and I am so tired of being turned upon and being rendered...which was my fault, for not heeding His words.
Steve: Finally, we agree! I feel the same way. |
|
|
|
HPLaws5
Junior Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2004 : 07:02:30
|
I found this wonderful site accidently, or I should say "providently."
Wonderful material.
I'm not an attorney, never attended law school, but I have read and been involved successfully for more than 25 years in criminal defense. I can do criminal in my sleep. More recently, however, I have become involved in Federal child support cases, where the states have taken "presumptive law" and turned it into a money-making scheme whereby they IMPOSE presumptive law to establish child support obligations upon all non-custodial parents, presumptively, without a trial, where no federal funds are involved, and the commerce clause is not implicated.
Thus, where the Federal Family Support Act was enacted to reduce the cost of child support and enforcement to the Federal Government, and the Government has enacted presumptive child support guidelines for establing ONLY the amount of support awards through imposition of the Federal guidelines, the states have taken this to mean that they can IMPOSE a Federal support obligation, without a trial, even if you support your children PRIVATELY, and your children are not and never have been on welfare.
The support award must be ordered to be paid directly to the states, so the states and Federal Government can distribute the funds how they see fit.
Of course, I didn't have to do much research to support a 1983 civil rights complaint that seeks to strike the state implementation of presumptive imposition of child support obligations upon unsuspecting non-custodial parents that are unknowningly enjoined in Federal child support proceedings without a trial, without so much as a nod to the Fourth Amendment.
The state presumptive statutes are in reality writs of attainder (bills of pains and penalties) that are DIRECTLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution.
If any of you know anyone who has been subjected or being subjected to a Federal child support obligation, and who supports his children from his private purse, and does not resort to welfare, have them contact me here or at HPLaws5@aol.com, and I will help, at cost for no fee.
HPLaws5
HPerez |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2004 : 10:15:02
|
Greetings In His name, Yahushuah.
HPLaws5, Tell me... while you are "doing criminal in your sleep," do you find yourself beating around the bush?
His Grace and Light be upon you and your love ones,
I am, In Him, His Will,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2004 : 16:38:37
|
Dear Akira,
I apologize if I offended you, I did not intend to do so. I was merely expressing recent personal experience. In my studies, I had already determined that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to me. It is only for the running of the "lawful" government. However, we no longer have a "lawful" government, as there is no coin of the realm, i.e., lawful specie money. There is lawful money, and you can find it described at 28 USC 5103, if my memory serves me. Also, if you look at Black's 7th edition, you will also find that there is no longer any "general" federal common law. All we have is contract law, unless you create your own law. That can be done by involking the proper jurisdiction in the federal court. When you do, they won't play with you anymore. They run and hide.
While the people never ratified the U.S. Constitution, the people did ratify the Articles of Confederation. That is what we should be using for our personal rights and freedoms. It includes the Bill of Rights.
I have only offered an observation of the problem, as I have yet to find a complete answer in how to deal with Caesar. I am slowly coming to some conclusions and having some small successes. I have learned that "refused for cause" (and sometimes adding "with honor") is a very powerful method, but you must possess a strong faith to standup to the arrows that will be shot at you. But, everything boils down to a contract. If you don't contract with them, they have no power to come against you. The problem is, we have often entered into a contract without realizing it. At whatever point in time I can offer more insight into how to avoid, or cancel contracts, I will post it here.
I will offer the following example: There is no point in doing a "refused for cause" on a traffic ticket if you possess a driver's license. If you have a DL, then you have already agreed to a contract and are bound by it. Go pay your ticket and quit beating your head against the wall trying to get out of it.
Soooo, how do you rent a car if you have no driver's license. That is my delimna. If someone can answer that for me, I will get rid of my DL in a heartbeat.
My biggest truck has never had a gummy mint issued license plate on it, and never will. Avoiding tickets is something I believe I have found the answer to. However, until more time passes, and the method is proven, I don't plan to share it.
In the meantime, I am working on a possible solution that will allow people to make their mortgages go away, and get money back, but only if you are willing and able to take the mortgage company into court to get your remedy. I am studying under someone who has successfully done more than 100 for people. There just aren't enough hours in the day for him to do more, so a couple of us are trying to learn enough to be able to help him. Then, we can teach others.
Too much to do, and too little time to learn it all.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2004 : 03:05:15
|
Dear Akira,
Lewis is exactly right. This is all about contract, not Law. My last time in COURT, (detailed elsewhere on this forum) was incredibly frustrating because I did not comprehend this one simply fact.
So, for example, I believe I successfully demonstrated to the JUDGE in my opening monologue that I was not in his jurisdiction. However, I was mystified by his response. He asked, "So what do you want me to do?" Of course he knew what I wanted, so why was he asking? I had no idea, so I answered his question. "I want you to ..."
What did I just do? I have made him a contract offer! Guess what? He does not have to accept my offer, but because I am engaging in commerce with him, I have stepped right back into his jurisdiction - voluntarily. He invited me to make him a contract offer, and I took the bait.
But there is a deeper layer that needs to be seen in order to comprehend why the Constitution does not apply. It involves a bit of tricky combined with gradual change that has fooled most everyone. "Due to the harshness of the common law" they set up COURTS of Equity. They also made these COURTS blind to all issues of Law. Then they taught the JUDGES to pretend that the Law applied in those COURTS just for fun. Over the years, arguments based on Law have held less and less sway in these COURTS, and few can figure out why this is.
I am presently in New Zealand, and the COURTS of Equity here pay not the least attention to the Law any more. The JUDGE in my case completely ignored everything I said or presented, once I was squarely in his jurisdiction. He simply found me guilty of violating a statute (contract) that I was not even a party to (I have no driver's license). How could he do this? Presumption. I did not rebut the presumption that I was under contract, and I did not object to a single underhanded thing he did.
Most know about the ALL CAPS name and how it is used in COURTS. However, if you are in one of these COURTS of Equity where the Law (and CONstitution) does not apply, you will find that EVERYTHING is written in ALL CAPS. So your case may be heard by JUDGE SMITH in the DISTRICT COURT of JOHNSON COUNTY. Your OFFENCE might be DRIVING WHILE FORBIDDEN. And on it goes.
"You've been living in a dream world" - Morpheus
As you know, anything in ALL CAPS is a fiction, so literally EVERYTHING that goes on in one of these COURTS is a fiction in law. It has no basis in real Law.
Now here in New Zealand, one of our fundamental rights is to be tried by an "impartial and independent court", yet if the POLICE arrest you they will drag you into a DISTRICT COURT displaying the same NEW ZEALAND coat of arms that is on the POLICE PERSON's sleeve. Obviously neither impartial, nor independent. Big surprise when the JUDGE agrees with the POLICE and finds you GUILTY.
So are these fundamental rights meaningless? Been done away with? How about this for an answer: "Ye have not because ye ask not." I recommend you read two short pieces at the following links to see how this works:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/courtrec.htm
So they either invite you or drag you before a COURT that CANNOT hear the Law or the Constitution or anything that would help your cause. Then they ask you to plead regarding violating some statute (that doesn't even apply to you). Should you fail to request a hearing in a Court of Record (or an impartial and independent court) before the plea, they PRESUME that you are thrilled to be tried in a totally stacked, kangaroo COURT. Of course, if you don't know this and simply try to avoid pleading, the JUDGE will enter a plea on your behalf and their show will go on.
Once under the jurisdiction of one of these COURTs, you will be found guilty unless:
A) You successfully rebut all contracts they presume you are under - this usually requires mind-reading as they NEVER reveal any details about these contracts. They even go so far as to DENY that this is an issue of contract violation.
B) The JUDGE is feeling good that day and you acted dumb enough for him to think letting you off would serve the SYSTEM by maintaining the facade of justice.
However, start arguing the Law and show how much you know, and they are likely to clean your clock. They want those standing on the Law to get the message loud and clear that this is a losing proposition. And it is ... in a fictitious COURT.
Of course, almost ALL COURTS today are the fictitious variety. Here is how they hide the Courts of Law in New Zealand. All DISTRICT COURTS are fictitious. Any POLICE PERSON or Attorner will drag you straight into the DISTRICT COURT. An appeal from the DISTRICT COURT goes to the HIGH COURT. But there is also a High Court that can hear common law cases. Almost no one knows the difference. They know of people losing appeals in the HIGH COURT, and so presume that it is no better than the DISTRICT COURT - and it isn't. To further scare people, they impose high fees to file a case in the HIGH COURT. So if you mention taking a case to the High Court, the cost is the first thing anyone mentions.
If you are puzzling over what the difference could possibly be between the NEW ZEALAND HIGH COURT and the High Court of New Zealand, I recommend you read:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/caesars.html
I know three people personally here in New Zealand who have gotten very different results when they took their case to the High Court. I do not know how you can track down the Courts of Law that are left in America, but I can promise you that they are there. One way to get yourself heard there is this: the next time the POLICE give you serious trouble, call up your County Sheriff and tell him you want to file common law charges against the individual POLICE PERSON. Make sure the charges are written in proper English, and note the writing on the Courthouse, and especially the Courtroom when the case is heard. The Judge's robe may be fringed with red, and there should be no trace of any name, seal, coat of arms, etc. written in ALL CAPS.
Then pull out your Constitutional quotes, or better your King James Bible and watch them squirm. Their statutes will count for zero in that court. I have little doubt they will do everything in their power to avoid a trial in a true Court of Law.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2004 : 11:59:25
|
Hello Caleb,
Let me throw out a couple of ideas for your consideration.
One<<>> You have probably not heard of Alfred Adask, the publisher of Anti-Shyster Magazine. A big time anti-IRS magazine. Well, he was causing the IRS way too much grief with the information he was putting out into the public. So, they had him captured and hauled off to jail. Once there, he refused to co-operate with them. He would not accept a bail-bond for release. He would let anyone else bail him out. He refused to talk to the court appoint defense attorney. In other words, HE REFUSED TO CONTRACT WITH THEM! Now, at the time, this was only a theory with him. But, he had great conviction in his theory. Enough conviction that he sat in jail for one year and 3 months. They were hoping to send him away to prison for the rest of his life. Instead, they decided it was costing them too much money to warehouse him, and finally after 1 year 3 months, they just set him free. Dropped all the charges against him. Now, that is real conviction. Real faith.
Two<<>> I have just learned that in addition to the courts that everyone is familiar with, i.e. the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, there is also a District Court of the United States. The waiting time to get a case heard in the first one is about 2-1/2 years. Cost to file is $150.00. The second one, there is no waiting time, and it appears there is no cost to file there. The problem is, "they" don't want to admit that it exists. But it does. And, if you know how to properly word your filing to invoke it, you will be heard by it. Curious, huh.
Three<<>> Enactment clause. All laws have an Enactment Clause in them. Statutes don't. Therefore, Statutes do not apply to the people. They only apply to the fictions. Now, if you have a Drivers License, they apply to you, because the court cannot see the separation between you and your fiction. The court is a fiction and cannot see the real man. Therefore the Statutes apply to you. However, if you have no DL, then unless you enter into a contract with the court, they cannot enforce their Statutes on you the real man.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2004 : 20:19:48
|
Dear Brother Lewis,
I did not know about Alfred Adask's time in jail, though I knew of his publication. They threw me behind bars for six days because I would not contract with them. After six days I signed the bail bond and it was all over. At the trial the COURT simply ignored everything I said and issued convictions. Had I held out for another five days, things may have turned out quite differently at the trial. Or they may have kept delaying the trial as they did in Alfred's case. But they got their contract (under duress) and I failed to rebut it during the trial.
Should he be so inclined, Alfred could file common law charges against all involved for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. When they fail to squeeze a contract out of us they become sitting ducks for common law criminal charges. Most people file these types of charges in the wrong COURT and they go nowhere. Then they conclude that there is no longer justice to be found in the land. But as you have just discovered regarding the District Court of the United States, justice sought in the right place is better, faster, and cheaper. I have no doubt whatsoever that the case will prove to be exactly the same in state courts and county courts all over America.
We have not yet proven this with certainty, but the evidence suggests that all it takes to be heard by a Lawful Court is to:
1) Know that it exists
2) Write its name correctly
3) Write your document entirely in correct English
4) Don't mention or appeal to any statutes, only to Law
5) File in the right place
When you show up for the hearing there will be evidence in the courtroom showing whether it is a Court of Law or the fictious mirror-image. One friend of mine whose filing landed him in the Lawful High Court of New Zealand asked what had become of the Coat of Arms of NEW ZEALAND that all the COURTS display. They told him it was being fixed - one of the arms was broken, to which he replied "Which one?"
The gatekeepers of the Lawful system are carefully trained to never tell anyone how to access that system, and to deny that it even exists. So we must proceed with the certainty that it does exist and with the knowledge of how to be sure when we have found it. So far, the ones I know who have accessed it here have done so by filing Lawful documents in the HIGH COURT/High Court, as opposed to the DISTRICT COURT. There is no Lawful District Court in New Zealand. Once they have a look at your Lawful documents, they do put them before the Lawful Court if it is hiding behind a fictitious one.
On a related note, I am told that almost all JUDGES here are in the Masonic order or similar. Yet there are four High Court Justices who are Christians, not compromised by any unlawful oaths contradicting their oath of office. Since the Masons control who become JUDGES, why would they let these four "slip through"? The answer is because they must have a few Lawful Justices to uphold the Lawful government that their CORPORATE SYSTEM depends upon. Even the IRS sends out lawful common law notices to terrorize people into forking out money they don't owe. There must be Law at the bottom of it all or their arbitrary and capricious CORPORATE rules called "statutes" cannot be enforced.
Contract law is Lawful, and thus a legitimate basis for their statutes. And yes, they can only enforce them on fictions, which is why they go to such great lengths to make everyone a fiction. They not only give you an ALL CAPS name, but they number you and they give your house and your town a number and an ALL CAPS mirror-image. Look at your mail. Most of it will be sent to your TOWN to a house on your STREET. So if you are John Public on Main Street in Anytown, California, almost all your mail will be sent to:
JOHN PUBLIC
## MAIN St.
ANYTOWN, CA #####
or some mixture between the real and the fictitious, with at least one piece fictitious.
For everything real, the CORPORATION has a fictitous overlay which they control and to which their statutes apply. So if the IRS sends you a letter to:
John Q. Public
## Main St.
Anytown, CA #####
and you open it and respond to it, they have proof that you are a RESIDENT in the FEDERAL DISTRICT of CA, even though the rest of the address looks "normal". The Tax Code is FEDERAL, so guess where the ONLY place it applies is? No man on the land in California is liable for Income Taxes, as Randy Lee proved ten years ago.
Most NEW ZEALAND statutes says, "This Act to bind the Crown", which makes clear that the statute is not binding on us. They are carefully written to apply to no one if you simply know how to decode them. However, arguing this in a statutory COURT is a losing strategy. All the COURT is qualified to hear is the statute, and the fictions that it applies to. So if you are there, every presumption is that you are a fiction and the statute does apply. All you can achieve under these circumstances is let the COURT know that you do not belong there, and this only if you have not set foot in there voluntarily. Thus the importance of requesting to be heard before a Court of Record before they squeeze a statutory plea out of you.
The Father has brought us a long way in just one year. Is the Year of Jubilee at hand?
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2004 : 21:11:26
|
Greetings In His name, Yahushuah.
Caleb, it is when their fiction and false images collapse that they might try to change their venue. Either by making the "file" just disappear, knowing that that will take the threat and duress away from the "accused," or simply sending the "dissenter" out of the "LARGE STAR CHAMBER" and unto the "little star chamber." Either way, it is the same castle in the sky routine. Only the difference is they control the "rumors" regarding their glass houses. Remember, just last year the BAR published, using their twisted words: "We are engaging on a "branding campaign." Keep in mind that they know that one should not allow to throw rocks at glass houses, and for sure, the HEAD behind, and to those which see and hear, on its face, is sick. So... their motto should be, "KEEP THE CHOWLINE MOVING PRIVATE!"
You see brother Caleb, and all, the time is at hand where they will not be able to hide behind mountains and rocks, and yes... not even their glass houses for "that" which is hidden shall be revealed.
His Grace and Light be upon you and your love ones,
In Him, I am, Father Willing,
Manuel
As a prophesy, not just simply an "edit," I will tell you that I have been close to rank and file masons, jesuits, etc..., and can assure you that by their actions, the corruption is out of order and control. A man with good sound judgement, standing on a deserted island, sending out signs and distress calls, will not be "saved" from such "TITLES," for they know that before they reach the shore, their vessels will be destroyed by the sharp and menacing coral they themselves placed when the tide was "high."
Therefore... Love Father with all your heart, mind and soul, for Father Is Our final Lawgiver, Judge and King.
Que sera... sera? El sola-mente!
|
Edited by - Manuel on 05 Mar 2004 21:37:46 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2004 : 12:52:49
|
Brother Caleb,
Adask is going after them for $75,000.00 per hour as established by precedent in the Trezevant case. They are definitely looking for a place to hide.
Lewis |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2004 : 14:29:29
|
| Al Adask's point of immersion unto the corruption came "via" the CORORATE "FAMILY LAWS" unlawfully "enacted" and shoved unto the masses of COURTWHORES and PIMPS plaquing this world. |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 22:29:40
|
Dear Brother Lewis,
Since you clued me in to Alfred Adask, I ran across this (thanks to a link given by Daniel Jacob):
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V12N1-Trusts.pdf
It adds another level of understanding regarding being bound by contracts.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
1234jagal
0
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 09:56:23
|
I know we would all like to find a way in the law of man to safeguard are life, liberty and property. But this cannot be found in the law of man. You are looking in the wrong place.
For the solution is not with man but with God.
"Learn not the way of the heathen ...” Jeremiah 10:2. For the customs (laws) of the people are vain...” Jeremiah 10:3. [emphasis added].
Our father is a jealous God and we are to have no other Gods before the living God;
The bible says;“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Exodus 20:3
And the law of man serves another God;
Therefore I would like to introduce to you to their goddess JUSTICE.
Her name is Justice from the current world empire, Justitia from Roman empire, Ma'at from Egyptian empire, Ikhnaiê from Thessalia northern Greek empire, and formerly commonly known as Themis or Dike from the Greek empire She is also called Astraea (starry), for she is the constellation of the Virgin (Virgo) and many other pagan names. This goddess bears the graven image of a woman with a sword and a scale sometimes blindfolded. This is the common symbol and graven image of the CULT OF THEMIS.
The goddess “Justice” is the angel of light talked about in the Holy Bible who claims to sit as the protector of our families and freedoms, and she claims to grant security when in reality she is the lion that roams the earth night and day looking to devour any one that will not bow down and worship this beast and the number of her name.
Therefore look and study the Redemption of Christ and you will find the answer you seek.
If we look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word redeem we find In the Merriam Webster the word means;
“Redeem 1 a : to buy back :REPURCHASE b : to get or win back 2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a: to free from captivity by payment of ransom b: to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR d: to free from the consequences of sin 3 : to change for the better : REFORM 4: REPAIR, RESTORE 5 a: to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment <the U.S. Treasury redeems savings bonds on demand> (2) : to exchange for something of value <redeem trading stamps> c : to make good : FULFILL 6 a: to atone for : EXPIATE b (1): to offset the bad effect of (2): to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE synonym see RESCUE”.
If you choose to touch the unclean law or enter the wicked courts of man you will get burned for by entering in you have admitted their Lordship and authority over you as a piece of property and denied the redemption of Christ.
This is a fact.
You cannot win!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Constitution or no Constitution you will get burned!!!!!!
The Constitution is merely a contract.
And any contract man makes man can break.
Look not to the common law or stautory law or merchant law of man fro protection. These are all traps waiting to catch all who enter in.
Look to the law of God.
Gods law was written into even the hearts of evil men.
All men know it exists.
We have to have enough faith to calim it and them stand upon it.
This is why God commands us to stay clear of ungodly law;
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (citizens). Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” 2 Corinthians 6:14
"You shall be separate, because I the Lord your God am separate ... you shall be separate, for I the Lord am Separate" Leviticus 11:44-45; Leviticus 19:2, 20:7.
"Be Separate because I am Separate" I Peter 1:16 .
"I am the Lord your God, Who has separated you from all people" Leviticus 20:24.
Why because we are dealing with dis-honest men, judges (devils) who are enforcers of de-facto laws these judges do the bidding of their employer the corporate State.
The federal and several States legal system is based upon the principals of war and not peace, or brotherly love, or the writing of a wrong, or the truth, or in seeking justice for all. But it is based upon the rules of engaging and waging war and therefore a State of Martial Law exists in the United States. "Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will." Chief Justice Waite, in United States v. Diekelman, 98 U.S. 520.
The generals will is the law. Who is the general? In the current judicial system it is the judge and so it is the judges WILL that becomes the law or the juries will as directed by the judge. This is not law? The courts call it law but this lawlessness as it serves predominately only one entity which is the Corporate State employer.
It is not by a statute that matters are now measured but solely by the judge who sits day after day administering his will in his fiefdom defiantly breaching their oaths of office to uphold the State contract (constitution) with the people or do they? What people?
Courts being fictions and States being fictions only deal with fictions people when you enter you are not a man but you are property a slave being commanded to appear. The property cannot dictate to the owner how he will use you the property. This is why you see so many unbelievable rulings these days by judges. The judge’s word is the law in the United States and the judge is simply put doing his job based on the dictates of his employer.
Can truth be found when activist Judges are bound to serve by contract their employers the Corporate business States by which they are paid? The answer is NO. The people are sheep for the slaughter as I read in the writings of Matthew in the following Scripture “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15. These judges are men acting as false prophets for they take on the resemblance of godliness and they reject the laws of God as foretold by Timothy. “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Timothy 3:5.
The bible says; “It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment" Proverbs 24:23. Judges are not honorable they are oppressors. Judge not lest theee be judged. You see they have no authority from God.
Federal and several State worldly courts are operating as de facto courts which has the following meaning in Black’s law dictionary; “De Facto Court/Government: an accepted way a court or Government is operated; however its operation is unlawful or illegitimate,” Black’s 6-7,
“De Facto Admiralty court by any De Facto Judge: A Judge which conducts a Court under the pretence of law. However not under the law. A Judge in which he or she’s authority is defective. Not real law”, Black’s 6-7.
Fiction Corporate States are not creations of God. These fiction States do not observe Godly law therefore they are lawless. They oppress mankind with manufactured burdens to bear ordinances, taxes, manmade laws to maintain a state of servitude, chattel, peonage and fear upon all mankind and nations.
The bible has the following to say about worldly courts; “Woe, unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade men with the burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Luke 11:46.
The State is a business entity and it is in the business of laying burdens on man it has always been this way with fiction corpus's.
A group gathers together and them forces their will or customs on others and calls it law.
What a joke this is not law.
For God is the alpha and omega the first and last word on the law.
The bible says; “They have transgressed the Covenant, and trespassed against my Law. They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they make them idols, that they may be cut off. I have written to him the great things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing. For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth palaces, and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities.” Hosea 8:1, 4,12,14
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 13:09:16
|
I beg to differ and not just for the sake of argument.
If one knows the structure of the law system, what you dismiss as the laws of man, then there is some 'justice' or at least maneuverability to be found.
Within the context of this Topic, we find the place to get a Driver License is the Department of Revenue. Also one should be aware that revenue causes have long been, under the laws of the United States, admiralty jurisdiction. Ergo the 2" gold admiralty fringes in traffic court.
[Of course martial "rule" not "law" must be considered if you were to make a full appearance. A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. So there is a bigger picture than I am painting here in one Post.]
Therefore it behooves us to study the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, in particular Rule E(8) Restricted appearance. I have in fact seen attorneys appear restricted in traffic court under this rule. It is called "law of the flag" - to give notice of the laws governing all contracts within the forum (vessels).
The only reason I bring this up is that your approach deprives the reader of remedy. The First Judiciary Act says in Chapter 20, Page 77 "...saving to suitors in all cases, the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it..."
Perhaps it would be functional for you to view your body as a vessel dedicated unto the Lord and the law of the flag at Exodus 13:16. Then view the Rules and you may start seeing the way to argue your spiritual claims in a manner that makes sense to all parties involved.
The remedy that you portray, simple hope in the Lord's deliverance cannot be considered competent in any practicable manner. Albeit I am not arguing that God can deliver. I believe He can and does. The Bible tells us early on that Israel desired man-kings and that this was sanctioned by God. So therefore I appeal to the more pragmatic and practical if you are looking for remedy in common law.
An interesting lecturer named William Thornton www.1215.org correctly utilizes the lesser court of fact nisi pruis as a stage for the 'show' - the trial. The trial is already over when the paperwork properly rests with the clerk. So you must demonstrate the trial outcome correct in a show of peers - the jury. This often requires correction by order of the (sovereign) court of record (when the neutral arbitrator, the judge, behaves like an attorney or legislator at the bench).
It is a bit confusing and I began to realize after the lecture that everybody thought they understood William clearly, just in context of their already conceived notions and experiences about common law. We all were understanding him much differently from each other.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Feb 2005 18:03:21 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 18:40:22
|
Martial RULE was established in April 1863 [during Lincoln's UN-civil War] in what we now call the USA. This is different than the land once known as the "United States of North America" established prior to 1861. But, David is absolutely correct in that we are surely and solidly under the RULE of Military Occupation [Martial Law] if we live IN [not AT] the USA corporate STATES.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/library/Lieber_Code.pdf |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"NO LICENSE" Legal Argument
