Administrative Law

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 

THE SUBSTANTIVE VS. PROCEDURAL LAW

Board of Cosmotology

Adjective
adjective(no comparative or superlative)

1.  Of or relating to or functioning as an adjective;
adjectival syntax
an adjective clause

2. (law) applying to methods of enforcement and rules of procedure;
adjective law

Adjective
substantive
1.  Being the essence or essential element of a thing; “substantial equivalents”; “substantive information” [syn: substantial, in essence]

2. (law) applying to essential legal principles and rules of right; “substantive law” [syn: essential] [ant:adjective]

3. Having substance and prompting thought; “a meaty discussion” [syn: meaty]

Legal processes are legitimated in two ways, and the distinction here parallels Hans Kelsen’s differentiation of adjective and substantive law. Adjective law involves those norms which legitimate judicial authority or give judicial officials the right to make judgments and the power to be obeyed. While substantive law are those legal norms designed to regulate the action of a population. A strong belief in law and order is basically a facet of adjective law and yields positive and prior sanctions to the decisions of the judiciary. However, the analytic distinction between these norms should not be allowed to obscure their interdependence in the real world.The basic assumption underlying adjective law is that the norms of substantive law are powerful restraints on the substantive decisions of the judiciary. Consequently, to the extent that one challenges decisions made in light of substantive law, one also challenges the authority of the decision makers. More broadly, and perhaps even more importantly, to the extent that one demonstrates that substantive legal norms do not and probably cannot effectively restrain the administration of law, to that extent one calls into question the very conception of judicial authority vis-a-vis the desire for free political and social institutions.

According to Idaho, the amendment requires the United States to comply with all state laws applicable to general water right adjudications. Idaho argues that the first sentence of the amendment, the joinder provision, allows joinder of the United States as a defendant in suits for the adjudication of water rights. It then construes the amendment’s second sentence, the pleading provision, to waive the United States’ immunity from all state laws pursuant to which those adjudications are conducted. Idaho relies heavily on the language of the second sentence stating that the United States shall be “deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable.” Because the “filing fees” at issue here are assessed in connection with a comprehensive adjudication of water rights, Idaho contends that they fall within the McCarran Amendment’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

The United States, on the other hand, contends that the critical language of the second sentence renders it amenable only to state substantive law of water rights, and not to any of the state adjective law governing procedure, fees, and the like. The Government supports its position by arguing that the phrase “the State laws” in the second sentence must be referring to the same “State law” mentioned in the first sentence, and that, since the phrase in the first sentence is clearly directed to substantive state water law, the phrase in the second sentence must be so directed as well.

There is no doubt that waivers of federal sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed” in the statutory text. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs,498 U.S. 89, 95 (1990); Department of Energy v. Ohio,503 U.S. 607, 615 (1992); United States v. Nordic Village Inc.,503 U.S. 30, [508 U.S. 1, 7]   33-34 (1992). “Any such waiver must be strictly construed in favor of the United States,” Ardestani v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,502 U.S. 129, 137 (1991), and not enlarged beyond what the language of the statute requires, Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club,463 U.S. 680, 685 -686, (1983). But just as “`we should not take it upon ourselves to extend the waiver beyond that which Congress intended[,] . . . [n]either, however, should we assume the authority to narrow the waiver that Congress intended.'” Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 206 (1993) (quoting United States v. Kubrick,444 U.S. 111, 117 -118 (1979)).

We are unable to accept either party’s contention. The argument of the United States is weak, simply as a matter of grammar, because the critical term in the second sentence is “the State laws,” while the corresponding language in the first sentence is “State law.” And such a construction would render the amendment’s consent to suit largely nugatory, allowing the Government to argue for some special federal rule defeating established state law rules governing pleading, discovery, and the admissibility of evidence at trial. We do not believe that Congress intended to create such a legal no-man’s land in enacting the McCarran Amendment. We rejected a similarly technical argument of the Government in construing the McCarran Amendment in U.S. v. District Court For Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520, 525 (1971), saying “[w]e think that argument is extremely technical; and we decline to confine [the McCarran Amendment] so narrowly.”

We also reject Idaho’s contention. In several of our cases exemplifying the rule of strict construction of a waiver of sovereign immunity, we rejected efforts to assess monetary liability against the United States for what are normal incidents of litigation between private parties. See, e.g., United States v. Chemical Foundation Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 20 -21 (1926) (assessment of costs); Library of Congress v. Shaw, (1986) (recovery of interest on judgment); [508 U.S. 1, 8]Ohio, supra, at 619-620 (liability for punitive fines). And the McCarran Amendment’s “cost proviso,” of course, expressly forbids the assessment of costs against the United States: “[N]o judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States.”

The Supreme Court of Idaho pointed out in its opinion that “fees” and “costs” mean two different things in the context of lawsuits, 122 Idaho, at 122, 832 P.2d, at 295, and we agree with this observation. “Fees” are generally those amounts paid to a public official, such as the clerk of the court, by a party for particular charges typically delineated by statute; in contrast, “costs” are those items of expense incurred in litigation that a prevailing party is allowed by rule to tax against the losing party. See 10 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2666, pp. 173-174 (1983). Before Idaho altered its system for recovering its expenses in conducting comprehensive water right adjudications in 1985 and 1986, Idaho courts, at the timtime of entry of final judgment, used to proportionately tax the “costs” of the adjudication against all parties to the suit, and not simply against the losing parties. Idaho Code 42-1401 (1948). When Idaho revised this system, many of the items formerly taxed as “costs” to the parties at the conclusion of the adjudication were denominated as “fees,” and required to be paid into court at the outset. This suggests that, although the general distinction between fees and costs may be accurate, in the context of this proceeding, the line is blurred indeed.

While we therefore accept the proposition that the critical language of the second sentence of the McCarran Amendment submits the United States generally to state adjective law, as well as to state substantive law of water rights, we do not believe it subjects the United States to the payment of the sort of fees that Idaho sought to exact here. The cases mentioned above dealing with waivers of sovereign immunity as to monetary exactions from the United States in litigation show that we have been particularly alert to [508 U.S. 1, 9] require a specific waiver of sovereign immunity before the United States may be held liable for them. We hold that the language of the second sentence making “the State laws” applicable to the United States in comprehensive water right adjudications is not sufficiently specific to meet this requirement.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in the judgment.
As the Court points out, ante, at 6-7, before 1985, “fees” comparable to those at issue in this litigation were taxed as “costs” in Idaho. Because I am persuaded that these exactions are precisely what Congress had in mind when it excepted judgments for “costs” from its broad waiver of sovereign immunity from participation in water rights adjudications, I concur in the Court’s judgment. [508 U.S. 1, 10]

III. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND PROCEDURAL LAW


1.4 In theory, the distinction drawn between
Substantive law
and procedural law is reasonably clear. Broadly speaking, according to Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law ,  the substantive law is the law which is administered by the courts, and procedural law (or adjective law as it is sometimes called) governs the practice and procedure of the courts. In practice, the two are often closely interwoven, and it is sometimes difficult to tell where their respective boundaries begin and end. It is inevitable that our terms of reference will take us into some areas of the criminal law which are partly substantive and partly procedural.

1.5 In the context of the criminal justice system procedural law has a meaning wider than that usually given to it in other contexts.It is commonly understood to include procedures other than those followed by the criminal courts themselves in the course of trials or other formal proceedings. it extends both to rules governing police investigations and to rules governing the implementation of sentencing decisions.  The system is set in motion by the investigation of a suspect and, if he or she is charged and convicted, continues to operate until the sentencing order of a court is satisfied. Rules of criminal procedure apply at all stages of the process.

(“Furthermore, it cannot be doubted that courts may not by rule of practice either by statutory or inherent rule making authority, amend or abrogate a right resting in either substantive or adjective law.”); Barnhill v. State, 834, 842 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2002), (“Section 38.10,”)

Substantive law defines how the facts in the case will be handled, as well as how the crime is to be charged. In essence, it deals with the “substance” of the matter.

Procedural law provides the “process” that the case will go through (whether it goes to trial or not). The procedural law determines how a proceeding concerning the enforcement of substantive law will occur.

Substantive Law
n. The law establishing principles, which creates and defines the rights limitations that govern society. Substantive law differs from “procedural law” which establishes the rules and methods to be used to obtain one’s rights, including how the courts are conducted.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW?

Substantive law defines the actual law set down by the legislature such as elements of a crime, penalties to be imposed, rules of evidence, etc. Procedural law defines the manner in which the criminal case and its trial will be handled.A violation of a substantial rule of law is more likely to result in a reversal of a conviction. A violation of criminal procedural law is less likely today to result in a reversal unless it relates to a constitutional protection, such as search and seizure, Fifth Amendment, etc. Even here the trend is to limit those areas where a reversal will be possible.


IMPLEMENTED REGULATIONS

690.015 Prohibited acts. This section establishes prohibitions relating to the practice of hair design, barbering, facial technology and nail technology. The prohibitions under this section are subject to the exemptions under ORS 690.025. A person who violates a prohibition under this section is subject to the penalties under ORS 690.992 in addition to any administrative action taken by the Board of Cosmetology under ORS 690.075 or any civil penalty imposed by the Health Licensing Office under ORS 676.612. A person violates a prohibition under this section if the person does any of the following:
(1) Performs or attempts to perform as a practitioner without a certificate, demonstration permit or certificate of identification.
(2) Operates a facility without a license or temporary facility permit.
(3) Operates a facility unless it is at all times under the direct supervision of a practitioner.
(4) Practices hair design, barbering, facial technology or nail technology as an independent contractor without a registration.
(5) Displays a sign or in any way advertises or purports to offer services in a field of practice without first obtaining a permit, certificate, independent contractor registration or facility license.
(6) Knowingly makes a false statement on an application to obtain or renew a certificate, registration, license or permit or to obtain a certificate of identification.
(7) Allows an individual in the employ or under the supervision or control of the person to perform in a field of practice without a certificate or permit.
(8) Sells, barters or offers to sell or barter a document evidencing a certificate, registration, license, permit or certificate of identification.
(9) Purchases or procures by barter a document evidencing a certificate with intent to use it as evidence of the person’s qualification as a practitioner.
(10) Materially alters with fraudulent intent a document evidencing a certificate, registration, license, permit or certificate of identification.
(11) Uses or attempts to use as valid a fraudulently obtained, counterfeited or materially altered document evidencing a certificate, registration, license, permit or certificate of identification. [1977 c.886 §3; 1981 c.141 §1; 1983 c.151 §2; 1987 c.31 §3; 1993 c.267 §2; 1995 c.343 §62; 1999 c.425 §2; 2003 c.547 §39]

 

690.165 Powers of board; rules.

In addition to the powers otherwise granted by ORS 345.430 and 690.005 to 690.235, the Board of Cosmetology shall have the power to:
(1) Determine whether applicants are qualified to take certification examinations.
(2) Administer, approve or recognize certification examinations and designate the time, place and administrators of certification examinations.
(3) Contract for the administration of examinations as part of regional or national examinations and contract with independent testing services for examination administration.
(4) Direct the Health Licensing Office to issue certificates, registrations, licenses, permits and certificates of identification to individuals determined by the board to be qualified.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 690.205 (2) or other provision of law, adopt rules establishing and enforcing standards for safety, infection control, professional conduct and any other matters relating to fields of practice, facilities or locations used by persons providing services regulated by ORS 690.005 to 690.235.
(6) Direct the Health Licensing Office to suspend, revoke, limit or refuse to issue or renew certificates, registrations, licenses or permits or impose a period of probationary activity on the holder thereof.
(7) Do any act necessary or proper to effect and carry out the duties required of the board by ORS 690.005 to 690.235.
(8) Adopt rules prescribing standards of professional conduct for persons practicing hair design, barbering, facial technology or nail technology. [1977 c.886 §21; 1983 c.151 §14; 1987 c.31 §9; 1993 c.267 §13; 1995 c.343 §68; 1999 c.425 §18; 2003 c.547 §46]

690.205 Rules; approval of Department of Human Services; when domestic use of facility permitted. (1) The Board of Cosmetology has authority to make reasonable rules for the administration of the provisions of ORS 345.430 and 690.005 to 690.235 and prescribe safety and infection control requirements for facilities. Infection control requirements for facilities shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Human Services. A copy of the rules adopted by the board shall be furnished by the board to the owner or manager of each facility.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the use of the facility for domestic purposes may not be prohibited by the board if the part devoted to domestic purposes is in a completely separate room not used by customers, with walls extending from floor to ceiling and with any connecting doors kept closed while the facility is in actual operation.
(3) Any rules adopted by the board shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth in ORS chapter 183. [1977 c.886 §§20,22(2); 1983 c.151 §16; 1993 c.267 §15; 1999 c.425 §21; 2003 c.547 §48]

690.992 Criminal penalties. (1) Violation of ORS 690.015 is a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) Operates a facility without a license or temporary facility permit.
(5) Displays a sign or in any way advertises or purports to offer services in a field of practice without first obtaining a permit, certificate, independent contractor registration or facility license.
(8) “Facility” means an establishment operated on a regular or irregular basis for the purpose of providing services in one or more fields of practice.
(9) “Field of practice” means:
      (a) Barbering.
      (b) Facial technology.
      (c) Hair design.
      (d) Nail technology.
(10) “Hair design” means, when done upon the human body for cosmetic purposes and not for the treatment of disease or physical or mental ailments any one or more of the following practices:
      (a) Shaving, trimming or cutting of the beard or mustache.
      (b) Arranging, styling, dressing, curling, temporary waving, permanent waving, relaxing, cutting, singeing, bleaching, coloring, dyeing, cleansing, shampooing, conditioning, applying hair tonics or similar work upon the hair of an individual.
      (c) Massaging the scalp and neck when performed in conjunction with activities in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(Blog Masters Note:   ‘Austin’ left off the brackets in the last regulation, but they are there.   Brackets indicate matters that are to be omitted, and can’t be enforced on the individual without consent.  We give them consent by signing their documents, or geing a U.S. citizen.  All States follow the same Style Manual rules, seeing as how they are incorporated under the federal government. )
UNITED STATES PRINTING OFFICE STYLE MANUAL 2008 Publication , at Chapter 8, 8.19 — 8.20 Brackets – In bills, contracts, laws, ect., indicate matters that are to be ‘omitted’.

Buck Act – The Jurisdiction Of The Land

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 
(Blog Masters Note: Obviously, this is one of ‘Austin’s’ teaching tools, but the opening statement, before the document is probably ‘Austin’. )
 

The United States Code (I believe in Title 12-Describing Jurisdiction states that Federal jurisdiction ends at the State Borders (3 miles offshore) and is over Federal Lands within the State Boundaries. We living outside D.C., Somoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Mariannas Islands, are not within Federal Jurisdiction.

THE STORY OF THE BUCK ACT

by
Richard McDonald

edited by Mitch Modeleski

In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.
When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the “Social Security Number”.

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security.

The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security “Districts”. The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal area” which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939, the federal government instituted the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”. This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal area”.

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”. This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal area” overlay.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States. ( Note: the use of the capital “S” in “State” is reference to the designated territorial “States” and possessions held by the Corporate “United States”.)

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is no reasonable doubt that the federal “State” is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:
Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax
(a) No “person”
(NOTE: the term person references a fictional entity) shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act[4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110]. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”?

A “Federal area” is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.). This “Federal area” attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating “Federal areas” within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:
2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. franchised citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisee’s of the federal government, and as an “individual entity”. See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of all the several states.

This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this “Federal area”. Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms designating a mercantile jurisdiction.

You must live on the land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any “Federal State” or “Federal area”, nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you subject to “federal laws”. You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a “resident” driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a “federal” bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any other known “contract implied in fact” that would place you within any “Federal area” and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress. Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); New York Cent. R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has been created a fictional Federal “State within a state”. See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional “State” is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like “CA”, “AZ” and “TX”, as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and “Tex.”, etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939” to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers who have a Social Security number to all state and federal laws “within this State”, a “fictional Federal area” overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation.

All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.

The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:
“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” supra which states:

110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
110(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do some research. I have given you all the proper directions in which to look for the jurisdictional nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

NOTE: The Social Security number does not attach to the “Natural Man”, but is assigned to the fictitious entity entitled as “Person”. The man on the land does not have or is he in his “Natural” standing, assigned a social security, the “Natural Man” is however, the beneficiary of the individual constructive trust that the individual social security number references.

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPART. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE [is defined as] a For-Profit General Delaware Corporation Incorporation date: 11/13/89 File No. 2213135 . . . and would suggest a quid pro quo consideration, establishing no controlling jurisdictional nexus over the beneficiary while providing the required benefit.

US CODE TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 4 > § 110

§ 110. Same; definitions
As used in sections 105–109 of this title—
(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.
(b) The term “sales or use tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property, except a tax with respect to which the provisions of section 104 of this title are applicable.
(c) The term “income tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts.
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

The Initinere (Document)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 

This space for recording purposes only

****************************************************

Kingdom of the Power of Powers,        )
on the soil in                                        ) SS: Declaration of
Curry County, Oregon                          ) Mission Statement
The united States of America               ) by Foreign Neutral
                                                             )under Absolute Law’s
                                                             )of The Living Father

///
KNOW THE PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS, GREETINGS:
///
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Under authority of Declaration, for the trust Written and Recorded at Chapter 9, verses 15 through 21, and at chapter 8, verses 7 through 3, book of the Hebrews,
The undersigned Affiant, Declarant, and Trustee of said Toral Trust accepts and succeeds the appointment And Offices of “Trustee”, Droit Droit Dominium Jura I re, as “Foreign neutral” , thereof the Kingdom of the Powers of Powers, sending state, for The United States of America and territories or insular possessions, receiving state, as a Neutral in intinere ab initio July 1, 1962, recognized by the receiving state Under authority To wit:

The Ancient Scriptures

The 1814 Treaty of Ghent

The Convention of the Hague, 5 October 1961

Vienna Convention, 18 April 1961, U.N.T.S. Nos. 7310-7312 vol. 500, pp. 95-239

The Ordinance of the Territory North and West of the River Ohio, 1 Stat. 51, 52, July 13, 1787

International Organization Immunities Act, 9 December 1945

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 39/27 (1969), 63 A.J.I.L. 875 (19690 at
Article 2, §§ I(a),(b) and (g), and Article II for “limited accession” per TIAS 100072 33
U.S.T. 883, 527 U.N.T.S. 189

The Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 49 Stat. 3097, T.S. 881, 165 L.N.T.S. 19, 3 Bevans 145,
Done at Montevido Uruguay, 26 December 1934 @ Art. 2-3 id est, “sovereign ecclesiastical State”

Convention on the Conflict of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions, concluded
5 October 1961, #11, et. Seq., Conflict of Law (1993)

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols, Vienna 24 April 1963, U.N.T.S. Nos.
8638-8640 vol. 569, pp. 262-512

Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties signed at Vienna 23 May 1969, U.N.T.S., Entry into Force
27 January 1980

1 – Mission Statement by Apostille

THE DECLARATION OF PEACEFUL AND NEUTRAL FOREIGN
STATUS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF PEACE

A name, standing and status formally designated by Articles of the Peace issued from the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, August 29, 1980: a Native American, and neutral traveler previously certified by and intending to return to the Virginia Commonwealth; Cf. 1 Stat. 88, Act of April 20, 1818, Ch 88, §§ 2 (Service of any foreign prince or state);§ 3(Fitting out); § 6 (Military expeditions against friendly power); Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. Ch. 249 Pg. 223 (Rights of American citizens in foreign states)aka Expatriation Act ; Act of March 3, 1887; 24 Stat. 505 (Tucker Act) ; Act of March 9, 1920, c. 95, 41 Stat. 525-528 (Suits in Admiralty Act) ;Act of March 3, 1925, ch. 428, § 1, 43 Stat. 1112 (Public Vessels Act);Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) (Equal Access to Justice Act) ; 64 Fed. Dig. 1-403 § 17 (Property And Commerce Of Neutrals In General) as amended; accord 5 U.S.C. § 573 et seq.(Neutrals); ORS 9.242 [1989 c.1052 §2] (Advice on law of foreign jurisdiction; rules); ORS 24.175 [1979 c.577 §7](Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act); ORS 56.105 [1987 c.843 s.13](Waiver or delay of action by Secretary of State; rules); N.B. GENERAL ORDERS NO. 100 (04/24/1863)(Lieber Code); CONVENTION RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF WAR ON LAND (1907) as amended; UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948) as amended; US ARMY, FIELD MANUAL, FM 27-10, THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE § 512 (Definition); § 513 (Neutrality Under the Charter of the United Nations);§ 514 (Notification of State of War to Neutrals); § 515 (Inviolability of Territory)(18 Jul 1956) as amended; VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (1969) as amended; EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084 (CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS); EXECUTIVE ORDER 13107 (IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES); EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224 (BLOCKING PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM); MEMORANDUM RE: LEGAL STANDARDS ON TORTURE (12/31/2004); Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (02/23/2000) (a “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity); and that class of authority, infra:

PRIMARY DUTIES

Primary Duties are: Keep the commandment Law of the Living Father and, secondarily, perpetuate the Testor’s Will and Living Trust, in violate.

Secondary Duties include: Establish and maintain the “mission” and “mission post” for and on behalf of the “mission head” in representative capacity and provide for the maintenance and good Order of the families, staff, and other public servants there unto belonging: with absolute respect for and the utmost integrity of Testor’s Living Will and Trust, in abstentia.

“Domicile” is established by virtue of chapter nineteen (19) verse five (5), the Book of Exodus, and legal estate thereof with absolute allegiance and fidelity, excluding all others.

Any and all family and friends domiciled with the Foreign neutral are neutrals “opposed to war in any form” and non-resident aliens to the “receiving state” aforesaid. Affiant –Trustee acknowledges that as Trustee and Individually, He/She is neither a citizen, as defined by statute nor subject of the receiving state by imprescription and the term “imprescriptibility” is operative herein duly recognized in the case of Rabang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (CA9 1994), 35 F. 3d 1449 @4, of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 18 S. Ct. 456, 483, 421, Ed. 890 (1898), of Udny v. Udny, L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 457.

2 – Mission Statement by Apostille

Trustee-Affiant is not a “legal entity” by statutory definition, created by, for, nor on behalf of any other party, person(s) group, association nor corporation for political or commercial purpose and is not surety thereof, nor assumes culpability on behalf thereof by knowing subrogation as “civiliter mortus” to the receiving state aforesaid.


Inclusio unius est exclsio alterius

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL


“Succession is ‘special’ for which presumption must yield to truth”

The undersigned Trustee – Affiant, succeeding to the appointment and Office aforesaid, specially, authorizes the foregoing in Official capacity according to the express exceptions, stipulations, and reservations above set out verbatim and those referenced in the authorities set out above, as attests My Hand and Seal in Faithful Witness thereof, the same being entirely true, correct, certain, and complete, according to the laws of the Kingdom and Commonwealth – aforesaid, so help Me almighty Power of the Powers.

The Official Seal of the Foreign neutral, annexed below, is the only seal affixed upon Official Documents, charge d’ affaires, and other correspondences appertaining the Trustee’s Lawful peaceful mission, held exclusively in the custody, possession and control of Trustee – Declarent, unless otherwise expressely assigned or transferred, as set forth and heretofore, and not for any other unauthorized “use” nor “purpose”.

3 – Mission Statement by Apostille

Official Authorized Seal:

John Quincy Doe

*****************************
Sui juris / Nunguam Indebitatur

Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961

On the_____, day of ______________________, 2005

Foreign neutral

[L.S.] _________________________________

John Quincy Doe
99999 Crystal Creek Road
Liberty, Oregon 90000
Trustee, but not Individually

BY: John Quincy Doe
 

In the Book of Corinthians, Chapter 13, verse 1:

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

________________________________ ______ ______________ _________

Witness’s signature: Day: Month: Year:

___________________________ _____ ____________ ________

Witness’s signature: Day: Month: Year:

________________________________ ______ ______________ _________

Witness’s signature: Day: Month: Year:

 

********************************************************

4 – Mission Statement by Apostille

 

[L.S.] ____________________________________

John Quincy Doe
Trustee, but not Individually
99999 Crystal Creek Road
Liberty, Oregon 90000

BY: John Quincy Doe

SUBSCRIBED and AFFIRMED before Me, a Notary Public residing in Curry County, The State of Oregon, the herein named Signator, John Quincy Doe appeared, known to Me and identified himself and affixed His signature hereto, the _____day of _______________ 2005.

________________________________

Notary Public Signature: Seal

 

 

*******************************************************************

The In Itinere Cover Sheet and Caveat (part 2)

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
(Blog Masters Note: This is the second document and is to presented along with Frank ‘Austin’ England, III’s  “Declaration Of A Foreign Neutral”.   The first document was also labeled “The Itinere Cover Sheet and Caveat”.  The first one I believe to be a cover sheet of a case, while this one goes into more detail in case law.)
 

COVER SHEET AND CAVEAT

SEE: ATTACHED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO PRESENT DECLARATION BY “IN ITINERE” EXECUTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATY ASSERTING STANDING TO PROCEED AS “FOREIGN NEUTRAL” IN LIEU OF RESTRICTED ACCESS TO ASSERT AND DEFEND SECURED RIGHTS BY AND THROUGH THE PUBLIC VESSEL.

ALSO ATTACHED IS THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AND DULY EXECUTED “IN ITINERE” OFFERED BY THE HEREIN REFERENCED PRESENTER UNDER APOSTILLE, WHICH BY ITS NATURE, REBUTS ANY AND ALL STANDING USE OF PRESUMPTION BY AGENT OR AGENTS RE THE PRESENTER OF THIS DOCUMENT TO BE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM. WHEREAS, ALL DULY CRAFTED LEGISLATIVE ACT(S) THAT PROVIDE UNDER OPERATION OF LAW FOR SAID MERE PRESUMPTION THAT SAID PRESENTER IS TO BE HELD OR VIEWED AS AN “ENEMY” OF THE SAID STATE OF THE FORUM IS HEREBY REBUTTED IN IT’S ENTIRETY. THIS PRESENTER IS WHO HE SAYS HE IS.
 

Citing: Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, the Supreme Court held: “Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” 

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .”  U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

Fraud: Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the future. Miller v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.

Citing: The 93rd Congress, Section 93-549:

Addressing the “Trading With the Enemy Act” as amended circa 1935 and making the American people presumptive enemies of the state of the forum and that acts broad and unlimited powers as promulgated within U.S.C. Title 50.

Citing: Senator Katzenbach:
“Under this procedure we retain Government by operation of law – special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the  “persons” affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties.”

Further citing: At 93-549, Mr. Katzenbach:
“My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.”

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,
“Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don’t think it has reached the point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits.”

“Senator Church then made the following observation:
“What you’re saying, then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.”

“No persona standi in judicio – no personal standing in the courts to challenge the application of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
(Thereby, out of necessity and due to the above referenced denial of standing to sue, cause is given for relief, to rebut any and all such attaching presumption that this presenter is, or acts as an enemy of the foreign state of the forum, united states, a insolvent body corporate.)

Considering the above cite, the presenter of this document thereby preserves his right to proceed both privately and commercially, absent his being held by presumption to be an “enemy of the state of the forum” as provided by the legislatively crafted operation of law entitled as the Trading With the Enemy Act, and as amended within the said acts related emergency provisions found at 50 USCA.

___________________________________________
By: Frank ‘Austin’ England, III

The IN ITINERE Notice And Caveat (In Itinere – Cover Page)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
(Blog Masters Note: This is the beginning for 3 documents and is to presented along with ‘Austin’s’ Declaration Of A Foreign Neutral.  No links, other than case law. )
 

NOTICE AND CAVEAT

(DECLARATION OF FOREIGN NEUTRAL)

THIS IS A NOTICE OF A REBUTTLE IN FACT OF ALL PRESUMPTIVE PROCESS EMPLOYED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO SUMMARILY PROCEED IN RELIANCE OF THE EMERGENCY POWERS ACT; TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1935 AS AMENDED; THE PATRIOT ACT, AND ALL OTHER EMERGENCY POWERS ACTS AND/OR LEGISLATION CRAFTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THIS PRESENTER, Frank Austin England, III AND THEREBY, ERRONEOUSLY “PRESUMING” A STATUTORY RIGHT TO SIEZE SAID PRESENTER AS AN “ENEMY” OF THE UNITED STATES, AN INSOLVENT BODY CORPORATE.

SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT OF DECLARATION OF “FOREIGN NETURAL” EXECUTED IN RECOGNITION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS (Jus Gentium) BY IN ITINERE UNDER “APOSTILLE” DULY EXECUTED UNDER THE SEAL OF THE STATE OF OREGON, OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE.

THE DECLARATION OF PEACEFUL AND NEUTRAL FOREIGN STATUS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF PEACE

A name, standing and status formally designated by Articles of the Peace issued from the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, August 29, 1980: a Native American, and neutral traveler previously certified by and intending to return to the Virginia Commonwealth; Cf. 1 Stat. 88, Act of April 20, 1818, Ch 88, §§ 2 (Service of any foreign prince or state); § 3 (Fitting out); § 6 (Military expeditions against friendly power); Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. Ch. 249 Pg. 223 (Rights of American citizens in foreign states); Act of March 3, 1887; 24 Stat. 505 (Tucker Act); Act of March 9, 1920, c. 95, 41 Stat. 525-528(Suits in Admiralty Act); Act of March 3, 1925, ch. 428, § 1, 43 Stat. 1112 (Public Vessels Act); Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) (Equal Access to Justice Act); 64 Fed. Dig. 1-403 § 17 (Property And Commerce Of Neutrals In General)as amended; accord 5 U.S.C. § 573 et seq. (Neutrals) ; ORS 9.242 [1989 c.1052 §2] (Advice on law of foreign jurisdiction; rules); ORS 24.175 [1979 c.577 §7] (Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act); ORS 56.105 [1987 c.843 s.13](Waiver or delay of action by Secretary of State; rules) ; N.B. GENERAL ORDERS NO. 100 (04/24/1863)(Lieber Code); CONVENTION RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF WAR ON LAND (1907) as amended; CONVENTION CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS IN NAVAL WAR (1907) as amended; UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948) as amended; US ARMY, FIELD MANUAL, FM 27-10, THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE § 512 (Definition); § 513 (Neutrality Under the Charter of the United Nations); § 514 (Notification of State of War to Neutrals) ; § 515 (Inviolability of Territory) (18 Jul 1956) as amended; VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (1969) as amended; EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084 (CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS); EXECUTIVE ORDER 13107 (IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES); EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224 (BLOCKING PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM); MEMORANDUM RE: LEGAL STANDARDS ON TORTURE (12/31/2004); Rotella v. Wood et al, 528 U.S. 549 (02/23/2000) (a “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity); and that class of authority, infra:

Doctrine (The Constitution is an Express Trust)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
(Blog Masters Note: This is one of his ‘teaching’ tools, it is signed ‘Ken’ no last name.)

The Constitution is an Express Trust

The Constitution was bequeathed to us, as the posterity in the Preamble.  The Preamble is not just an announcement.  Webster’s 1828 defines Preamble:

1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.
2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).

E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).

At this time, nothing could be passed on to an heir w/out falling under one of the two statutes listed below;

A Quote from the Statute of Wills, [St. 34 & 35 Hen.  Vll (1542-1543) Ch.5]  “Persons…shall have full and free liberty, power and authority to give, dispose, will or devise to any person or persons (Except bodies politick and corporate) by his last will and testament in writing, or otherwise by any act or acts lawful executed in his life”

Hereditaments could only be passed to a body politic, “we the people” and the peoples’ “posterity,” by way of Trust, as shown in: The Statute of Uses [St 27 Hen, vlll (1536) Ch.10]

“… that where any person or persons stand or be seised, or at any time hereafter shall happen to be seised of… etc., or other hereditaments, to the use, confidence or trust of any other person or persons, or body politic.”….

The Constitution cannot be a will, as you can see by the aforementioned statutes, as it passed hereditaments to a body politic.  The bodies politic are “we the people” and the peoples’ “posterity.”  Webster’s 1828 defines hereditaments as:

Any species of property that may be inherited: lands, tenements, anything corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal or mixed, that may descend to an heir.  Blackstone  

A corporeal hereditament is visible and tangible; an incorporeal hereditament is an ideal right, existing in contemplation of law, issuing out of substantial corporeal property.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble describes an estate held in trust.  Don’t we say that our elected officials hold an office of Public Trust?  That’s because the Constitution of the United States created a trust.

Trust is defined by Webster’s 1828 in three sets of definitions.  In the first set under number 12, “trust” is defined as:

 “In law, an estate, devised or granted in confidence that the devisee or grantee shall convey it, or dispose of the profits, at the will of another; an estate held for the use of another.”

Webester’s 1828 defines “estate” in 6 as: “The general business or interest of gov’ts; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.  But in this sense, we now use state.

The Requisites of an Express Trust.

1. It must have a competent Settlor and a Trustee. (We the People)
2. It must have an ascertainable trust res.  (Blessings of Liberty)
3. It must show sufficiently certain beneficiaries.  (ourselves and our posterity)
4. A trust comes into being only upon execution of an intention to create it by the party(ies) having legal and equitable control of the subject matter of the trust.

Our Forefathers were competent Settlers and had equitable control of the subject matter as the representatives of the People.  The trustees and their duties are defined and established within the Articles of the Constitution.  The Preamble and Constitution ascertain the trust res being passed on in the phrase, “the Blessings of Liberty.”  The Preamble and the Constitution show sufficient certain beneficiaries in the phrase, “to ourselves and our posterity.”

 The Preamble state an intention for which the document was created as:  “in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessing of Liberty.”

Does it show an intention to manifest?  Absolutely.  “To ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

“An express trust, as they sometimes are called, are “direct” trusts, and are those trust intentionally created by the direct and positive act of the settlor, by some writing, deed, or will, or oral declaration.” Amer. Juris. 2d. Vol 76, §15

Our Forefather were highly educated and knew about Trusts, Hereditaments, Conveyances, Fraud, Wills and Uses.  Their knowledge was implemented in drafting the Constitution, because of the Statute of Frauds.

“[St. 29 Chas. ll (1676) Ch. lll] 1. For prevention of many fraudulent practices, …6. And moreover, no devise in writing of or hereditaments…shall…be revocable, otherwise than by some other will or codicil in writing, (Form 1040 by definition is a Codicil) or other writing declaring the same… (2) but all devises and bequest of lands and tenements shall remain and continue in force, until the same be burned, cancelled, torn or obliterated by the testator, or his directions, in manner aforesaid, or unless the same be altered by some other will or codicil in writing, or writing of the devisor, signed in the presence of three or four witnesses, declaring the same; any former law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Just for emphasis, this underlined phrase shows that any will or trust created under any former law does not apply here.

The Statute Against Collusive and Fraudulent Conveyances prohibited any underhanded intent behind a conveyance of hereditaments.

“[St. 27 Eliz l (1585) Ch. 4] “the Queens most excellent Majesty…(etc.) and Bodies Politick,… may have, incur and receive great loss and prejudice by reason of fraudulent conveyances, (and etc.) (by way of) …(3) secret intent of the parties the same to be to their own proper use, and at their free disposition, (4) coloured nevertheless by fained countenance and shew of words and sentences, as though the same were made bona fide, ..” “said former conveyance, …Shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be void, frustrate, and of none effect, by virtue and force of this present act.”

The “Bill of Rights” was not included in the Constitution (1787), because it also created an Independent Trust Res and was added four years later in 1791. It was annexed to the Constitution by way of codicil, as the amended intentions or afterthought of our Forefathers.  When our Forefathers died, it became “Their Will.”  Webster’s 1828 definescodicilas: “A writing by way of supplement to a will. 

Webster’s 1828 defines “will” in two sets of definitions.  In the first set, under number 1 and 8 “will” is defined as:

1.  “That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action: the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.   The will is directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.  In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable.  These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual, part of man.  Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will. 

8.  Testament; the disposition of a man’s estate, to take effect after his death.  Wills are written, or nuncupative, that is, verbal.”

Under Art.V of the Constitution are the procedures for any additional amendments to be added to the original Constitutional Trust.  The “Bill of Rights” was the amended intentions of our Forefathers to place further restrictive clauses and limitations upon the gov’t.  These were added four years later, which would be necessary to show that a trust had already been created. 

It’s clear our Forefather drafted the Constitution with the intention of creating a trust.  This Union of States created an Estate, a Republic-In-Form of Gov’t, held in trust, to be passed on to the posterity.  The Constitution is our legacy and we are the beneficiaries.  It was bequeathed to us, as the posterity, in the Preamble.

The Constitution created a fourteenth gov’t, which is just as foreign to the thirteen original states, as they are foreign to each other.  This 14th gov’t was set up under Roman Civil Law, as an international entity.  It had to be set up this way in order to deal with the rest of the world commercially.  The entire world is being regulated under Roman Civil Law by the international banksters, and with the changing of words and phrases, America has been duped into accepting this same form of international treatment.

We hold from God the gift which includes all others.  This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.  But life cannot maintain itself alone.  The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it.  In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties.  And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources.  By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them.  This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made law.  On the contrary, it was the fact the life, liberty, and property existed beforehand those caused men to make laws in the first place. 

What is law?

Federac Bastiat, was first published as a pamphlet in June 1850 and is already more than a hundred and fifty years old.  Because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.

“What, then is law?  It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.”

He goes on to say:  “Each of us has a natural right — from God– to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.  These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.  For what are our faculties but the extension of our individually?  And what is property but an extension of our faculties? 

If every person has the right to defend–even by force–his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.  Thus the principle of collective right– its reason for existing, its lawfulness– is based on individual right. 
And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.  This, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force–for the same reason–cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

“Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise.  Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights.  Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?  Since no individual acting, separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this:  The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense.  It is the substitution of a common force for the individual forces.  “And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”

The Declaration of Independence –1776 

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nevada Constitution of 1864, states pertinent part:

All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of Enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

Marymont v. Banking Board, 33 Nev. 333

“The term ‘liberty’ as used in the constitution, does not mean mere freedom from arrest or restrain, but it means liberty in a broader and more comprehensive sense.  It means freedom of action; freedom in the selection of a business calling, or avocation; freedom in the control and use of one’s property, so far as its use is not injurious to the community, and does not infringe the rights of others; freedom in exercising the rights, privileges, and immunities that belong to citizens of the country generally; and freedom in the pursuit of any lawful business or calling selected by him. 

The last part of the Declaration Of Independence reads:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

We know Congress is well aware of the fact that each state is independent and foreign as identified above in 28 U.S.C. § 297 “Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states.” 

Regards
Ken

  

 

 

 

 

Allocution (Declaration of Absolute Rights and Refusal to Except Sentence)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 

(Blog Masters Note: Be sure and read the other two posting on this blog on Allucation.)

Allocution: Oral declaration of rights
and non-consent at sentencing

1. The document below is to be read orally to the court following conviction of a (whatever) and just prior to “sentencing”. The particular allocution below is the work and experience of one man during a “traffic” trial with a “charge” of “no valid registration (plates)”. There are two parts to the allocution: (a) declamation of rights and errors in the trial, etc, along with producing affidavits, information and mitigating facts, and (b) declamation of non-consent to any fines, taxes, prison, etc. Allocution has its origins in the common law. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, §1573-1576). One must be totally alert to ask for the opportunity to “say something prior to sentencing” before the judge starts his sentencing – interrupt if necessary, but do it. Request a separate sentencing hearing of at least two weeks hence. Give yourself time to write the allocution.

2. Do not give this information in writing to the court or to opposing attorney before-hand as it is only valid when orally presented to the court by the live sentient man/woman and you do not want to forewarn the enemy. The legal fiction is civilly dead and cannot speak.

3. The court needs your consent to impose any sentencing or “punishment” or fines or restrictions of any kind, etc. In almost 100% of the cases the sentient man/woman becomes the surety (or stand in) for the legal fiction “defendant” and takes on the burden of the sentencing pronouncements. It is the legal fiction which is indicted, tried, and convicted. It is the sentient man/woman who takes on the sentence. The court needs the permission (consent) of the sentient man to impose a sentence and gets it through presumption, silence, acquiescence, or outright consent to apply to the “surety”. It is the sentient man/woman who now serves the sentence. The style of the case through conviction for the “defendant” is in all capital letters. The style of the sentenced party is upper and lower case.

4. When finished with the oral allocution, one must turn around and walk out of the court and its jurisdiction immediately. DO NOT HEAR the judge or the prosecutor or anyone else, even if they are screaming at you to “STOP”, or “Come back here!” If one does, then jurisdiction is given back to the court, i.e. you have contracted back in.

5. Allocution, Part One: During the trial you were denied exculpatory evidence such as the court not answering motions, notices, affidavits, allowing witnesses, etc. Keep a list of such omissions, errors, and due process denial during the trial, especially constitutional guarantees.

6. Allocution. Part Two: Read the following statement (i.e. create your own written statement to reflect your specific situation and trial activities). There is no time limit on its reading. Do not give in to interruptions.

FOR THE RECORD YOUR HONOR: I am a Man, living upon the land and speaking as only a Man can. I was created in the image of Yashua under the authority of the redeemer, Jesus Christ with all of My senses intact. I am canceling the conviction and all appearances on My part and now cancel any and all contracts, entered into by Me, knowingly or unknowingly by any methods including but not limited to verbal, by assent. consent, presumption, assumption, deception, threat, duress, coercion, fraud, fiction, fantasy or illusions, or any other method, including words of art, magic, and sophistry, casuistry or out right lying, or by specious acts of fallacious, deceptive, delusive, misleading, apparent, illusive, illusory, ostensible, practice of law.
(a) This proceeding has failed to produce evidence of an injured party.
(b) This proceeding has failed to produce an affidavit of verified complaint, or the existence of a complaining party.
(c) This proceeding has failed to produce an injured party onto the witness stand for testimony.
(d) This proceeding has failed to produce and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(e) This proceeding has failed to produce an honorable ruling, therefore the court could rule only by an undisclosed presumption of an assumed intention, and this may be deemed the practice of witchcraft by a Satanic Cabal.
(f) This proceeding – and this court – has now lost all jurisdiction by it’s denial of due process.

I have not violated Yashua’s law. I have not caused an injury to another living man. This would be a violation of the Royal law of love your neighbor as yourself, or man’s interpretation “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I have not committed a crime, and there is nothing on which to convict Me, thus the conviction is null and void. And, any Bonds affiliated or associated with this case, whether they were issued with the citation in the form of a bid bond, or as an appearance bond, or as a performance bond which have been written as a result of this procedure – and any other bonds written in any way, shape or form whatsoever – I hereby now cancel, terminate, discharge, dismiss, deactivate, eradicate, nullify, quash, rescind, repeal, revoke, abrogate, abolish, and expunge – and I forbid the commercial use of My name and likeness for profit, as all Bonds created, whether on the record or not, are void ab initio as only I, a Man can cause.

I do not accept any offer to, nor do I give consent to, nor will I go to jail, go to prison, pay or discharge any fines, fees, court costs, nor taxes of any kind.

I do not accept nor consent to have My rights blocked or impeded in any way. shape, or form. I do not accept any offer, nor consent to have My body or possessions seized or confiscated or used by anyone or their agent for their own use, or for the benefit of another. I do not accept any offer nor do I consent to probation, parole, pre- or post-trial release, or any other form of supervision imposed for this matter or in association with this matter which may be attempted to be linked with or in causation with this matter, or placed twice in jeopardy for the same pretended crime.

I, this man, [ full name ], reserve all My natural God-given unalienable birth rights, waiving none, ever – as all is conditional upon My receipt of your written statement of claims and proof of claim to the contrary under your bond of office and penalties of perjury.

My public business here is completed, perfected, discharged, accomplished, dismissed, concluded, terminated and, as Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior stated: FINISHED!

7. Immediately turn around and walk out of the court room. DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE JUDGE OR THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. If the judge asks for a copy of your allocution, do NOT respond. It is on the record and he can get it there. If the bailiff stands in your path on the way out, ask him to arrest the judge for treason (abrogated his oath of office) and move on. Do not hesitate.

8. According to Michael Stone, this procedure is authorized under FRCP Rule 60, 1946 Amendment, Note to Subdivision (b). “Since the rules have been in force, decisions have been rendered that the use of bills of review, coram nobis. or audita querela, to obtain relief from final judgments is still proper, and that various remedies of this kind still exist although they are not mentioned in the rules and the practice is not prescribed in the rules. It is obvious that the rules should be complete in this respect and define the practice with respect to any existing rights or remedies to obtain relief from final judgments.” et seq.

Not Burning Books Like ‘Farenheit 451’ – Altering Them

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III dignity,
and other legal researchers dignity) 
EXCLUSIVE REPORT For ‘FREEDOM DOCUMENTS’ by Denise Holmes

Zionism has reached into U.S. Law Books and may have removed critical knowledge and clouded our national heritage by altering quotes. More on this after examining United States v. Susan B Anthony 

United States v. Susan B Anthony

U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.

James was right, that quote no longer exists, or was never there. James had a friend with access to Westlaw find a copy the case, it was sent to me as a pdf with a watermark in the lower right margins “digitized by Google”.

Case No. 14,459.
United States v. Anthony

Circuit Court, N.D. New York. June 18, 1873

(Syllabus)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – RIGHT TO VOTE – WOMEN – QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS IN NEW YORK.

1. A female voted, at an election in the state of New York for a representative in the congress of the United States. Under the constitution and laws of the state of New York, none but males were authorized to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. She possessed all of the qualifications entitling a person to vote at such election, except she was not a male. She was indicted, under section 19 of the act of May 31st, 1870 (16 Stat. 144), for knowingly voting at such election without having a lawful right to vote. On trial it was contended, in defense, that, as she had all the qualifications required for electors of representatives in congress, by article 1, & 2, subd. 1, of the constitution of the United States (namely the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature).  [ E ] except that of being a male, the restriction of voting to males, by the constitution and laws of New York was void, as a violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States, which provides that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” Held, that such restriction was not void.
[Cited in State v. Howard Co. Ct., 90 Mo. 598, 2 S.W. 790]

2. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments of the constitution of the United States, considered.

3. The 14th amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States and protects only such rights as are rights belonging to persons as citizens of the United States, and not rights belonging to persons as citizens of a state.

4. The rights of citizens of the state defined.

5. The right or privilege of voting is one arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States.
[Cited in Kinner v. Weds, 144 Mass. 498, 11 N.E. 919.]

6. It is no defence to such indictment, that the defendant believed she had a right to vote, and voted in reliance to that belief.
[Cited in U.S. v. Watkinds, 6 Fed. 154; The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed 426.]

7. The defendant, knowing that she was a female, and that the constitution of New York prohibited her from voting, and having voted, the court refused to submit to the jury the question whether she intended, by voting to violate the statute, or any other question and directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty, and denied a request, by defendants’ counsel, that the jury be polled. Held. on a motion for a new trial, that such direction was proper, and not in violation of the right of trial by jury.

8. On the trial of an indictment, the court has the power, and it is its duty, to direct a verdict of guilty, whenever the facts constituting guilt are undisputed.
[Cited in U.S. v. Babcock, Case No. 14,486. Disapproved in U.S. v. Taylor, 11 Fed. 471.]
[Cited in State v. Burpee, 65 Vt. 3, 25 Atl. 964. Disapproved in Territory v. Kee (N. M.) 25 Pac. 926]

US v Anthony (a link to the full case)

*************************************

All of the above in ‘green’ is emphasis added by myself.  In Number 1 of Syllabus, they seem to have forgot that after a period, a sentence starts with a capital letter.

I further believe that Number 3 is interpolated, as that is where the quote should have appeared.

On page 382 in the case a there is a discussion about jury instructions between Judge Hunt and defense counsel. At (2): In determining the question whether the defendant did or did not believe that she had a right to vote, the jury may take into consideration, as bearing upon the question, the advice she received from counsel to whom she applied and also the fact, the inspectors of the election considered the question and came to the conclusion that she had a right to vote.

Judge Henry Selden was the counsel that told Susan B Anthony she could vote, he had retired as a Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals. As for the voter register, why didn’t he stand trial as an accomplice to violating the law?
Judge Hunt ordered the all male jury to convict Susan B Anthony. The jury was not exactly a ‘jury of her peers’ and why this case was not appealed is an interesting question.

Another question to ponder is Jury Nullification. According to this case a judge can order people to be found guilty. On the same topic New Hampshire has jury nullification as a matter of law when the Governor signed H.B. 146. This article also gives some quotes, if they are still there.
John Jay, America’s first US Supreme Court Chief Justice said, “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence and a US Supreme Court justice said, “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

Changing Quotes In Case Law

There seems to be a rash of changing quotes in case law, here are some examples I have seen other examples of changed quotes. The older the case the more likely it will be altered.

It has gotten so bad that legal research websites like Justia.com have put up disclaimers. Look at the bottom of this case, or any case, where you will find the disclaimer:
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
It is obvious they are afraid of being sued, or why the disclaimer?

At one time, every county in the nation had a law library that was open lawyers, attorneys and to the public to research in the law. Times change and law libraries are almost a thing of the past.
When I lived in Elko County, Nevada 2000-2006 ; the City of Elko had an excellent law library. There was only a total population in the county of 60,000, but the law library had rows and rows of books, cases from all states Supreme Courts, Federal Reporters and Supreme Court Reports. By 2004 the library was gone.

Westlaw has been controlling the books, deciding which cases to report, and could well be tinkering with our past by changing quotes within cases. Notice on their website that they also own Findlaw and that their true name is Thomson Reuters Westlaw. From the history of the company this is Reuters, of news fame. This is the Zionist connection, as Rothschild owns 100% of Thomas Reuters.

Rothschild’s tentacles will slowly erode our past through digital copies of case law on the internet in a totally controlling manner as has been done with the banking industry. The importance of owning old books just became more important and may be the only way in the future to preserve the freedom this nation once had. With the law libraries decimated by design valuable quotes will slowly disappear. It is the Rothschild way of total enslavement.

 

Affidavit of Abatement (No Such Corporation)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 

AFFIDAVIT OF ABATEMENT

Nul tiel corporation

NOTICE OF ASSERTION IN ABATEMENT IS GIVEN
 THAT NO SUCH CORPORATION EXISTS

(Your Name Normal) a Sovereign Man of Standing denies there is no such Corporation bearing the name “YOUR NAME ALL CAPS nor is such presumed corporation assignable to said Sovereign Man by legislative fiat

 

Whereas, (Your Name Normal) declares; Nul tiel corporation.No such corporation exists, bearing the name (YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPS) The form of a plea denying the existence of an alleged corporation. Under the common law practice, a plea of “nul tiel corporation” was a simple negation or a denial of capacity in which the plaintiff sued, and was not an averment of an affirmative fact {New York Bond & Mortgage Co. v. McWilliams, 253 Ill.App. 404}. A plea that plaintiff corporation is not a corporation either de jure or de facto, and consequently not entitled to sue, is not a plea of ultra vires, which assumes an incorporation either de jure or de facto and a misuse of or departure from a franchise, but is a plea of “nul tiel corporation.” {Rialto Co. v. Miner, 166 S.W. 629, 632, 183 Mo.App. 119}. That a Special Plea of Nul Tiel Corporation is necessary to question the Corporate Capacity of the plaintiff, see: 10 Cyc. 1355; Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857). Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Wetzel, 228 Ill. 253, 81 N.E. 864 (1907) (which held that a Plea denying that the plaintiff is a corporation is a Plea in Bar, but a Plea denying that the defendant is a corporation is a Plea in Abatement.); Koffler/Reppy, Common Law Pleading, 423 n. 67 (West, 1969).


BACKGROUND

Whereas, there are two (2) classes of citizens under American law never repealed.  Federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III was being drafted.  Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 is definitive and dispositive on this important point. Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia.  Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885) (the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of Congress).

The standing of State Citizens to invoke any Title 42 [Municipal]remedies, in part because these remedies originate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — a federal municipal statute.   State Citizens are not subject to federal municipal law. (Emphasis added)

At all times, “this state” acting in the name of the State of ______ having legislative jurisdiction gives cause for (Your name normal )to reserve His right to move to a common law cause of action for the appropriation of His birth name to be bastardized for commercial purposes and may be pleaded by alleging (1) “this state’s” misuse of (Your name normal) identity;  (2) the manipulation of (Your name normal) proper name to “this state’s” exclusive advantage, both commercially and otherwise;  (3) lack of consent to craft a likeness of my birth name for commercial and other purposes and to the extreme prejudice of (Your name normal) to wit:(YOUR NAME ALL CAPS);  and (4) the resulting and ongoing injury, both commercial and otherwise. Also, consideration is likewise reserved to move for a RICO investigation regarding the issue of bastardizing the birth name on STATE OF _________ commercial instruments as a for profit enterprise and thereby, a taxable event.

“this state’s” decision to use a name upon commercial instruments other than my birth name, whether such decision rests on religious, marital, commercial or other personal considerations, does not imply intent to set aside my birth name, or identity associated with that name. 

Unlike a registered trademark, My proper name cannot be deemed abandoned by Me throughout this possessor’s life, despite any failure to use it, and continue to use it, privately and or commercially. Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 34 Cal.Appl.4th 790

I (Your name spelled normal), declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February ______, 2010

With reservation of all rights, remedies and Treaties UCC 1-308
I am:____________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of _______  )
                                 ) SS
County of ______ )

On the day of the second month of the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the year two thousand and ten, Personally appeared before Me the above noted Frank Austin England, III and acknowledged to be the Man given of such proper Christian name, and thereby, making the aforesaid AFFIDAVIT FOR IDENTITY AND OTHER PURPOSES AND FOR CAUSE!
Before Me: Notary for the State of __________
My commission expires: Notary Seal

(Blog Master Note: The above document makes reference to Common Law Pleadings by Koffler and Reppy. So I will add an Addendum to Frank ‘Austin’ England’s post. The passage begins on page 422 and ends on 423 in the same book, copyrighted in 1969. It is also some insight into defense to show you are not a corporation. )


Addendum

Notwithstanding the above observations, there are two views as to whether the Corporate Existence of a Corporation was in Issue under a Plea of the General Issue. The generally accepted view was that the Existence of the Corporation was not put in issue by a Plea of General Issue. This appears to be the better view, as the function of the General Issue was to deny Material Allegations of Fact in the plaintiff’s Declaration. If the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff were put in Issue the General Issue would be placing in Issue a Question of Law, as the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff can only be determined by construing the Charter of the Incorporation, and construction of a written document involves a Question of Law. The General Issue alone, therefore, should operate as an admission of the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff; [66] if it is desirable to place it iin the Issue the defendant should Specifically Traverse the Corporate. Existence of the plaintiff by use of a Plea Nul TielCorporation [67]

Foot Note 66 – Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me, 49 (1857) Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Wetzel, 228 Ill. 253, 81 N.E. 864, (1907), which held that a Plea denying that the plaintiff is a corporation is a Plea in Bar, but that a Plea denying that the defendant is a corporation is a Plea in Abatement.

Foot Note 67 – That a Special Plea of Nul Tiel Corporation is necessary to question the corporate of the plaintiff, see: Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857).

Reading further into the book: If you have been charged with a crime and the Indictment has your name in all capitol letters, and that is not your Christian name, the defense is a Plea of Abatement instead of an Affidavit.

Jury Summons Response Letter

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 

Jury Summons Response Letter

January 14, 2003

Ms. Gloria Gomez
Director, Juror Services Division
Office of Jury Commissioner
320 W. Temple Street, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012-3278

Re; JID Number – 123456789

Dear Ms. Gomez,
I have recently received a “Juror Summons” in the mail. This is my response to the Summons. In order to know if I am “qualified” to be a juror, I must complete “section A” – the Affidavit. I notice that I am expected to sign the Affidavit under penalty of perjury. In light of this fact, and to insure that I fully understand the legal terms being used on the Affidavit and the nature of the duty that may fall upon me in this matter, I will need your office to provide me with certain information.

a. In section “A”, question 1, I am being asked if I am a “citizen of the United States”. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “citizen of the United States” in question 1. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

b. In section “A”, question 3, I am being asked if I am a “resident” of Los Angeles County. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “resident” in question 3. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

c. In section “A” (step 2) it instructs a person to sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury. Please provide me with your authority to compel me to affix my signature to any document (including the affidavit) under penalty of perjury.

You may mail your response to address shown at the top of this page. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,

Joe Citizen

*******************************************

(Blog Masters Note: In an e-mail from Frank ‘Austin’ England III, dated 18 November, 2009)
 

You can’t renounce something that you’ve never been . . . keep in mind one very simple issue . . . the term of art used by all bueaucrats, from employees to the law merchants sitting HIGH on the bench (ALTER OF COMMERCE) misleading the public to believe the said public are subject to lay themselves prostrate in front of said weasels to be summarily dealt with as a FING SUBJECT. . . and to be “TREATED AS” said SUBJECT. Terms such as “Treated as”, “subrogated”, “volunteered”, “agreed”, “traversed”, “joined with” and the BIG ONE, “PERSON!” are all terms establishing a rebuttable presumption as to the term which by operation of law is merely PRESUMED BY THE COMMERCIAL PROCESS. . . the problem arises when dealing with the lower levels of this for profit corporate process, being the “underlings” and “operatives” believing you are in fact IRREVOCABLY SUBJECT TO to the system they earn their living to promote and acquire the regular paycheck ad infinitum. YOU MUST ALWAYS OBJECT AND REBUT, QUESTION AND KNOW THE ANSWER BEFOR YOU ASK THE QUESTION!

I recieved a jury summons last week . . . presonally went to the courthouse two days ago and confronted the juror clerk, asking questions that completely dissasembled any presumed right to compel service on a jury for a pittance, when that jury would be serving a – for profit statute/merchant court for fun and and profit.

Told her I would make a counter offer for my services at the rate of $1,000.00 per day, tax exempt. Also pointed out that nowhere was there a statute citation to enforce or compel juriy service . . . unless she could show that statute to me. She said it was the duty of the citizen . . . I asked if the term Citizen was spelled with a capital “C” or a lower case “c” . . . she had no idea . . . I also pointed out (and showed her) that the enactment dates of the entire Court and Jury stats, rules and regs were to be omitted in accordance with the United States Rules of Style . . . she said that this was the STATE OF OREGON and those rules didn’t apply here . . . I showed her that the STATE OF OREGON is a subsidiary overlying for profit corporate doing business entity and a subsidiary corporate creation cited in the statutes as “this state” existing in “the airspace above” “The State of Oregon” and thereby subject to its parent corporation the territorial District of Columbia . . . YES THE PEOPLE YOU WORK FOR ARE PERFORMING IN THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THE LAND WHERE THE PEOPLE EXERCISE STANDING ON THE LAND . . .

At this point she ignored me, went back to her computer and said for me not to worry about the jury duty summons . . . I tossed the summons on her desk wished her a nice day and left . . . ARE WE HAVING FUN YET!