Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural Name EXHIBIT “A” Case No. BC000000________________
This is used as a supplement to a simple common law suit, add or delete as you deem applicable I. LAW OF THE CASE
This matter will be held in a court of record, trial by jury. only.
DISCLAIMERS: This section included as a reference regarding the duties and statutes which apply to wrongdoers and their duties, not as a reference to statutes Aggrieved Party needs to incorporatestand under. In this court of record, statutes generally do not apply to Aggrieved Party as a one of the people, a man and woman, also appearing in the capacity as a Oregon “state” citizen and American National.
NOTE: Some Federal cases and citingsciting’s are mentioned only because of their applicability to the people generally. State based references are included and generally apply in most states, for information purposes. Some emphasis added for clarity.
If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid, such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action, especially as it relates to natural and lawful rights of the a man or woman and/or to the duties of public officials or private debt collectors in this matter have a duty to such their own statutes and regulations. The use by the Aggrieved Party of any statutes, codes, rules, regulations, or court citations, within any document created by the Aggrieved Party, at any time, is only to notice that which is applicable to the Aggrieved Party’s public servants and/or wrongdoers, and is not intended, nor be construed, to mean that the Aggrieved Party has conferred, submitted to, or entered into any jurisdiction alluded to thereby.
The law of the case is decreed as follows:
Amendment 7 Courts –Court of Record
Section 1. Courts in which judicial power vested. The Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a Supreme [sic] Court, Circuits [sic] Courts, and County Courts, which shall be Courts of Record having general jurisdiction, to be defined, limited, and regulated by law in accordance with this Constitution.
COURT OF RECORD - STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE AND HAVE CAPACITY TO BE COURTS OF RECORD.
To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
WHY STATE COURT?
This matter is brought in the state superior court of record with general jurisdiction to hear a man, as opposed a Federal court with inferior and limited jurisdiction. [CF: Venue is appropriate in the county of Freedom County Oklahoma as the acts complained of occurred within the geographic boundaries of Freedom County Oklahoma; however, Judicial Canons deprive any judge who is now or ever has been a judge in Freedom County from adjudicating these claims. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the acts complained of in this petition under certain of Oklahoma’s statutory torts and by virtue of facts pled in harmony with those statutes].
Regarding the Sovereign of this Court of Record: The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
“A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.” State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380 6 S. 602 (1889), [emphasis added]
Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 1909: "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter";
Aggrieved party and family members are not a statutory US citizens, but is by natural law an American national, because nationality is common law. “It is however, true that in all common-law countries it has always and consistently been held that the wife and minor children take the nationality of the husband and father. That is common-law doctrine.” In Re Page 12 F (2d) 135. Any act by public official who are citizens who cause a false claim or injury against a man or woman, is acting outside jurisdiction.
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
WHY CODES OR STATUTES DO NOT ALWAYS APPLYCREATE A DUTY OR CONTRACT WITH TO “THE PEOPLE”
Statutes at Large take precedence over any code, because the code is an opinion of what the Statutes at Large say; “The Code is only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a). Where an inconsistency between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large appears, the Statutes at Large prevail over the Code. Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943).” Peart v. Motor Vessell Bering Explorer, 373 F.Supp. 927, at 928 (April 12, 1974).
“ It is well settled that “the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large, when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1137, 80 L.Ed. 1490; Royer’s Inc. v. United States, 3 Cir., 265 F.2d 615. The provisions of the Code are merely prima facie evidence of the law. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a).” American Export Lines Inc. v. United States, 290 F.2d 925, at 929 (July 19, 1961), and further,
COLOR OF LAW IS NOT THE LAW
"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced intowaiving their rights, due to ignorance. United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, 187,
“The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States.” 6 USC § 101 (17) (A).
"State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, 1908
"State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has no power to divest or impair these rights." Favot v. Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083,
Not all statutes apply to all ALL peopleeveryone
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..." "The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital." [Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]
"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.“ Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before
the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
"Taxpayers are not State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.
COMMENT: Because Nontaxpayers and considered non-resident aliens, the venue would be a local Civil court of record and not under Title 26, and if needed using Supreme Court Rule 22, using an Article III judge from the Supreme Court.
“No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United States or the state courts & any such action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law.” State vs. Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513
Regarding right to sue for wrongful levy’s or Liens See 26 U.S. Code § 7426 - Civil actions by persons other than taxpayers –
Regarding seizing of travel documents without due process
“The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” (1215 c.e.) Kent v Dules 357 US 116 (1958)
Regarding Agents making presumption of citizenship status, which causes them to exceed or jurisdiction...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.]
A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.
False or unverified presumptions of jurisdiction:
A “presumption” is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence. Black’s Law 6th edition
SUMMARY: Where there is no damaged party who will verify a debt or duty to a statute, under oath, there is no debt or duty. Any act to enforce codes otherwise, exceeds jurisdiction.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved…
there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.[Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]
Which is whyWhy this case must be heard in a statevs Federal court(this may change for you).
Aggrieved Party’s status is based constitutional “diversity of citizenship” as defined in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution. Aggrieved Party does NOT claim “statutory” diversity of citizenship as described in 28 U.S.C. §1332, but rather claim constitutional diversity of citizenship based on Article III, Section 2. Statutory diversity of citizenship depends on the definition of “State” found in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), which means a federal territory or possession, while Aggrieved Party’s constitutional diversity depends on the definition of “State” used in the Constitution, which means states of the Union and excludes federal territories and possessions.
Brief and Other Informational References – Although Aggrieved Parties are not statutory “US Citizens”, many of these cases relate to both US Citizens (which I am not appearing in such a capacity of), and the people. It fully applies to wrongdoers in the capacity. Oregon state based references are to be added by additional exhibits to follow. As a sovereign, Aggrieved Party does not rely on these issues, but may in another venue is needed:
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 the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]
Conspiracy against rights:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right of a man, is trespass and thus deprivation of common law rights, and acting in a way which exceeds that officer’s jurisdiction.
State Based comments – for information consideration: Similar Oregon related information to be added later Oregon constitution - Article 1 RESEARCH YOURS
Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.—
Section 17. Jury trial in civil cases. In all civil cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.—
Section 19. Imprisonment for debt. There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.—
Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—
Other State References that are generally accepted
The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]
The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. [California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1.]
Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution ...and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government....[Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.]
...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, Sources of Our Liberties Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation]
...This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." [California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]
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].
It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. [California Government Code, Section 11120.]
The state cannot diminish rights of the people.[Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 US 516.]
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. [California Government Code Section 54950.]
A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a record is in existence. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1896]
The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States.[California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897]
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.[California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1916]
Research Article given to the Deschutes County Sherriff, regarding foreign agents, authority, and jurisdiction to act within a “state” of the Union… according to a document issued Texas Law enforcement called “Handbook For Police Officers: In Dealing With the IRS / ATF”-
These principles generally apply within all 50 states.
– Restricting Federal "Officers" and misapplication of law
Federal Officer with Police Power: Commissioned persons where authority is specifically proscribed in Codified Statutory Law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President. Federal Police Officers have commissions specific to their enforcement powers, and are commissioned as Special Agents. Only Special Agents are authorized to carry firearms. These agents only have specific Enforcement authority within their authorized subject matter jurisdiction. The Internal Revenue Service has no Special Agents with Police Powers outside of Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, and the other American Trust territories. It specifically says so in their training manual, Page 23.
No Statutory authority over U.S. Citizens within the 50 states physical borders. IRC: Internal Revenue Code. 2 versions exist: (1) a Book, 68A titled “ Internal Revenue Code “ printed and Issued by the Internal Revenue Service, (not a government agency) which details the Internal Revenue Service POSITION and INTERPRETATION of the laws passed by Congress, and contains the rules promulgated by the treasury department and IRS. Only parts of the Book are actually Statutory Law (27%), the other elements are operating rules and Tax Determinations (not Law) decided by the IR commissioner. The IRS attempts to say that this book is the Law, but that is untrue. It only applies to U.S. Citizens outside the Continental 50 states, in the District of Columbia, and only to U.S. Government employees. The IRS has no Statutorystatutory authority over U.S. Citizens within the 50 states physical borders.
IRS:Internal Revenue Service, NOT a Division of the U.S. Treasury Department. This Private Corporation Administrative Agency does paperwork. It was not established by Congress, and has no enforcement authority whatsoever. Order 150-10 by the Treasury Secretary gives authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (US Government employee) to enforce the Internal Revenue Code, only in District of Columbia. It gives no authority to the Internal Revenue Service, a Private corporation. The IRS has no police powers within 26 CFR issues for Income Taxes. IRS agents cannot seize property, books, records, bank accounts, or force any person to surrender to them any of the foregoing. For 27 CFR taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, enforcement is done by the ATF, not by IRS persons or agents, who have no Police authority. IRS Agents are NOT Police Officers. The U.S. Treasury Department has some Special Agents, who are in the CID (Criminal Investigation Division), who can carry guns, do investigations, and have very limited arrest authority (they can only arrest other U S Government employees ), and only on 27 CFR issues, for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and 28 CFR issues for criminal violations of other Federal statutes. Any person who says they are with the IRS who cannot present a commission as a Special Agent, and is carrying a firearm should be immediately arrested for carrying a prohibited weapon under (most state) statutes. No person with the IRS hasany authority to trespass onto private property without a warrant or court order. U. S. Marshals serve U.S. District Court orders and warrants. IRS agents who would enter onto private property as part of a group, and attempt to seize records, documents, computers, or any property without a (lawful) court Order of Seizure are violating the 28 CFR 241 laws. Any Texas Peace Officer who is present and allows this activity can be sued in civil court, and possible criminal actions charged under violation of the persons civil rights. A Texas Peace Officer cannot be charged with interfering with a Federal agent if they order any IRS persons to leave the private property, and refuse to permit the removal of a Citizens property by IRS employees. The IRS persons are not Police Officers, and are attempting to violate the Texas laws and Federal laws. There can be no obstruction of justice when they are violating the law in what they are attempting. Threats or intimidation by IRS agents violate 28 USC 241.
The IRS has no authority to seize any property, or place a Lien on physical property without a prior LAWFUL Court Order. Therefore they have no right or authorization to “repossess” a person’s car, truck, tractor or any other property. Texas Statutes are clear in that Texas political entities with property tax authority in fact can place a lien on real property for property taxes owed to the taxing authority. ** There are no Federal Statutes which confer any such right on the IRS. The IRS must file a lawsuit in Federal U.S. District court, and receive a court order to place a lien on any property. There have been instances where IRS personnel have posted a Lien Notice on physical property, then claimed that gave them the right to enter upon that property and seize assets thereon. Any such activity is illegal, and any such notices are rubbish. Put them off the property, if they refuse, put them in jail for criminal trespass. They will claim that there is agreements of cooperation between the U.S. Government and the State of Texas. These are applicable only to LAWFULL actions. Any repo persons you know should be advised that they will be arrested and charged with auto theft if they seize any property of a citizen supposedly for the IRS without having a valid Court Order in their hand, ordering the seizure.
No Federal Agency has Police Powers on the Land within the physical borders of the 50 Sovereign States. The Federal Government does not have Legislative Jurisdiction over land within the 50 States borders, except on land which has been specifically ceded to the Federal Government for erection of necessary forts, magazines, and other needful buildings. United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, 17., supported by Supreme Court cases: United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260,115 S. Ct.1624, 131 L. Ed.2nd 626. “The Federal Government has nothing approaching a Police power.”
Legally, the IRS and the ATF do not exist. No act of congress or Public Law ever created them. No act of congress ever created the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The US Secretary of the Treasury has no constitutional authority to create such an office on his own authority, or to give any powers to a private contractor.
NO US District Court (USDC)has any Statutory Authority to Criminally Prosecute any person who is a citizen and resident of the State of OregonTexas for a 26 CFR Income Tax, as the courts lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction for 26 CFR, as the US Congress never gave them any jurisdiction. All Income Tax prosecutions are completely illegal. The USDC District Courts have NO authority over OregonTexas Citizens.
Phony Search Warrants are made up by the IRS agency personnel, which cite Internal Revenue Code sections which are obscure, to fool anyone reading them into believing they are lawful. They are usually easy to spot. Most of the time they will cite the IRC section as U.S.C. to make people think it is statute law, which it is not. The IRC (Internal Revenue Code, Book 68A) is an administrative Reference Document, not Statute Law, and has no meaning outside of the District of Columbia. Typical is a phony Search Warrant citing IRC sections 4662 or 6427or 6675 , which cover sites under Federal Control which are fuel storage facilities for fuel which does not require a Road Use tax. The Search Warrant will not say what specifically is to be searched, what is searched for, and will typically have a Rubber Stamp by some clerk of a Magistrate where the signature is supposed to be. To be valid, the Warrant MUST be ACTUALLY SIGNED by a Article III Federal Judge, and only from an Article III DCUS Court. Most Peace Officers have executed search Warrants and have been trained in the Police Academy on the requirements of a valid Warrant. Someone’s home or farm is not what would be covered under these IRC Sections, so it clearly is Invalid. The place covered under these IRC sections would be a commercial operation, and have a controlled fuels permit issued under 27 CFR Statutes. The IRS has no Authority to enter onto any Private Property not under actual contractual US Government Authority. 27 CFR is for alcohol, tobacco, firearms taxes only.
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that when dealing with any statute, Judges cease to be judges and become United Nations Clerks, who are working for the Agency involved
“"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially….but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency -- but only in a “ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.
"...judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.)
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal 596; 167 Cal 762, and further,
These wrongdoer Wrongdoers named herein and those who wish to join them, each know that all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges have no immunity and are fully liable, in their personal capacity for their actions
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are deemed to know the law.” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 (Ezra 7:23-26)
“...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;
“When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially” (and thus are not protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity,” - SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404) - -
“but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency -- but only in a “ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546). “In arriving at our decision in this matter we do not depart in any way from our holding in Huendling v. Jensen [*300] that the doctrine of judicial immunity extends to courts of limited jurisdiction. But, when a minor magistrate acts wholly without jurisdiction, civil liability attaches for his malicious and corrupt abuse of process and his willful and malicious oppression of any person under the pretense of acting in his official capacity. See Huendling v. Jensen, 168 N.W.2d at 749 and authorities cited.”188 N.W.2d 294; 1971 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 863; 64 A.L.R.3d 1242, and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that when Judges become United Nations Clerks, everything they do is a fraud, because they have said hundreds of times that they must have “the appearance of justice” which means the color of justice,
“Colour of Law – Mere semblance of a legal right. An action done under colour of law is one done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law.” Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 51 [emphasis added]
"Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240. [emphasis added]
“Colour, color. Signifies a probable plea, but which is in fact false…” Tomlin’s Law Dictionary 1835, Volume 1
which is a fraud, and they even dismiss court cases that “are not colorable enough”, which means there is not enough fraud in the pleadings, and everything they do is a fraud and a lie, which is further proof their seditious conspiracy as described herein, and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are holding a kangaroo court;
“Kangaroo court. Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the court or other tribunal.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 868,
which is consistent with the fact that everything they do is a fraud under the color of law, and is the appearance of justice ONLY, and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are using their Uniform Commercial Code which is controlled and regulated by their UNIDROIT Treaty (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law), which the United States, Inc., has been a signatory to for over 30 years, which is unconstitutional, because the Treaty power can ONLY be used externally,
“but Madison insisted that just “because this power is given to Congress,” it did not follow that the Treaty Power was “absolute and unlimited.” The President and the Senate lacked the power “to dismember the empire,” for example, because “[t]he exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.” “The object of treaties,” in Madison’s oft-repeated formulation, “is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external.” Bond v United States 572 US ____ (2014) case number 12-158 [emphasis added]
“Today, it is enough to highlight some of the structural and historical evidence suggesting that the Treaty Power can be used to arrange intercourse with other nations, but not to regulate purely domestic affairs.” Bond v United States 572 US ____ (2014) case number 12-158 [emphasis added]
and they have no authority to use their UNIDROIT Treaty in America, and their use of their Uniform Commercial Code is with an unconstitutional delegation of authority
“The government of the United States . . . is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subjects, except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power” Mayor of New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 736 [emphasis added]
and all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges know that they have no obligation of obey an unconstitutional law
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256
therefore they are knowingly, willing, intentionally, deliberately, calculatedly, and maliciously engaging in a seditious conspiracy, since the Demandant is the lawful government in America, and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are NOT representing the government
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94.
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are NOT competent to do anything judicial, and if they attempt to do anything judicial like issue warrants, or subpoenas, or anything else judicial, it is a nullity, therefore the Warrant that they were operating in this case was a fraud and a nullity
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities" Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1, and further,
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
"It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one." Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are deemed to know the law.” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398.
The Aggrieved Party DEMANDS a lawful judge under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, and under common law procedures, as contemplated by the founding fathers, and anything else is a violation of the Aggrieved Party’s rights;
“It is a fundamental right of a party to have a neutral and detached judge preside over the judicial proceedings.” Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62, 93 S.Ct 80, 83, 34 L.Ed. 2d 267 (1972); Tumey v Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 5209, 47 S. Ct. 437, 440, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927),
and there is no judge in this case, because the Judge has converted himself into a Clerk masquerading as a Judge, and this is nothing more than a commercial transaction under their unconstitutional Uniform Commercial Code, and their unconstitutional UNIDROIT Treaty,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that a Social Security Number is a number for a cestui que trust
“A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust), the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc.” Congressional Record, June 13 1967, pp. 15641-15646
". . . (E)very taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction . .” In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164, and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that under their Federal codes, anyone who has a Social Security Number is a “government employee”, and the Aggrieved Party is NOT a government employee by any express contract known,
“(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).” 5 USC § 552a.(a)(13) [emphasis added]
and a US citizen is a “person”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”Section 1, 14th Amendment [emphasis added]
and a “person” is an individual, and an individual is a fictitious entity as found in federal Statutes at Large
"Chap. LXXI. - An Act prescribing the form of the enacting and resolving Clauses of Acts and Resolutions of Congress, and Rules of construction therefore." which was approved on Feb 25, 1871, in Volume 16, Forty-First Congress, Session III, under Sec. 2., at 16 Stat. 431, says;
"And be it further enacted that in all Acts hereinafter passed…; and the word "person" may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate…", [emphasis added]
which is consistent with their federal codes
“Person The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” 26 USC 7701 (a) (1)
“(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;” 5 USC § 552a.(a)(2)
and it is consistent with that their courts are saying;
Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795),
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
and a US citizen has no rights and is a piece of property;
"After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white men... (N)one other than citizens of the United States were within the provisions of the Act.” Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509. [emphasis added]
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957, and further,
All of these Wrongdoers named herein each know that the Aggrieved Party is a State citizen and NOT assuming to be a US citizen, which again indicates their acts exceeded jurisdiction,
“No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43.
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."McDonel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993),
and Aggrieved Party believes prior to the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, the ONLY citizenship that really existed was State citizens, and US citizenship was derivative and dependent upon being a State citizen first, and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment converted citizenship in America into the opposite of what the founding fathers intended;
"And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon state citizenship." Colgate v Harvey 296 US 404 at p 427
“Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;”
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 657 [emphasis added],
and State citizens are talked about in the Constitution for the United States of America, which says;
“The citizens of each State [State Citizens] shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States [US citizens].” Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, § 2, Clause 1, [emphasis added] 1 Stat. 18, and,
“citizens in the several states” as described in the Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, § 2, Clause 1, are US citizens, as differentiated from State citizens as described by “citizens of each State”, and the Petitioner is a State citizen as described in the Northwest Ordinance;
“An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio.” which was “Done by the United States in Congress assembled, the thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of their sovereignty, and independence the twelfth.”, at 1 Stat. 51.,
which talks about “citizens of Virginia” and “a citizen of one of the several states”;
“Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid,…who have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,…
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid,…provided that no person shall be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years,…provided also, that a freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the States…” [emphasis added] and,
and the Articles of Confederation talk about state citizens where it says the free inhabitants of each of these States, [State Citizens]…., shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States [US citizens]; and the people of each State [State citizens];
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, [State Citizens] paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States [US citizens]; and the people of each State [State citizens] shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,....” Articles of Confederation, Article 4. § 1., [emphasis added], at 1 Stat. 4,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that income tax is an excise tax for the privilege (implied license) of proceeding with the cestui que trust for another year
“2. The requirement of payment for such licenses is only a mode of imposing taxes on the licensed business, and the prohibition, under penalties, against carrying on the business without license is only a mode of enforcing the payment of such taxes.5. The recognition by the acts of Congress of the power and right of the states to tax, control, or regulate any business carried on within its limits is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such business for national purposes.” License Tax Cases 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 (1866), and further,
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that licenses and taxes work together
“License, contracts, is a right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right is also called a license. Vide Ayl.Parerg. 353; 15 Vin.Ab 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. A license is express or implied. An express license is one in which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act; as a license to keep a tavern by public authority. An implied license is one which though not expressly given, may be presumed from the acts of the party having the right to give it.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1843 Edition, Volume 2, page 53 [emphasis added],
and they are attempting to impose one of their quasi contracts on the Aggrieved Party
"Both in Roman and English law there are certain obligations which were not in truth contractual, but which the law treats as IF they were. They are contractual in law, but not in fact, being the subject-matter of a FICTITIOUS extension of the sphere of contract to cover obligations which do not in reality fall within it." Salmond, Salmond on Jurisprudence, p. 642 (9th Edition, 1937, Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd. England).
"A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a benefit by one party with full appreciation of the facts, under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of its reasonable value." Major-Blakeney Co. v. Jenkins (1953), 121 C.A.2d 325, 263 P.2d 655, hear den.; Townsend Pierson, Inc. v. Holly-Coleman Co. (1960), 178 C.A.2d 373, 2 Cal. Rptr. 812.
"Constructive/quasi contracts are based solely upon a legal fiction or fiction of law." Hill v. Waxberg, 237 F.2d 936, [emphasis added]
"Constructive/quasi contracts include obligations founded on statutory duties." Donovan v. Kansas City, 175 S. W. 2d 874; In Re United Burton Co., 140 F. 495, 502.
and they are using their color of law statutes to facilitate the violation of the Demandant’s rights,
"Constructive/quasi contracts include obligations founded on statutory duties." Donovan v. Kansas City, 175 S. W. 2d 874; In Re United Burton Co., 140 F. 495, 502.
These Wrongdoers named herein each know that income is defined by the US Supreme Court as corporate profits;
"...it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," according to truth and substance without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and which within those limitations alone, that power can be unlawfully exercised... [Income is] Derived -- from -- capital -- the -- gain -- derived -- from -- capital, etc. Here we have the essential matter -- not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value ... severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...." [emphasis is in the original] Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 And they have no right to tax or assume a duty to statutes on the Aggrieved Party …
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.“ Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931), These Wrongdoers are converting a right into a privilege for State citizens
"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262,
and they are compelling the use of their Federal Reserve Notes to setoff their tax, and they have no authority to compel the use of their private money system that is intended for internal use of the government ONLY, thus a private set off instrument was offered and not refused within the time frame required, thus indicating acceptance,
“Sec. 15. As used in this Act the term “United States” means the Government of the United States…the term “currency of the United States” means currency which is legal tender in the United States, and includes United States notes,…Federal Reserve Notes…”
“Sec. 16. The right to alter, amend or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved…”
“Sec. 17. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.” Gold Reserve Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 337,
and further in summary,
The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future, the present.
The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.