Republic / True / De jur ????

Posted on October 26, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

Official Press Release July 27, 2010

We are proud to announce that the Republic of the United States of America is officially re‐inhabited.

On March 31, 2010, the unanimous Declaration of the sovereign People of the united States of America to restore and re‐inhabit the free American Republics (FIFTY STATES) was signed and presented by thirteen hundred and fifty people of the American Republics . It was the people from forty nine states, many whom were original signers on the new declaration, including jury members in which put their signatures to the permanent record of desire to re‐inhabit the Republic of the united States of America . It was not only the juries from those Republics, but “We the people” who voted. The purposes of the People were to elect an interim government so that the People of our great nation would have a true voice. This vote demonstrated the American People’s desires to re‐inhabit the original seats vacated in 1944. The true government is called the united States of America . It was formed through the Declaration of Independence as a trust in 1776.

Reference: www.RepublicoftheunitedStates.org

In 1868, the 41st Congress convened and formed the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (all capital letters) corporation. This Corporation’s only jurisdictional rights are within the District of Columbia . The UNITED STATES Corporation has acted unlawfully as a federal government by operating within the fifty Republics (STATES) and not within its rightful jurisdiction, the District of Columbia . For the last 142 years, this corporate government fiction known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , has used its perceived powers to deceive the American People into thinking that it was our true form of government.

The UNITED STATES Corporation even wrote a new constitution called the Constitution of the United States rather than continuing the use of the original Constitution for the United States , thus usurping the rights of the People. It has also formed sub corporations such as the STATE OF CALIFORNIA . Over the last 142 years, it has subverted all fifty Republics into all capital letter STATES. Such as the STATE OF CALIFORNIA verses what it truly is, the California Republic .

All Californians unknowingly bind themselves through adhesion contracts into said corporate jurisdiction through birth certificates, drivers licenses, bank accounts, and marriage licenses. These contracts all have language on the applications which give up Republic rights of the People.

“Quote from the original 1776 Declaration of Independence: 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.”

We as the People are not abolishing any government whether fiction or real. We are NOT in any way trying to take out or dismantle the current UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Corporate government. We are Americans who do not believe in violence or harming anyone. We are Americans simply, peaceably, by law, and the pen, exercising our God given rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the united States of America . We have only re‐inhabited the vacated seats of the original form of government called the united States of America .

We are fully funded and preparing for what we believe is the fall of UNITED STATES Corporate fiction. There is much work to be done. We want America to know that we are a peaceable people that have no intent of malice and believe that only through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, could these events have taken place.

May God Bless You,

James Timothy Turner
Interim President of the Republic of the united States of America

Official Press Release for the Republic of the United States of America . July 27, 2010

Reference:Dnb.com Lookup: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HOMELAND SECURITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Richard Rios Press Information Officer
Phone: (269) 978-5630

press@republicoftheunitedstates.org

Posted in Republic / True / Dejur | Leave a comment

Statutory Construction

Posted on October 25, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

Every time you are facing a code requirement always look at the
definitions of who / what is included.

The government is ever eager to expand its scope of authority,
doing such is not lawful and often unconstitutional.

‘Person’

I have used the term ‘person’ a number of times, and I believe it deserves some special attention. It derives from the Latin ‘persona,’ an actor’s mask, used in
Greek and Roman times for two purposes…to identify the stage character—for one actor often played more than one role, so he would simply switch masks—and to
project his voice by means of a megaphone-shaped mouth…per sona, by sound. Hence, our word ‘personality,’ that about ourselves which we project to others. In
some, more than others, a presentation that indeed masks our true character or nature. In the Middle Ages it came to be used as synonymous with ‘homo,’ man or
individual. This was not the case in ancient (and modern) Roman law. As one legal historian put it:

jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the
status or condition with which he is invested. (34 Austins Jur., 363. Emphasis added.)

In the 15th century, “person came to be used in legal terminology for one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by the law as the
subject of rights and duties.” (Merriam-Webster’s New Book of Word Histories, 1991. Emphasis added.) Note here that it is only the ‘human being’ in his person, as
a subject of rights and duties. As Ortolan says, in his History of the Roman Law:

The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. In the first, it is every being considered as
capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subject of rights.

We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons….because it makes of them beings capable
of having or owing rights….

We shall therefore have to discriminate between, and to study, two classes of person: physical or natural persons, for which we find no distinctive denomination in
Roman jurisprudence…; that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those
which are purely legal conceptions or creations.

In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each
quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations—for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense
the same man can have several personae at the same time. (Emphasis added.)

The Internal Revenue Code is Roman or civil law, together with its sibling, maritime or admiralty law. Thus, as I discuss below, the Supreme Court clearly states
that all income taxes are on corporations, as set forth in the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, not on people. That is why all 48 titles always speak of persons, never
people, human beings, or men or women; a fiction can only deal with a fiction.

This was made clear even before the Constitution, in The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise
either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. (Emphasis added.)

Let me put a little flesh on these bones. The Supreme Court stated in Edwards v. Cuba RR Co., 268 US 628 that:

…the meaning of ‘income’ as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Law of 1909 is not to be distinguished from the meaning of the same word as used in the Income
Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 US 509. (Emphasis added.)

However, as pointed out by Kenneth Weiland, it is of interest to note, also, a Federal Claims Court case, Maryland Casualty Co. v. U.S.:

By the act of August 5, 1909, a special excise tax was imposed upon the privilege of carrying on business by corporations. It was in reality a license to carry on
business….The Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, should be considered as a statutory construction of the act of August 5, 1909, in so far as it related to the basis
of taxation. (December Term, 1916-17 [52 C. Cls.] Emphasis added. This will take on further meaning toward the end of this paper.)

Be it noted that in the California Penal Code ‘person’ is clearly distinguished from ‘Citizen.’ Penal Code § 228 states: “Any citizen of this state who shall fight a
duel…” While at § 232 it states: “Any person of this state who fights a duel…” (Emphasis added.)

“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign…[and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” Wilson v. Omaha
Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979), quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941).

‘Individual’

The term of art ‘individual’ is also frequently employed in the codes. Which is even more sneaky, because most people believe this word to be, for all intents and
purposes, synonymous with ‘a human being’…what the law refers to as a ‘natural person.’ Roman law hardly referred to such a physical being, except the rare
usage of singularis persona—which, however, still employs ‘persona,’ thereby preserving a juridical nexus, inapplicable to a sentient man (homo). An abstract,
fictitious ‘person’ is needed. Recall Judge Bork, on page 11, above, saying that 90% of those in prison were there because they consented to the process? You
consent when you agree to be subject to a statute dealing with persons—which we have seen to be fictional corporate constructs or entities. The code—any of the
48 titles—only applies to a human being at the point s/he agrees to take on the character, status, persona of an artificial juristic persona. Always remember that
when the code says “…any person,” it means “any person in the jurisdiction of this code.” One obligates oneself to the civil code by an act of assumpsit…i.e.,
volunteering to be that ‘person.’ (Assumpsit: “A promise or engagement by which one person assumes or undertakes to do some act or pay something to another.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Recall the Chisholm case, above.) You will never see in any code, State or federal, the word ‘man’ or ‘woman’…or ‘people’—at
least I don’t recall having done so—only the juristic, statutory ‘person.’

People are understandably confused about on what I believe to be the correct signification of a particular class of persons, namely, a ‘natural person.’ It is almost
always used loosely to refer to the physical, sentient human being. Indeed, in statutory law this is the term of choice for a living man—but always in a qualified
sense. At 26 CFR 1.6049-4(f) Definitions we read:

The term natural person means any individual, but shall not include a partnership (whether or not composed entirely of individuals), a trust, or an estate.
(Emphasis added.)

Notice carefully how they see it as both possible and necessary to qualify ‘individual.’ If this term stood for a living man, it would be pointless and ridiculous to say
that it could not be a trust or an estate! They wouldn’t say that a man shall not include an estate.

So then, we see that ‘person,’ ‘natural person,’ and ‘individual’ are all fictitious legal creations. And, if you acquiesce to being any of them, in a legal setting, you
thereby agree that the code addresses and applies to you.

This is why some have an aversion to referring to their appearance in court as being ‘in propria persona’…which some do to avoid pleading pro se, ‘for oneself,’
when appearing without an attorney. They don’t want to represent themselves, but be themselves. And, since ‘in propria persona’ means ‘in one’s own proper
person,’ it would seem to overcome this objection. Be this as it may—and I am aware of many arguments pro and con—the court still refers to your appearance as
being pro se. Personally, if I found myself in that situation, I would appear in rerum natura, ‘in the realm of actuality; in existence,’ (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th
edition) the opposite of being a fictitious person.

We should look, too, at the very first term in the general definition chapter for the entire IRC: Section 7701(a)(1)—and well they should begin there, for all
statutory law rests on the foundation of this juristic fabrication.

Person. The term ‘person’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.

Therefore, since we now know that, in law, ‘person’ can not be anything but a fictitious juridical creation, it follows ineluctably that if ‘individual’ is said to mean the
exact same thing, then it must also refer to the same type of unnatural and artificial entity as ‘person.’

This is pretty well nailed down by a couple of cites from the CFR. At 5 CFR 582.101(4) we read:

Persons may include an individual, partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, private organization or other legal entity, and includes the plural of that
term; person may include any of the entities that may issue legal process as set forth in… (Emphasis added.)

In 7 CFR 400.303(m) we find:

Person means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, estate, trust, or other legal entity, and whenever applicable, a State or a political subdivision, or
agency of a State. (Emphasis added.)

Here it is in the regulations, an individual is a ‘legal entity,’ not a (wo)man, a sentient human being.

So, it makes perfect sense that 5 USC 552a(a)(2) should hold that “the term ‘individual’ means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence; (3)…” (Emphasis added.) For a ‘citizen’ is certainly a juristic ‘person.’

A discussion of ‘person,’ however, would not be complete without reference to 26 USC 7343 Definition of term “person.” This is at the very end of Chapter 75
Crimes, Other Offenses and Forfeitures, which includes such goodies as § 7203 Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, which begins: “Any
person required under this title to pay…” (Emphasis added.)

Section 7343 reads in its entirety:

The term ‘person’ as used in this chapter includes [is restricted to] an officer or employee of a corporation [such as the U.S. or some company incorporated in the
federal zone], or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect to which the
violation occurs.

For starters, Section 7203 is a penalty section and makes no attempt to establish any liability. Plus, the implementing regulations are in Title 27 BATF…meaning that
it is exclusively for their use, with excise taxes! It has nothing to do with the IRS. Leaving all that aside, do you believe that you could be charged as being the
person described above? Do you work for the federal government or a domestic (U.S., not State) corporation?

Put up Omaha City Municipal Code.

Nebraska Statutes.
>>>
Legal Words and Consequences

by

Richard McDonald

This is  a newsletter  that may  be dangerous  to your  well  being, as  it contains  some truth  that  you  were  or  are  not supposed to know or understand.

To begin  with, I  must tell  you that all words used in any type of  law have  a specific  meaning attached  as it relates to that specific  law.   They do  not  mean  
the  standard  everyday dictionary  meaning  at  all  times,  as  you  are  mislead  into thinking.

First, you  must understand  that  this  is  an  educational forum, and  I will give you the meanings that are utilized by the various governmental  agencies, to
deprive you of your rights and property.

The word  “person” as  it is  used in  most of  the statutes refers to  the same  person as  defined  in  the  so-called  14th Amendment.   It does  not include  
everyone, as  you are  led  to believe.   There are  several court cases that define who is that specific “person,”  and one  of those  cases is Van Valkenburg v.
Brown, 43 Cal. 43.

Next the  term  “United  States”  has  three  (3)  different distinct, and  separate jurisdictional  meanings.   This has been stated in  Hooven &  Allison Co.  v. Evatt,
324 U. S. 652.  There the court stated:

The term  “United States”  may be used in any one of several senses.   It may  be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous  to that  of
other sovereigns in the family of nations.   It  may  designate  the  territory  over  which  the sovereignty of  the United  States extends,  or  it  may  be  the
collective name  of the  States which are united by and under the Constitution.

Each  of   these  definitions   have  completely   different jurisdictions and  cannot be  mixed.   Do you  know which  of the meanings are  being utilized when they
say “United States”?  When in doubt,  ASK!   This always brings some type of answer, and you will at  least know  for yourself what they are doing to you with your
permission.

There are  several groups  that are claiming federal rights, that originate in the 1866 Federal Civil Rights Statute, 14 Stat. 27.  They should read and understand
the law before claiming such statutory rights and privileges.  They might be surprised to find out what they are stating and claiming.

The law states the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to  one of  the several  States.    Remember,  that  the District of  Columbia is  not one  of the  
States of the Union of several States, but is a foreign nation (corporation).  See 20 C. J. S.  sec. 1785,  p. 11.  So under these facts of law the “U. S. citizens” of the
District of Columbia are only alien residents in any one  of the  several States.   So,  if all state agencies are operating under the purview of the municipal laws of
the District of Columbia, have they registered with this State’s Department of State as  an agency  of a  foreign power  doing business  in this State?

The original  Political Code  of 1872,  states that  you are either a Citizen of this State, a Citizen of another State, or an alien.   So, if  you do  not possess  Primary
and Paramount State Citizenship, then  you must be a resident alien, who can and must be controlled  at all  times when,  where, how,  and  why  to  do anything
affecting the public (Citizens of the State).

I am a Citizen of this State first, then as a consequence, I am a  Citizen of  the United States of America, as defined in the Original Constitution  for the  United
States  of America (1787), and have  full, complete  and unencumbered  access to  all of the Bill of  Rights (1791),  Amendments 1  through 10.    The  U.  S.
Supreme Court  has stated that since 1969, Amendments 1 through 8 have limited application to the States through the 14th Amendment for the  U. S. citizens.  
They as citizens of a non-state (notice a difference  of status  between the  State and  the District  of Columbia) have  no access  to the  9th and 10th
Amendments.  As a Citizen of  a State,  I have  all the  powers not  given  to  the governments.   I am a sovereign and as the courts have stated the Constitutions
are  a limitation upon the government as it relates to the  Citizen of  the State.   But  this is not so if you are a citizen of  the District  of Columbia.   SO, just what
are you???  If you  are a  slave on  the  Federal  plantation  known  as  the District of Columbia, then act like one.  If you are a Citizen of this State  then act  like
the sovereign you are by heritage and Birthright.  Read and understand the laws that apply to you.  You must always  obey these  laws under  all circumstances.  I
do not obey the laws of Japan, Germany, England or the municipal laws of the District of Columbia for the very simple reason that I am not one of their citizens.

So read the law, understand it and ask questions if in doubt of your status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ejusdem generis  (ee-jos-dem jen-o-ris also eejoos- or ee-yoos-). [Latin “of the same kind or class”]
A canon of construction that when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific persons or things, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only
persons or things of the same type as those listed.
! For example, in the phrase horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other barnyard animal, the general language or any other barnyard animal — despite its
seeming breadth — would probably be held to include only four-legged, hoofed mammals (and thus would exclude chickens).

— Also spelled eiusdem generis. —Also termed ejusdem generis rule; Lord Ten terden’s rule. Cf. EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS; NOSCITUR A
SOUIS;  RULE OF RANK.

ejusdem  generis rule-Doctrine off-

Lord Ten  terden’s rule-

EXPRESSIO   UNIUS   EST   EXCLUSIO   ALTERIUS;

NOSCITUR A SOUIS;
>>

Person:  The word “person” shall include and be applied to:   <This is from the OMAHA MUNICIPAL CODE, Definition of “PERSON”.
a firm,(A legal entity.)
partnership, (A legal entity.)
association, (A legal entity.)
corporation, (A legal entity.)
organization, (A legal entity.)
club, society, (A legal entity.)
group acting as a unit, (A legal entity.)
political subdivision, (A legal entity.)
or body politic, (A legal entity.)
and corporate, (A legal entity.)
as well as to an individual.  (Therefore must also mean legal entity.)

Ejusdem generis
[Latin: Of the same kind or nature] A rule of statutory interpretation that where particular words are followed by general words, the general words are limited to
the same kind as the particular worlds.
Thus where the Sunday Observance Act 1677 provided that “no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise any
worldly labour business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord’s Day…” the words “or other persons whatsoever” were to be construed ejusdem generis
with those words which proceeded them so that an estate agent was not within the exception (Gregorry v Fearn [1953])
>>

/w/index.php?title=Statutory_interpretation&action=edit&section=4Internal and external consistency
It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.
The ejusdem generis rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear.
>>                                                                        
Ejusdem generis (Of the same kinds, class, or nature)

When a list of two or more specific descriptors are followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted
to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them
e.g where –cars,motor bikes,motor powered, vehicles– are mentioned there the ‘vehicles’ would be interpreted in a limited sense( therefore vehicles cannot be
interpreted as including air planes)
>>>

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others)

Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated
by a word such as “includes.”
>>>

In pari materia (Upon the same matter or subject)

When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
>>>

Noscitur a sociis (A word is known by the company it keeps)

When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
>>>

Rule of Lenity  
In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987);
See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough
v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).
>>>

Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty

See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); [prerogative as citizens of a sovereign State to do so]

see also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
>>>

Avoidance Canon (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance)

If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US,
this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation only when one interpretation
was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises
constitutional doubts.
>>>

Clear Statement Rule

When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make
the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major changes in a vague or unclear
way.
>>>
Under the rule of ejusdem generis, “[g]eneral words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(3) (1996)
>>>
The rule of ejusdem generis, an aid to statutory construction problems, suggests that where general words follow a specific enumeration of persons or things, the
general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated. The rule of ejusdem generis is no more than an aid to construction
and comes into play only when there is some uncertainty as to the meaning of a particular clause in a statute. UNITED STATES v. TURKETTE
No. 80-808
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
452 U.S. 576; 101 S. Ct. 2524; 1981 U.S. LEXIS 32; 69 L. Ed. 2d 246; 49 U.S.L.W. 4743
>>>
First, it relied in part on the rule of ejusdem generis, an aid to statutory construction problems suggesting that where general words follow a specific enumeration of
persons or things, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated. See 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory
Construction § 47.17 [**2528] (4th ed. 1973).
>>>

EJUSDEM GENERIS – Of the same kind, class, or nature.
In statutory construction, the “ejusdem generis rule” is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific
meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or
class as those specifically mentioned.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, pages 415.
>>>

STATES that WHAT the DEFINITIONS actually “include” is LIMITED to those things which are in the SAME GENERAL CLASS as the ENUMERATED items.
>>>
“The constructional problem is resolved by the second principle Alloyd overlooks, which is that a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a
sociis).
>>>

RULE OF RANK.

>>
EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind.
2. In the construction of laws, wills and other instruments, when certain things are enumerated, and then a phrase is used which might be construed to include
other things, it is generally confined to things ejusdem generas; as, where an act (9 Ann. C. 20) provided that a writ of quo warranto might issue against persons
who should usurp “the offices of mayors, bailiffs, port reeves, and other offices, within the cities, towns, corporate boroughs, and places, within Great Britain,” &c.;
it was held that “other offices” meant offices ejusdem generis; and that the word “places” signified places of the same kind; that is, that the offices must be
corporate offices, and the places must be corporate Places. 5 T. R. 375,379; 5 B . & C. 640; 8 D. & Ry. 393; 1 B. & C. 237.
3. So, in the construction of wills, when certain articles are enumerated, the terra goods is to be restricted to those ejusdem generis. Bac. Ab. Legacies, B; 3 Rand.
191; 3 Atk. 61; Abr. Eq. 201; 2 Atk. 113.
BOUVIER”S LAW DICTIONARY 1856 Edition

Posted in Statutory Construction / PERSON | Leave a comment

Protected: Draft , Mandatory or Volunteer, how to challenge.

Posted on October 25, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in DRAFT / MILITARY | Enter your password to view comments.

Marriage License, Permission to MARRY?

Posted on October 25, 2010 by Paul John Hansen
What did people do before the corporate-state existed?
Read this before you start having children!    JUST SAY NO to ‘Birth Certificates’, ‘S.S. #s’, and the ‘Marriage License’.    Name the child after leaving the hospital. Just politely say; “Dear Mr socialist, fabian, anti-liberty, thug, damnable STATE bureaucrat, no thanks.”Why a ‘state marriage license‘ gives your children to the corporate state as ‘wards of the state’ until they are the age of 18.  How you may [avoid] the state license and have, of ‘liberty’, a ‘governed free’, ‘private contract’ (non-statutory) marriage’ which the courts have a duty to uphold. All with God’s blessing.

>>>
Definition, generally of ‘License’:   Permission to do that which is illegal without permission from an authority.
God said; “Man and woman shall become one”, thus a God given ‘right’.
Now remember “rights’ can never be abridged, they can only be waived by contract.

>>
Go apply for a (corporate) state marriage license.
Get married.
Have a child.
You decide to take the child home with out the hospitals permission because ya didn’t allow them to vaccinate him, and/or you did not want to get a social security number or birth certificate, for the little one just yet, or they (future) wanted to implant an identification chip in the child.
You get home, put the child to bed, sit to enjoy the first night home with your new family and you hear a knock on the door and the Sheriff greats you with a stern look and says; “Buba please turn and put your hands behind your head, you are under arrest.                              ((Parentspotria))
And you say; “what fer.”
Officer says; “It has been reported that you have taken the state property from the hospital without permission.”
And you say; “state property, all I picked up today was my wife and new born son.”
Officer says; “where is what you claim as ‘your ‘ son.”

The above is a general example of true stories in every state of the union.  If you do not believe it just do the above and call me on the results.

Yes, with a marriage license you just told the government that you are seeking their aid, government can then presume you are incompetent to handle the property produced from the union (marriage).  Ya just contracted your rights away and you did not have a clue to what you where doing.

You just granted the authority of the state over all produce of the new couple that has now become one.
Welcome to being subject to all statutes to address every conceivable issue your marriage could ever possible encounter.

Yes the child is now ‘state property’ of (____________) and ‘you’ are charged with caring for him as ‘they’ see fit.

Now if the franchise (state) see you spank Johnny, the force of the state will be upon you to the magnitude of a 1000 man Nazi regime, ya can run but ya can not hide.

Oh I forgot to say, If you would of just got married (contractually committed to each other) before your family, friends and God, as is your ‘right, liberty’, (man and Gods Law) the ‘corporate’ state would have virtually no jurisdiction unless you violate Johnny’s ‘God given rights’.  God says; “spank him when needed, least ye raise a
brat.” PHRS

California Proposed Bill – “According to AB 2943, a Parent who spanks their child would be placed on probation for a minimum of four years, and would be forced to attend a ‘nonviolent parental education class’ and the child would receive a criminal court protective order ‘protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats’ and ‘residence exclusion or stay-away conditions’.”

State ownership of children, which is no more than the collective will of the people – as “a force for good” and “shadow minister for families”.   We are government and we are here to help you, as the gun is pointed at you for your safety.

The state may someday force you to educate in specific vocational set standards.
The state may start forcing vaccinations that may do great future damage.
The state decides all issues in separation, alimony, child support.  (I would much
rather trust a (preselected) [your church] arbitration forum or a jury to decide such
instead of a pro state judge.)
The state can force perverse teaching on your children.  (Same sex marriages,
homosexuality, etc.  (Just study history, the/a state can get pretty sick.)
The Bible says; “raise up a child in the ways of the Lord and he shall not depart from it.”
The state says; “raise up the child in the ways of the state and he shall not depart from it.”
>>
Rocked by a nationwide storm of criticism, the Los Angeles County court that declared homeschooling illegal in California has agreed to rehear the case in June 2008. At issue is Justice H. Walter Croskey’s Feb. 28 decree, which ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she can get a “legal education.”
>>

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License by
Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, “everybody else gets one.” This pamphlet attempts to answer the question – why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”  We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says “no”? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to
prohibit. A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own (that is produced after the corporate marr age was created). There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws (state statute). Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!  I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”  ((In time past the ceremony would ask if anyone is present to object to the union of the couple, this portion is now days rare.  Essentially the community had the 15 days as stated below to insure that close relatives were not marrying, or one that is not already married was involved, plus I assume other valid reasons.))

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, “You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission.” If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway.
This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying (contracting with) the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states,
“Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to thatcontract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.”

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse.  You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons – 1). in the case of divorce, and 2).
when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.
They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.  ((Essentially the state can get involved in divorce (with out no state liscense) because they have jurisdiction to insure that the parties adhere to their standing marriage  [common law contract] promise, just like any other contract the court steps in an enforces the terms of the agreement.  So I Hansen recommend a well prayed out agreement that can be refereed to frequently by both parties of their promise before man and God, and if worst comes to worst the parties can call upon the court to use its authority to enforce the terms therein.)) ((Basically a court has two ways of gaining jurisdiction: a. Called upon to enforce a contract. b. Violation of a parties rights [enforcement of general law].))

((Statutory law is contractual.))

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary
as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”)
Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every corporate state had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask
ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license – who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a
marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.  (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God’s law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage “record”. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope.  Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave.

PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.    www.mercyseat.net)\

>>
I Paul John can give you a list of pastors in Omaha, Nebraska who marry only people that follow the biblical example as listed above.
>>

Marriage Licenses:                  ((God gives us children should we then give them to the STATE.))

The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper
ultrac21@whitemtns.com

Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26  years, filed for
divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two
(2) sons.  Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five
years old.  At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition
for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior
Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage
license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25.  I asked
her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of
the marriage license.  She was very cooperative, and called in
an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an
Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant.
He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as
it operates in Arizona.  He mentioned that marriage licensing is
pretty much the same in the other states –but there are differences.
One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of
eight western states that are Community Property states.  The other
states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of
Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage
license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular
Contract between the parties and the State.  The State is the
principal party in that Secular Contract.  The husband and wife are
secondary or inferior parties.  The Secular Contract is a three-way
contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife
as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between
the husband and wife and God.  But in the Secular Contract with
the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially
considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in
their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in
their own minds.  The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,”
he said.  He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to
God being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention
of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related
one other “dotted line.”  He said in the traditional religious
context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and
God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in
the secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The
State is the Principal or dominant party.  The husband and wife
are merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any
religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected
to each other by another “dotted line.”

The picture he was trying to “paint” was that of a triangle with
the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex,
the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid
line extending down the right side to the wife, a “dotted line”
merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into
a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

Marriage License
Secular Contract Diagram

STATE
(primary party)

HUSBAND                  WIFE   .
(secondary party) (secondary party) .

GOD
He further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by
the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either
by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been
“deputized” by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make
a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship
so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a
“privileged business enterprise” various tax advantages and other
political privileges have become attached to the marriage license
contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious
covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on
marriage, one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,”
by William Defuniak.  At the outset, he explains that Community
Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes,
600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit
venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually
produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the
local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the
marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.
To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a
business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture.  Moreover,
as children come into the marriage household, the business venture
is considered to have “borne fruit.”

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior
Court, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant.  He went on to
explain that every contract must have consideration.  The State
offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself –
the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage.  The other part
of consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by
statute.” He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute
includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled
on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future
in the years following the commencement of the marriage.  He said
in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible,
ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband
and wife didn’t realize that.

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract
as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full
disclosure of the terms and conditions.  A contract must be
entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with
fully informed consent.  Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State
is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate,
unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.”  Such a contract with
the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to
the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee
paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes,
rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to
marriage law, family law, children, and property.  He emphasized
that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places
them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject
to the State.  He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children
born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing
fruit” -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even
though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the
contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for
parents to understand two doctrines that became established in
the United States during the 1930s.  The first is the Doctrine of
Parens Patriae.  The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to
state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent.
Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that
parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of
their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.
This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody
of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they
in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any
time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control
of its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers.
[Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details.  The marriage license
is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State.  Technically,
the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and
wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third
parties and contract mortgages and debts.  They can get car loans,
home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage
because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by
the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit
business enterprise.  The marriage contract acquires property through
out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children.
If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results
the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a
contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions
of the contract.  Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage,
over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues
over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over
children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls
“divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract
continues in operation but in amended or modified form.  He also
pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the
strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has
on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked
if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking?
The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked
there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions.
He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the
legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual
relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated,
“You have to understand that people who come in here to get a
marriage license are in heat.  The last thing they want to know is
technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in
getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the
marriage license.  The marriage license as we know it didn’t
come into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become
standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming
firmly established by 1920.  In effect, the states or governments
appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in
the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”

Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.
>>

Remember that the ‘Birth Certificate‘ is a document of delivering the produce (baby) to the government warehouse.
You deliver the goods and get a certificate as proof of delivery.  This is what the judges have told people I have talked with.
When you take corn to the grain elevator you get a ‘Certified Grain Receipt’ as proof of entrusting the grain to the elevator.
When you take the birth (baby) to the warehouse (government) as proof of entrusting the goods in their system you get a ‘Birth Certificate’ as documented proof.
Yes the court claim jurisdiction over minors by receiving the evidence of the Birth Certificates, and/or the Marriage License.
To avoid the above and the creation of a SS number (Social Security Identifier Number) just say that due to religious beliefs,you do not name the child until after the character starts to develop.  No name = no number, no certificates, no forms, no registration. This is what my friend did with little problem, but try the same thing with a marriage license and you would most likely be arrested, for not caring for their (STATE) property.

>>
———The controversy of state-sanctioned “gay marriages”  by Don Harkins  Gay couples feel like social progress is being made because some cities and states are allowing them to obtain marriage licenses. The controversy has gotten a lot of press lately, largely due to the commonly held belief that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by state sanctioning of gay marriages. It’s too late. State licensing has already destroyed the institution of marriage.  Marriage, in the state licensed sense, is a purely secular, for-profit arrangement binding parties to contractual obligations that protect the principle (the state)’s interests, which are the assets (properties, children) generated under the auspices of the license.  Marriage, in the spiritual sense, is a covenant between a man, a woman and their God as the principle; His main purpose is to provide the union wherein a spiritual base for the proper rearing of children will prepare them for well-adjusted adulthood.  Look at the percentages of licensed marriages that fail and the dollar value attached to the children and properties over which the state claims contractual rights of disposal. In the broader sense, the state destroys everything it licenses to justify the necessity of issuing licenses.  Think about this: The state is no longer beneficent: It is evil. To invite the state into your marriage by contract of license means that you have just opted to supercede a covenant with God and have entered into a three-party contract between you, your betrothed and Satan (STATE).

((The STATE as is Satan is a fearful master.))

The chances for happy lives and healthy children are probably greater if a contract with Satan is not consummated.  For the purpose of raising children, a man and a woman should view their marriage as entering into a covenant with God and understand that no state licenses are required in God’s kingdom.  For the purpose
of contract, anyone naive enough to volunteer their relationship into the jurisdiction of the state, in the hopes of realizing some benefit by obtaining a state license, should be allowed to do so at their own peril.  A covenant with God and a license with the state are completely different issues. Break a covenant with God and your soul is sacrificed; break a contract with the state and it takes your worldly possessions and turns your life into a living hell.  Those who seek state licensure for marriage, gay or otherwise, have themselves opted to participate in the demise of the institution of marriage. The state’s interests are best served when licensed marriages dissolve and it’s able to swoop down one people’s wrecked lives and take possession of whatever value remains and assign liability for future collections.  Men and women in love should be married before witnesses in the eyes of God and should never sign a separate contract with the secular state. If those of us who can be married in the eyes of God stopped begging for the state to license our marriage, and we strengthened the sanctity of marriage through our commitments to our spouse and to God, then the state’s licensing of gay marriages can be given the exact amount of attention it deserves: None.
Let those who cannot be married in the eyes of God (Pagans / Those who love evil).
Let us get on with reestablishing our relationships with God, not the state, as our anchor.
—The Idaho ObserverP.O. Box 457Spirit Lake,
Idaho 83869Phone: 208-255-2307Email: observer@coldreams.com

((I Paul John had a dream that people were lined up by the thousands as they sang ‘God Bless America’.
As they sang without looking to ether side of them one in three where being shot in the head.
This dream was symbolic of one in three people conceived in america are aborted.))

>>>>

DIVORCE THE GOVERNMENT: DID YOU BUY A LICENSE TO MARRY IN THE UNITED STATES?
Filed Under GAY MARRIAGE, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, OBAMA, Oath of Office, PRESIDENTS,
ProperTea Tax Tea Party, Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a Comment
When a couple get a license to marry, they are contributing to the process of being ruled by the military
dictatorship begun by George Washington.  It was Washington who made it possible by his election on February
4, 1789 to the Office of President and his switch in office to President of the United States.  Big government was
initiated by George Washington and will end when couples come together as a Tea Party for two.

On April 30, 1789 took an oath of employment allegiance to the Congress of the United States, as 43 other
sneaky men have done after him.  As the people are finding out with Barack Hussein Obama, Presidents of the
United States are faithless to the people.

Whether or not George Washington was faithful to Martha is not the issue.  Washington was just one of the first of many faithless men who have let the American people down by pretending to be something that they are not.

Law is all about relationships.  An otherwise auspicious one like marriage is easily ruined when an evil third party like government is made part of the relationship.  When the marriage relationship ends and divorce appears, the last thing an unhappy couple needs is the long arm of military law in the form of a Black Robe
“family law judge.”

Common law marriage licenses aren’t for sale because they don’t exist.  The popular myth peddled by the government and its licensed media is that the English common law has been replaced by State Codes and the United States Code.  Young people today are marrying and rearing children under both the common law and
written law.   All they need is a nudge in the direction of the truth and they will quit the written law.

Divorce for couples who are married under the English common law, whether or not recognized by the State, cannot be an issue for the Black Robes.  No paper marriage license means no marriage in the United States.
Under the guise of caring for minor children, the Black Robes claim jurisdiction over children not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The State is just the business the oligarchy operates to manage its assets and yours, if you allow it.  Learn to take your business elsewhere by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A friend of mine named Ed Shell, who graduated from law school and refused to get a Bar Card helped in the following:   You may have heard of the group of home schooled children in Texas, I believe they had a Mormon community.  One day the government shows up, prompted by a weak complaint of child abuse.  Several hundred children were taken away from their family by the State over this one complaint.  Several weeks, possibly months went by and no resolve.  One of the people in Texas was told about Ed’s ability to see true jurisdiction so he gave Ed a call.  Ed told him to get a list of all the kids, by each name, write if the child was born of parents with a State Marriage License, and also if there was a Birth Certificate for that same child.  They did as instructed, delivering the same to the District Judge, the Judge looked at the document and immediately issued an order to release all children that had no connection to a State Marriage license or no Birth Certificate which I believe was most all of them, only a few were held back because there was some light evidence of abuse and was justified in my eyes for the State to do so.

>>

Posted in Marriage / License | 1 Comment

Case Law, Plus

Posted on October 25, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

Case Law, Plus

Below cases are in alphabetical order, they are not shepardized, some may not even be real cases. (Caution always shepardize
cases before going into court, you can be sanctioned for false case quotes.)
This Web-Site has no search engine so you can just cut this entire site and ‘Cut & Paste’ it into ‘MS/WORD’ and use the
‘FIND’ prompt, under ‘Edit’.
To quickly find a specific alphabet chapter just go to ‘FIND’ and type in ((J)) for all cases under “J”. (Remember to put the
double ((?)) around the letter.)

Case Law Index:

((A))

Amercement –The fine or penalty so imposed (upon a sheriff) for failing to return the writ of execution. Blacks Law
>>
Federal

““Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; … “Used for commercial purposes”
means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other
undertaking intended for profit[.]”  18 U.S.C. § 31.

“[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”  United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).

“A policy of Insurance is a maritime (vessel) contract, and therefore of admiralty Jurisdiction.” -De Lovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Case Number 3, 776

ARRAIGHNMENT PLEA = “It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is…a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, and
is a waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction”. Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8

A special appearance, which is preliminary and collateral to determining the merits of an action, is a pleading within this section, and thus, in a hearing on a
special appearance, an affidavit may be used to prove or disprove the factual basis for a court’s assertion or exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Williams v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 862, 443 N.W.2d 577 (1989).
APPEARANCE        A coming into court as party to a suit, either in person or by attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The formal proceeding by which a
defendant submits  himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission to a courts jurisdiction….         A special appearance is for the purpose of
testing the sufficiency of service of the jurisdiction of the court;

GENERAL APPEARANCE        consent to the jurisdiction of the court and waiver of all jurisdictional defects except the competency of the court. Johnson v. Zoning
Bd. Of appeals of town of Branford, 166 Conn. 102, 347 A.2d  53, 56.        In the general appearance defendant submits his person to jurisdiction of the court by
appearing himself or by duly authorized representative.         Buehne v. Buehne, 190 Kan. 666, 378 P.2d 159,164.

Black’s Law 5th Adition
>>

Arrest, citizen’s                        Nebraska 29-742
Arrest without warrant by officer or citizen; when.

The  arrest of a person may be lawfully made
also by any peace officer or a private person, without a  warrant
upon  reasonable  information  that the accused stands charged in
the courts of a  state  with  a  crime  punishable  by  death  or
imprisonment  for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested
the accused must be taken before a judge or magistrate  with  all
practicable  speed  and  complaint must be made against him under
oath setting forth the  ground  for  the  arrest  as  in  section
29-741;  and  thereafter  his  answer shall be heard as if he had
been arrested on a warrant.

Source:
Laws 1963, c. 159, § 14, p. 563.

“an obligation to the courts and to the public no less significant than his obligation to his clients.  Thus an attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual
obligations … His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client; and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the
court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” 7 C.J.S. Sec. 4

“Wards of court.  Infants and persons of unsound mind.  Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189,190. Their Rights must be jealously guarded,
Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F.2d 289, 292.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

>>
Attorney, practice without a license:
·        Attorney at law versus Counsellor at law. It is absolutely amazing what has been uncovered.
·        First there were barristers (counsellors-at-law in America) and attorneys-at-law. In some of the states initially they were kept separate, but then they started
using attorneys and counsellors-at-law together in one person and he would adjust to the particular issue. They were admitted [licensed] to practice in the courts by
the judges or justices of that particular court, with the judges being public officers in that time frame.
·        Attorney at law:
·        1. Represents only – stands in your place or stead in business or legal issues.
·        2. No attorneys allowed in a criminal trial, except to make bail.
·        3. Has Attorney fees – costs money and can use Attorney Lien.
·        4. Officer of the court
·        5. Can not challenge the court without exposure to sanctions such as judge being a public officer, etc.
·        6. Takes over the case and you are at his mercy on how the case is run.
·        7. He will raise no issue that he deems the judge will be unhappy with usually.
·        8. Co-counsel is the scam they attempt to use to validate the lack of Assistance of Counsel. You can not counsel your self.
·
·        Counsellor at law:
·        1. Assists only and is to protect and defend his client, can not represent.
·        2. Counsellors at law are used in criminal trials – access to is an absolute part of a Trial by Jury from the first part of arraignment on.
·        a. Can ask questions on your behalf,
·        b. Can instruct you what questions to ask
·        c. If the client instructs the Counsellor at law to challenge the judge or court, he can do it without being sanctioned (done correctly of course)
·        4. Officer of the court.
·        5. Does not charge, works on gratuity. Can not sue for Attorney fees.
·        6. Is learned in the law.
·        7. It is a position of Honor to be a Counsellor at Law.
·        8. It is a level above an Attorney at law.

There is a big difference between a Private Attorney and a PUBLIC ATTORNEY. A Private Attorney operates by and through an assigned Power-of-Attorney
instrument for a specific or general function. A Private Attorney is also known as an Attorney-in-Fact. The PUBLIC ATTORNEY is an officer of the court in question
and represents the trust created by Statute or the Statutorily Constructed Scheme through the fascist  (i.e. private business controlled) government that has put up
a bonding system for each crime be they malum in se or regulatory infraction. The PUBLIC ATTORNEY represents the PUBLIC VESSEL created by and through the
Social Security grantor trust agreement commonly known by the U.S. Treasury as the PUBLIC VESSEL   (PV). The PV operates through Equity and within Special
Maritime/Admiralty jurisdiction (law form) and therefore affects the man in his capacity as the Authorized Representative. Only members of the State BAR
Associations are authorized to represent the PV as the USAG is the Trustee for the PV. This is why members of Rice and Associates cannot represent the PUBLIC
VESSEL. This is why members of Rice and Associates can represent and assist the man in capacity as the Authorized Representative (AR) for the PUBLIC VESSEL.
However, the secular courts and the PUBLIC AGENCIES that regulate the PUBLIC VESSELS do not usually separate the PV from the AR. So how far can a non-Bar
member go in representation?
The case of New York vs. Sawyer, (NY) 47 barb. 116 (1866), illustrates how far that Private relationship may go. ?It is quite clear that it is the spirit and intent of
the constitution, of the statutes, and the practice of the courts, that no person shall practice as an attorney or counsellor in actions in the courts but such as have
been found qualified, upon examination by the Supreme Court. The application for that purpose must be based upon citizenship, the age of twenty-one years, and
good moral character. These qualifications, followed by an order of the court for admission, after the court become satisfied of the possession of sufficient learning
and ability, and the signing of the roll, and subscribing and taking the constitutional oath, constitute the right, and authorize the practice, by attorneys and
counsellors in all the courts of record of this state. . . .But this case need not even be put upon that ground. If this case was in a court of record, the signing this
notice in the manner as explained by the affidavits, I think, would have been without objection, and would be no violation of the letter or spirit of the constitution,
the statute, or the rules of practice. A person may be an attorney in fact, for another, without being an attorney at law; a distinction well understood as existing in
all kinds of business transactions. They are sometimes distinguished by attorneys in fact, or private attorneys, and attorneys at law, or public attorneys. The former
is one who is authorized by his principle, either for some particular purpose, or to do a particular act, not of a legal character. The latter is employed to appear for
the parties to actions, or other judicial proceedings, and are officers of the courts.?
This case (New York vs. Sawyer) is about a party that signed pleadings on behalf of a defendant. How close to the line can a private Attorney go? A pleading ?
signed as ?M.S., Defendant, W.J.S., His Attorney,? is valid, though W.J.S. is not an attorney at law.?
Bl. Comm Vol 1, Ch 18, all trusts are corporations and vice versa.
>>

((B))
Rule 23
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALS
In misdemeanor cases, demands for a jury trial must be made within 10 days following entry of a not guilty plea.
DUTIES OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
Unless upon good cause shown the court in its discretion has ruled otherwise, the prosecuting attorney shall be present at all arraignments in all cases, all bond
settings in felony cases, and all first hearings in juvenile cases. No trial of any such case will be conducted without the prosecuting entity being represented by a
prosecutor. The court will not act as a prosecutor, nor will any law enforcement representative or any other nonattorney be permitted to act as a prosecutor. In all
cases, the prosecuting attorney shall obtain the defendant’s criminal history and provide the same to the court and the defendant prior to the setting of any bond or
the imposing of any sentence.

accord, -United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, (1947). “Particularly is the true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from
conferring a benefit or advantage. -United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).” Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979).
State of Nebraska Statutes  Section 29-901
>>
Bail; personal recognizance; conditions.

Any bailable defendant shall be ordered released from custody pending judgment on his or her personal recognizance unless the judge determines in the exercise
of his or her discretion that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. When such determination is made, the judge
shall either in lieu of or in addition to such a release impose the first of the following conditions of release which will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person for trial or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions:

(1) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise the defendant;

(2) Place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the defendant during the period of such release;

(3) Require, at the option of any bailable defendant, either of the following:

(a) The execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount and the deposit with the clerk of the court in cash of a sum not to exceed ten percent of the amount
of the bond, ninety percent of such deposit to be returned to the defendant upon the performance of the appearance or appearances and ten percent to be retained
by the clerk as appearance bond costs, except that when no charge is subsequently filed against the defendant or if the charge or charges which are filed are
dropped before the appearance of the defendant which the bond was to assure, the entire deposit shall be returned to the defendant. If the bond is subsequently
reduced by the court after the original bond has been posted, no additional appearance bond costs shall be retained by the clerk. The difference in the appearance
bond costs between the original bond and the reduced bond shall be returned to the defendant. In no event shall the deposit be less than twenty-five dollars.
Whenever jurisdiction is transferred from a court requiring an appearance bond under this subdivision to another state court, the transferring court shall transfer
the ninety percent of the deposit remaining after the appearance bond costs have been retained. No further costs shall be levied or collected by the court acquiring
jurisdiction; or
(b) The execution of a bail bond with such surety or sureties as shall seem proper to the judge or, in lieu of such surety or sureties, at the option of such person, a
cash deposit of such sum so fixed, conditioned for his or her appearance before the proper court, to answer the offense with which he or she may be charged and
to appear at such times thereafter as may be ordered by the proper court. The cash deposit shall be returned to the defendant upon the performance of all
appearances.

If the amount of bail is deemed insufficient by the court before which the offense is pending, the court may order an increase of such bail and the defendant shall
provide the additional undertaking, written or cash, to secure his or her release. All recognizances in criminal cases shall be in writing and be continuous from term
to term until final judgment of the court in such cases and shall also extend, when the court has suspended execution of sentence for a limited time, as provided in
section 29-2202, or, when the court has suspended execution of sentence to enable the defendant to apply for a writ of error to the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals, as provided in section 29-2301, until the period of suspension has expired. When two or more indictments or informations are returned against the same
person at the same term of court, the recognizance given may be made to include all offenses charged therein. Each surety on such recognizance shall be required
to justify under oath in a sum twice the amount of such recognizance and give the description of real estate owned by him or her of a value above encumbrance
equal to the amount of such justification and shall name all other cases pending in which he or she is a surety. No one shall be accepted as surety on recognizance
aggregating a sum in excess of his or her equity in the real estate, but such recognizance shall not constitute a lien on the real estate described therein until
judgment is entered thereon against such surety; or

(4) Impose any other condition deemed reasonably necessary to assure appearances as required, including a condition requiring that the defendant return to
custody after specified hours. END
>>

((C))

CODE, City Ordinances, Municipal
NOTICE

ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED

California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from
enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon
property that is not OWNED by the City or County –
even if the property is within City limits.

California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY
ORDINANCES – Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed
in 1967.

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode
Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___ (2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City’s illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man’s
private property and restricting the man’s business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly
activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man’s private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with
binoculars constitutes a “takings”), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).  (I could not find the above case it
may be fiction.)

In the Monterey case, the California private property
owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement’ s
illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and
another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced
sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from
issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18
U.S.C. § § 891-896, quoting Section 891 … “An
extortionate means is any means which involves the
use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of
violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the
person, reputation, or property.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140):
Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back. A
species of remedy by the mere act of the party injured
(otherwise termed “reprisal”), which happens when
anyone has deprived another of his property in goods
or chattels personal, or wrongfully detains one’s
wife, child, or servant. In this case, the owner of
the goods, and the husband, parent, or master may
lawfully claim and retake them, wherever he happens to
find them, so it be not in a riotous manner, or
attended with a breach of the peace. Prigg v.
Pennsylvania, 41U.S. (16 Pet) 539, 612, 10L.Ed. 1060.

>>>
– CONCLUSION –
“A mere conclusion of a pleader cannot be availed of to initiate and invite an issue of fact.”
Hatfield v. Peoples Water Co. (1914), 25 C.A. 711, 145 P. 164.
“One may not by the mere device of an allegation in a pleading create a legal duty that otherwise does not exist.”
Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co. (1951), 102 C.A.2d 254, 227 P.2d 555.
“Allegations of legal conclusions cannot be permitted to supply essential allegations of fact.”
Bailes v. Keck (1927), 200 C. 697, 254 P. 573, 51 A.L.R. 930.
“Pleadings should allege facts, and not mere conclusions of law.”
Bailes v. Keck (1927), 200 C. 697, 254 P. 573, 51 A.L.R. 930.
“A pleading must allege facts and not conclusions, and conclusions of law are not admitted by demurrer.”
Vilardo v. Sacramento County (1942), 54 C.A.2d 413, 129 P.2d 165.
“Facts, not mere conclusions, should be alleged to establish right to specific performance of contract.”
Foley v. Cowan (1947), 80 C.A.2d 70, 181 P.2d 410.
“Allegation of conclusion of law tenders no issue.”
California Western Holding Co. v. Merrill (1935), 7 C.A.2d 131, 46 P.2d 175.
“Conclusions of law in a pleading are disregarded.”
Koehler v. Coronado (1927), 83 C.A. 648, 257 P. 187.

>>>

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment – Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

national v. citizen

“On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this.  Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of
section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . .”
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.

“The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States.  Each one of these governments is distinct
from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own…”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,…”  “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,…”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 38
>>>
Richard James, McDonald is a state Citizen of California.   Mr. McDonald is a former law enforcement officer who stumbled across this information quite by accident
but felt compelled to investigate the issues related to law enforcement and status.  Based on results of  Mr. McDonald’s research, he took the extraordinary step of
renouncing his “US citizenship”, (the reasons why should become clear to the reader as they review the information posted here), by reclaiming his “birth rights”
and original political status, which by the way, is exactly the same as the Founding Fathers who were state Citizens, not “US citizens”.

Unbeknownst to most people, the class termed “US citizen” did not exist as a political status until 1866.   It was a class and “political status” created for the newly
freed slaves and did not apply to the people inhabiting the states of the union who were at that time state Citizens.
“On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this.  Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of
section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . .”
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.

“The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
Mr. McDonald is not a racist or bigot but merely wishes that the reader understands that the class of people identified as “US citizens” were the NEWLY FREED
SLAVES ONLY as was the intent of the drafters of the so-called 14th Amendment.   After their being recognized as people rather than “animate property”, they
needed to be brought within the “naturalization process” and afforded some rights.  As anyone well knows, property has no rights.   Mr. McDonald has been
educating people about these issues for over 25 years.
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States.  Each one of these governments is distinct
from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own…”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,…”  “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,…”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

The Importance Of state Citizenship

Why is this important?   Because the visitor should know that the rules that apply to “US citizens” may be different that the rules that apply to “state Citizens”, and
that the rights of one are not the same as the other.   For example, the “state Citizen” is NOT required to have a driver license to legally use their car to go to the
store to buy food or to attend their place of worship, the “US citizen” is required to have a license to do the same thing.
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another.  The rights of a citizen under one may be quite
different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as
such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its
enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

Mr. McDonald educates people about the reasons why this is so and what they can do to reclaim their birth rights which are protected by the State Constitution.
“…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

“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.

SUI  JURIS. One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one  who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like.
2. To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris.  Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris. Story on Ag. p. 10.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

INGENUI, civ. law. Those freemen who were born free. Vicat, vocab.
2. They were a class of freemen, distinguished from those who, born  slaves, had afterwards legally obtained their freedom the latter were called  at various
periods, sometimes liberti, sometimes libertini. An unjust or  illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

JURIS ET DE JURE. A phrase employed to denote conclusive presumptions of  law, which cannot be rebutted by evidence. The words signify of law and from  law.
Best on Presumption, Sec. 17.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

>>>

Those who exercise civil rights or liberties must apply for license (ask
permission).

” Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of   (A right is much more expansive.)
the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far
restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the
citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the
public.” 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley’s Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
— Bouvier’s
>>>
Corporation:
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S.W.2d 464,465 (Tex App.?Waco 1981, no writ). “Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified
pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 93 … that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established.” Therefore, you are presumed you are a corporation (i.e. a
trust) until you prove otherwise.
>>>

DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT –
Facts Constituting cause of action
“Every fact which, if controverted, plaintiff must prove to maintain his action must be stated in the complaint.”
Jerome v. Stebbins (1859), 14 C. 457;
Green v. Palmer (1860), 15 C. 411, 76 Am. Sec. 492;
Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1865), 28 C. 545.
“The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right.”
Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99.
“Complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts which, without the aid of other facts not stated shows a complete cause of action.”
Going v. Didwiddle (1890), 86 C. 633, 25 P. 129.
“Pleadings should set forth facts, and not merely the opinions of parties.”
Snow v. Halstead (1851), 1 C. 359.
“A complaint must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by the defendant, injury
resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief.”
Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d. 958.
“Essential facts on which legal points in controversy depend, should be pleaded clearly and precisely, so that nothing is left for court to surmise.”
Gates v. Lane (1872), 44 C. 392.
“The test of the materiality of an averment in a pleading is this: Could the averment be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient?”
Whitwell v. Thomas (1858), 9 C. 499.
“In pleading, the essential facts on which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to
surmise.”
Bernstein v. Fuller (1950), 98 C.A.2d 441, 220 P.2d 558.
“The “facts” which the court is to find and the “facts” which a pleader is to state lie in the same plane – that is, in both connections, “facts” are to be stated according
to their legal effect.”
Hihn v. Peck (1866), 30 C. 280.
“A plaintiff must set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with sufficient clarity and particularity that defendant may be
apprized of nature, source and extent of his cause of action.”
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948), 86 C.A.2d 750, 195 P.2d 492.
“In general, matters of substance must be alleged in direct terms, and not by way of recital or reference.”
Silvers v. Grossman (1920), 183 C. 693, 192 P. 534; Reid v. Kerr (1923), 64 C.A. 117, 220 P. 688.
“A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381.
“Material facts must be alleged directly and not by way of recital.”
Vilardo v. Sacramento County (1942), 54 C.A.2d 413, 129 P.2d 165.
“Material allegations must be distinctly stated in complaint.”
Goland v. Peter Nolan & Co. (1934), 33 P.2d 688, subsequent opinion 38 P.2d 783, 2 C.2d 96.
“Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital.”
Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946.
“A pleading which leaves essential facts to inference or argument is bad.”
Ahlers. v. Smiley (1909), 11 C.A.343, 104 P. 997.
“The forms alone of the several actions have been abolished by the statute.  The substantial allegations of the complaint in a given case must be the same under
our practice act as at common law.”
Miller v. Van Tassel (1864), 24 C. 459.
“A pleading cannot be aided by reason of facts not averred.”
San Diego County v. Utt (1916), 173 C. 554, 160 P. 657.
“Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence.”
Frace v. Long Beach City High School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60, 58 C.A.2d 566.
“A fact necessary to pleader’s cause of action, if not pleaded, must be taken as having no existence.”
Feldesman v. McGovern (1941), 44 C.A.2d 566.
“When pleading is silent as to material dates, or does not clearly state facts relied on, it must be presumed that statement thereof would weaken pleader’s case.”
Whittemore v. Davis (1931), 112 C.A. 702, 297 P. 640.
“Material matters in pleadings must be distinctly stated in ordinary and concise language.”
Brown v. Sweet (1928), 95 C.A. 117, 272 P. 614.
“Facts contained in public records should be alleged in pleading when they constitute necessary elements of good cause of action.”
Gray v. White (1935), 5 C.A.2d 463, 43 P.2d 318.
“When facts are available from public records, it is ordinarily improper to allege such facts on mere information and belief.”
People v. Birch Securities Co. (1948), 196 P.2d 143, 86 C.A.2d 703, cert. denied Birch Securities Co. v. People of State of California, 69 S.Ct. 745, 336 U.S. 936,
93 L.Ed. 1095.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Definition of a COMPLAINT:
Facts Constituting a Cause of Action
“Every fact which, if controverted, plaintiff must prove to maintain his action must be stated in the complaint”
Jerome v. Stebbins (1859), 14 C. 457: Green v. Palmer (1860), 15 C. 411, 76 Am. Sec. 492; Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1865), 28 C. 545
“The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right.”
Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99
“Complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts of which, without the aid of other facts no stated shows a complete cause of action.”
Going v. Dinwiddle (1890), 86 C. 633, 25 P. 129
“Pleadings should set forth facts, and not merely opinions of the parties”.
Snow v. Halstead (1851), 1 C. 359
“A complaint must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by the defendant, injury
resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief.”
Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d 958
“Essential facts on which legal points in controversy depend, should be pleaded clearly and precisely, so that nothing is left for the court to surmise.”
Gates v. Lane (1872), 98 C. 499
“In pleading, the essential facts on which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to
surmise.”
Bernstein v. Piller (1950), 98 C.A.2d 441, 220 P.2d 558
“The ‘facts’ which the court is to find and the ‘facts’ which a pleader is to state lie in the same plane – that is, in both connections, ‘facts’ are top be stated according
to their legal effect.”
Hihn v. Peck (1866), 30 C. 280
“A plaintiff must set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with sufficient clarity and particularity that defendant may be
apprized of nature, source and extent of his cause of action.”
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948), 86 C.A.2d 750, 195 P.2d 492
“In general, matters of substance must be alleged in direct terms, and not by way of recital or reference.”
Silvers v. Grossman (1920), 183 C. 693, 192 P. 534; Reid v. Kerr (1923), 64 C.A. 117, 220 P. 688
“A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381
Material facts must be distinctly stated in a complaint.
Goland v. Peter Nolan & Co. (1934), 33 P.2d 688, subsequent opinion 38 P.2d 738, 2 C.2d 96
“Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital.”
Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946
“A pleading which leaves essential facts to inference or argument is bad.”
Ahlers v. Smiley (1909) ,11 C.A. 343, 104 P. 997
“The forms alone of the several actions have been abolished by the statute.  The substantial allegations of the complaint in a given case must be the same under
our practice as at common law.”
Miller v. Van Tassel (1864), 24 C. 459
“A pleading can not be aided by reason of facts not averred.”
San Diego County v. Utt (1916), 173 C. 554, 160 P. 657
“Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence”
Frace v. Long Beach City High School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60, 58 C.A.2d 566
“A fact necessary to the pleader’s cause of action, if not pleaded, must be taken as having no existence.”
Feldesman v. McGovern (1941), 44 C.A.2d 566
In pleading, the essential facts upon which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to
surmise.
Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal 95, 103 [231 P. 739].)
“When pleading is silent as to material dates, or does not clearly state facts relied on, it must be presumed that statement thereof would weaken pleader’s case.”
Whittemore v. Davis (1931), 112 C.A. 702, 297 P. 640
“… if a fact necessary to the pleader’s cause of action is not alleged it must be taken as having no existence.
Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 22 [72 P. 395]; Callahan v. Loughran, 102 Cal. 476 [36 P. 835].
Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence.
21 Cal. Jur.

<<<

Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of
the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the
particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisios of either, it
is so far void.  – Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19
“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.,
Judicial decisions, however numerous, are subject to correction by the constitution itself. – State v. Buente, 256 Mo. 227, 165 SW 340

2. To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris.  Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris. Story on Ag. p. 10.    Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary, 1856
>>
“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a
criminal agency (intent) as its cause.”  People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.
2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
>>
Although not directly involved in interstate commerce, allow us to digress for a moment and discuss the word “business”. In ordinary speech this word simply
means the conduct of the affairs in what we commonly call “work”. However, in law, the word “business” almost always means a corporation, or the actions of a
corporation. This is a pivotal point for one to understand when reading law. It is absolutely essential to understanding laws that are directed at corporations. In
other words, in law, the words “corporation” and “business” are generally used as synonyms.
>>
((D))

The Supreme Court clearly provides in Argersinger V. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 that, “No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal
prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied assistance of counsel.(due process)”
((E))
“Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, (a pro se litigant), however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting
evidence.  Accordingly, although we intimate no view on the merits of petitioner’s allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof
(evidence).”  Hanies v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 522

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts;
those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged (evidence), then they must be based on the
testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.

((F))

Is it a coincidence that usurers will not contract with the unnumbered?  No one who is lacking a social security number is allowed to open an interest bearing
account in any Federal Reserve bank, nor open a stock account.

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even
judgments” U.S. v Throckmorton, 98 US 426

“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading… We
cannot condone this shocking conduct,.. If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should
be corrected immediately.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F 2d 297, 299-300.

“Constructive fraud: A contract or act, which, not originating in
evil design and contrivance to perpetuate a positive fraud or
injury upon other persons, yet, by its necessary tendency to
deceive or mislead them, or to violate a public or private
confidence, or to impair or injure public interest, is deemed
equally reprehensible with positive fraud, and therefore is
prohibited by law, … ” Bovier’s Law Dictionary – 1856 Edition
INGENUI, civ. law. Those freemen who were born free. Vicat, vocab.
2. They were a class of freemen, distinguished from those who, born  slaves, had afterwards legally obtained their freedom the latter were called  at various
periods, sometimes liberti, sometimes libertini. An unjust or  illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

((G))
((H))
“A carriage is peculiarly a family or household
article.  It contributes in a large degree to
the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of
the householder or of the family.”  Arthur v
Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243
(S.D. NY 1884).

“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112
U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that
carriages were properly classified as household
effects, and we see no reason that automobiles
should not be similarly disposed of.”  Hillhouse
v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir.
1907).

“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his
“household goods[.]”  U.S. v Bomar,
C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″  19A Words and
Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part
94.
Use determines classification

“In determining whether or not a motor boat was
included in the expression household effects,
Matter of Winburn’s Will, supra [139 Misc. 5,
247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be “whether
the articles are or are not used in or by the
household, or for the benefit or comfort of the
family”.”  In re Bloomingdale’s Estate, 142
N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).

“The use to which an item is put, rather than
its physical characteristics, determine whether
it should be classified as “consumer goods”
under UCC §9-109(1) or “equipment” under UCC
§9-109(2).”  Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23
UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction
between goods purchased for personal use and
those purchased for business use.  The two are
mutually exclusive and the principal use to
which the property is put should be considered
as determinative.”  James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5
UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72
Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).

“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are
mutually exclusive.”  McFadden v Mercantile-Safe
Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md
601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).

“The classification of “goods” under [UCC] §9-
109 is a question of fact.”  Morgan County
Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d
632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).

“The definition of “goods” includes an
automobile.”  Henson v Government Employees
Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv
1137; 257 Ark 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).

Household goods

“The term “household goods” … includes
everything about the house that is usually held
and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the
comfort and accommodation of the household.
Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21
Ariz.App. 75″  19A Words and Phrases – Permanent
Edition (West) pocket part 94.  Cites Mitchell’s
Will below.

“Bequest … of such “household goods and
effects” … included not only household
furniture, but everything else in the house that
is usually held and used by the occupants of a
house to lead to the comfort and accommodation
of the household.  State ex rel. Mueller v
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863,
867, 226 Minn. 346.”  19A Words and Phrases –
Permanent Edition (West) 514.

“All household goods owned by the user thereof
and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall
be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required
to take any affirmative action to receive the
benefit from such exemption.”  Ariz. Const. Art.
9, § 2.

Automobiles classified as vehicles

““[Household goods”H]…did not [include] an
automobile…used by the testator, who was a
practicing physician, in going from his
residence to his office and vice versa, and in
making visits to his patients.”  Mathis v
Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).

“Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle,
as motor vehicles are not “household goods”
within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien
avoidance provision.  In re Martinez,
Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8.”  19A Words and
Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part
94.

Automobiles not classified as vehicles

“Automobile purchased for the purpose of
transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was “consumer goods” as defined in
UCC §9-109.”  Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance &
Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347
(Tenn. App., 1966).

“The provisions of UCC §2-316 of the Maryland
UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a
term which includes automobiles, whether new or
used, that are bought primarily for personal,
family, or household use).”  Maryland
Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v
Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep
Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).

“An automobile was part of testatrix’
“household goods” within codicil.  In re
Mitchell’s Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675
[1942].”  19A Words and Phrases – Permanent
Edition (West) 512.  Cites Arthur v Morgan,
supra.

“[T]he expression “personal effects” clearly
includes an automobile[.]”  In re Burnside’s
Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945).  Cites
Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell’s Will, supra.

“[A] yacht and six automobiles were “personal
belongings” and “household effects[.]””  In
re Bloomingdale’s Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782
(1955).
((I))

“A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of                       (some claim insurace can give DMV jurisdiction.)
admiralty Jurisdiction.” -De Lovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Case Number 3, 776
>>
Title 49 of the United States Code [Transportation] dealing expressly with “interstate transportation”:

Section 10501 –     ((Basically one Federal Zone to another Federal Zone.))

(2) Jurisdiction under paragraph (1) applies only to
transportation in the United States between a place in –
(A) a State and a place in the same or another State as part of
the interstate rail network;
(B) a State and a place in a territory or possession of the
United States;
(C) a territory or possession of the United States and a place
in another such territory or possession;
(D) a territory or possession of the United States and another
place in the same territory or possession;
(E) the United States and another place in the United States
through a foreign country; or
(F) the United States and a place in a foreign country.
Only state-to-state commerce is governed by the interstate commerce clause. State-to-territory commerce (or visa versa) is governed under the government’s
territorial authority, and commerce from a state to a foreign nation is governed by the foreign commerce language of the clause.
>>
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 10
§ 10. Interstate commerce and foreign commerce defined
Release date: 2005-08-03
The term “interstate commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State,
(Between the acts on the soil between Nebraska and Iowa not interstate??) Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term “foreign commerce”, as
used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

IRSInfo:
4852 for is one used to correct 1099, W2, to notify IRS that it is not a taxable activity.

IRS Liens
Students, note that there is a difference between “recording” and “filing.”
Recording affects title and a filing does not.  Notices can never be
recorded because they do not affect the condition of title.

((J)) 

>>>

Section Nebr.  27-201 Print Friendly Copy         Revised Statutes    Chapter 27

Rule 201. Judicial notice of adjudicative facts; kinds of facts; when discretionary; when mandatory; opportunity to be heard; time of taking notice;

instructing jury.

(1) This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

(2) A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (a) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of

the trial court or (b) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(3) A judge or court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

(4) A judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.

(5) A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter

noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.

(6) Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

(7) In a civil action or proceeding, the judge shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the judge shall

instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

Source:  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 7.

>>>

(Personal Jurisdiction) This claim of Sovereign Immunity is further enhanced by the fact that the statute did not and does not intend to abolish any of the
sovereign Rights retained by the Citizens of California.  Statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the Sovereign
without express words to that effect.  U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, (1947) 67 S. Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.  But, in fact and in law, such statutes are
intended to be applied to those who are here as “residents” in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and the so-called 14th
Amendment.

English common law is the law in Florida and that law gives the
landlord the right to rent or lease his property under whatever conditions
he wants.  Civil rights are something the government grants those who claim
to be citizens or who can prove residency on federal territory.  The
particular language involved makes no difference.  Under the English common
law, a tenant gains no rights of the property of another by renting it.

To stop even a mega-lawyer all a person has to do is show the State of
Florida’s administrative courts limited jurisdiction.  Since this is written
law, that limitation to jurisdiction will appear in the capacity of the
defendant.  To defend all the landlord has to do is deny being a U.S.
citizen or U.S. resident or a resident of the county.  (An entity (or contract) subject to an administrative court.)

Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators
3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54   (1795)  (could not find to shepardize)
Government is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
“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
that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern (Jurisdiction) itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the
contracts between them.”

“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver or consent, and
may be raised at any time.”  Rodrigues v State, 441 S.2d 1129 (Fla App 1983).
“Where the court is without jurisdiction it has no
authority to render any judgment other than one of dismissal.”  Garcia v Dial, 596 S.W. 2d 254, 258 (1980).
“No authority need to be cited for the proposition that, when a court lacks jurisdiction, any judgment rendered by it is void and unenforceable… and without any
force or effect whatever.  Hooker v Boles, 346 Fed 2d 285, 286 (1965).
“A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is
lacking.” United States v Siviglia, 686 Fed. 2d 832, 835 (1981).

“It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is…a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, an is a waiver to all
exceptions to the jurisdiction”.
Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8     [see also arraighnment]

Absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the court sua sponte. State ex rel. Grape v. Zach, (supra) (citing Plock v.
Crossroads Joint Venture, 239 Neb. 211, 475 N.W.2d 105 (1991))

The Plaintiff has the Burden of Proof to Show That Jurisdiction Exists
The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th
Cir. 1969).  “be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987)

Where There is Absence of Jurisdiction Judicial Proceedings Are A Nullity
If a federal court takes action in a dispute over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that action is a nullity. See Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18
(1951); Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 541-42 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating that it was “regrettable” that the case had to be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “rendering everything that has occurred in [the] eight years [of litigation] a nullity”).

“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to
the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869).  In Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
U. S. 83 (1998) “a long and venerable line of our cases,” id., at 94, Steel Co. reiterated: “The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter …
is `inflexible and without exception,’ ” id., at 94-95 (quoting Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884)); for “[j]urisdiction is power to declare
the law,” and ” `[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause,’ ” 523 U. S., at 94 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869)).

State v. Thomas, 685 N.W.2d 69, 268 Neb. 570 (Neb. 08/13/2004)
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear and determine a case of the general class or category to which the proceedings in question belong and
to deal with the general subject matter involved. State v. Gorman, 232 Neb. 738, 441 N.W.2d 896 (1989).

(Not a holding)
Thomas does not challenge the power of the district court to hear and determine a case of this general class. Rather, Thomas relies on Nelson v. State, 167 Neb.
575, 94 N.W.2d 1 (1959),

[16] We find this reasoning persuasive and therefore hold that a facial challenge to a presumptively valid criminal statute does not raise an issue of subject matter
jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution and thus may be waived if not timely asserted. Nebraska law is consistent with federal law in that criminal statutes are
presumed constitutional. State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 640 N.W.2d 1 (2002); State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000).

SMJ
the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by an appellate court. Scherbak v. Kissler, 245 Neb. 10, 510 N.W.2d 318 (1994);
In re Interest of Kelly D., 3 Neb. App. 251, 526 N.W.2d 439 (1994). When a lower court lacks power, that is, subject matter jurisdiction, to adjudicate merits of a
claim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court.
In re Interest of J.T.B. and H.J.T., 245 Neb. 624, 514 N.W.2d 635 (1994); Knerr v. Swigerd, 243 Neb. 591, 500 N.W.2d 839 (1993); In re Interest of L.D. et al., 224
Neb. 249, 398 N.W.2d 91 (1986); Glup v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 355, 383 N.W.2d 773 (1986). However, although an extra-jurisdictional act of a lower court
cannot vest an appellate court with jurisdiction to review or evaluate an evidentiary determination involved in such act, an appellate court has jurisdiction and,
moreover, the duty to determine whether the lower court had the power to enter the judgment or final order sought to be reviewed. In re Interest of J.T.B. and H.J.
T., supra; In re Interest of L.D. et al., supra.

SMJ Can Not Be Waived [U] Quality Pork International v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., No. A-01-1203 (Neb.App. 05/13/2003)
While the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived nor the existence of subject matter jurisdiction conferred by the consent or conduct of the parties,
lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived and such jurisdiction conferred by the conduct of the parties. Id. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a
factual dispute, the determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial
court’s decision; however, when a determination rests on factual findings, a trial court’s decision on an issue will be upheld unless the factual findings concerning
jurisdiction are clearly incorrect. Higgins v. Rausch Herefords, 9 Neb. App. 212, 609 N.W.2d 712 (2000).

Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court. A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as
a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court’s decision. Hoschor v. Hoschor, 254 Neb. 743, 580 N.W.2d
516 (1998).

SMJ and Waiver, Estoppel, Consent of Conduct of the Parties Cummins Management, L.P. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635, 667 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. 08/15/2003)
When a lower court lacks the authority to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks
the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court. Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Bd., 264 Neb. 403, 648 N.W.
2d 756 (2002). Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may subject matter jurisdiction be
created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of the parties. Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb. 905, 620 N.W.2d 90 (2000).

A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. It is the longstanding rule in Nebraska that such a void judgment may be raised at
any time in any proceeding. Bradley v. Hopkins, 246 Neb. 646, 522 N.W.2d 394 (1994); VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993).

The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th
Cir. 1969).

SMJ and Burden Of Proof Lauder v. Bekins Van Lines Co., No. 4:05-CV-1132 CAS (E.D.Mo. 12/07/2005)

SMJ and Removal CPG Finance I, L.L.C. v. Shopro, Inc., No. 06-3015-CV-S-RED (W.D.Mo. 03/21/2006)
[13]     In a case removed to Federal Court, the Court has the duty to determine its jurisdiction, and to raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, if
necessary. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533, 537 (8th Cir.1990); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”) The
party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th Cir.
1969). Removal statutes are strictly construed, and any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. Transit
Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir.1997).
>>
Eliments of Jurisdiction as in STANDING:

Standing is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance – 19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law
Dictionary, page 1209.

“In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.”
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430.

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the
defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

This (standing) of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: “The
judicial power shall extend to all cases”:

“The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III doctrine that requires a litigant to
have “standing” to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.

More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men” —  And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments” are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article II
§ 2 (emphasis mine).

The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal of standing: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of
persons or of property, which are actually controverted.” Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405

Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements:
1)        violation of a legal right, and
2)        2) personal injury.

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts;
those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged (evidence), then they must be based on the
testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.

“we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights…”  Elk Grove Unified School
District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the
ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.”  People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

>>

SMJ and Court May Not Proceed
A court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction. Crawford v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001).

[49]     This court has not previously discussed the standard of review for a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed under rule 12(b)(2). Because the
new civil rules for notice pleading are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we look to the federal decisions for guidance. Kellogg v. Nebraska Dept.
of Corr. Servs., ante p. 40, 690 N.W.2d 574 (2005).

jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S.  Constitution, quoted
as follows:

“The Congress shall have the Power . . . To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (NOT
EXCEEDING TEN  MILES SQUARE) as may, by Cession  of particular
States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
Government of the United States [District of Columbia] and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings;  And-To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing  Powers, . .
.”  [Ephasis added]

And Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

“The Congress shall have the 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.”

S.S number not required – Taco Bell Case states that no SS number is required to work.

((K))

((L))

natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty

” Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the
fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a
guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent
on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not
depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable
Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as
inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

” Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and
when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it
necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to
travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by
horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be
permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his
Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional
guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination
along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in
an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s
Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

Au contraire. The legal term “license” is defined as “governmental
permission to perform a particular act (like getting married)” (emphasis
added).
by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the
discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior
restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” -Staub v. Baxley, 355
U.S. 313, 322.
>

·        Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. ..”The practice of law (medicine etc.) is not within the States grace to regulate.” The practice of law
(medicine etc.) is an occupation of common right as per Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). No State in the Union of the United States of America licenses
lawyers, only the State Bar, which issues a private corporation type of “Union Card”/certificate for payment of dues/fees. (See also ExParte v. Garland, 4 Wall 333,
370 (1866), which authorizes only the practice of law in the courts as an officer of the court and a member of the judicial branch of government, to represent wards
of the court such as infants and persons of unsound mind and as a public defender in criminal cases.) …Cannot license an occupation of common right …Redfield v.
Fisher, 292 P. 813, 817-819
“Occupations of common right ARE not taxable. The practice of medicine and law are occupations of common right. An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a
tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. …”Gross income tax unconstitutional.” (See also Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 US 238, 239. …
That an attorney cannot represent any private citizen nor any business as the State cannot license the practice of law. …”That an attorney can only be allowed to
practice law in the courts to represent “wards” of the court such as infants and persons of unsound mind as per Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4.”)

·        The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107: ..”Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes
involves the exercise of privilege and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is payable, and it is this privilege which is the subject of the tax and
not the mere buying, selling, or handling of goods; See 53 ALR3d 1163 for the validity and construction of statutes or rules conditioning right to practice law upon
residence or citizenship. (Occupations of natural/common right are NOT a subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)
The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107: ..”Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes
involves the exercise of privilege and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is payable, and it is this privilege which is the subject of the tax and
not the mere buying, selling, or handling of goods; See 53 ALR3d 1163 for the validity and construction of statutes or rules conditioning right to practice law upon
residence or citizenship. (Occupations of natural/common right are NOT a subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)
>
accord, -United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, (1947).
“Particularly is the true where the statute imposes a burden or
limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage.
-United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).” Wilson v. Omaha
Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979).

Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of
the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the
particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisios of either, it
is so far void.  – Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19

“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.,

Flodov  v.  US 436 US 238
IRS must follow UCC for perfecting liens and levies.

((M))
Section 28-924
Official misconduct; penalty.

(1) A public servant commits official misconduct if he knowingly violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his official duties.
(2) Official misconduct is a Class II misdemeanor.

((N))

Negotiable instrument, Must have original, Default Judgment, County Court General Rules,
Rule 32
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS
In cases where the defendant fails to answer, demur, or otherwise plead, the plaintiff may, after the day on
which said action shall be set for answer, take default judgment upon a verified petition, affidavits, or sworn
testimony establishing a claim. No judgment will be entered on a negotiable instrument unless the original is
surrendered for cancellation to the court.
Rule 32 amended September 1987.

“Procedural due process” limits the ability of the government to deprive people of interests which constitute liberty or property interests within the meaning of the
Due Process Clause and requires that parties deprived of such interests be provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Marshall v. Wimes, 261 Neb.
846, 626 N.W.2d 229 (2001). The central meaning of “procedural due process” is that parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard, and, in order
that they may enjoy that right, they must first be notified. In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999).
20. Giving a note does not constitute payment. Echart v Commissioners, C.C.A. 42 F2d 158; 283 U. S. 140.

((O))

absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

Originals, SEE Negotiable instrument.

“OWNERSHIP – … Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The
ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion
over it… The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more
persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is
restricted. ” – – -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

P
A Sovereign does not obtain permission from the servant. The servant
obtains permission from the Sovereign.

statutes don’t
define the term, so we must turn to a law dictionary:

natural person
n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation, which is
often treated at law as a fictitious person.

“Since in common usage the term `person’ does not include the sovereign,
statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” –
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):

“In common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign and
statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.” – US
Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258,
67 SCt 677 (1947):

“Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the
sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to
exclude it.” – US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:
“ In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,
[and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude
it.” -United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941);

“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and
statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” –
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):

Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators
3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54   (1795)
Government is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
“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
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.”

Judicial decisions (presidence), however numerous, are subject to correction by the
constitution itself.  – State v. Buente, 256 Mo. 227, 165 SW 340

JURIS ET DE JURE. A phrase employed to denote conclusive presumptions of  law, which cannot be rebutted by evidence. The words signify of law and from  law.
Best on Presumption, Sec. 17.     Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
>
“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels.” – – – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

> Public Policy; Defined Black’s 4th
Community common sence and cocience extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health safety, welfare, and the like.   It is that
general and well settled public oppinionrelating to mans plain complatue duty to his fellow man.   Having due regard for each paticulare relation and situwation.
(verces general community)  (status that sets you apart contractually [Nebraska Citizen as in common law])
>>>
“As a general matter, municipalities may, in the exercise of a valid police power, protect the public health through ordinances.” Village of Winside v. Jackson, 250
Neb. 851, 857, 553 N.W.2nd 476 (1996).
>>>
Pro Se Laws
HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal
administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting
evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent’s complaint states a
cognizable 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro
se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for
failure to state a claim if it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id., at 520-
521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
WILLIAM MCNEIL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21, 61 U.S.L.W. 4468. Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is
certainly not a “trap for the unwary.” It is no doubt true that there are cases in which a litigant proceeding without counsel may make a fatal procedural error, but
the risk that a lawyer will be unable to understand the exhaustion requirement is virtually nonexistent. Our rules of procedure are based on the assumption that
litigation is normally conducted by lawyers. While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally
construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and have held that some procedural rules must give way
because of the unique circumstance of incarceration, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed filed at time of delivery
to prison authorities), we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel. As we have noted before, “in the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the
legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 826 (1980).
BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that ” pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice.” We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.
HUGHES v. ROWE ET AL. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d163, 49 U.S.L.W. 3346. Petitioner’s complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern
District of Illinois, was not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, “however inartfully pleaded” are held “to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA7 1980);
French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-521. And, of course, the allegations of the complaint
are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).
>>>
((Q))
((U))
((R))

private property v. estate (real and personal property)

“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels.” – – – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

inhabitant v. resident   domicile v. residence
>>
NEBR SUP & APP CTS PRAC Rule 18 provides:
Other than as provided in Rule 17, there shall be no broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in courtrooms and areas immediately adjacent thereto
during sessions of a court or recesses between sessions, except that under rules which may be prescribed by the Nebraska Supreme Court a judge of a court other
than the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, and photographing of judicial proceedings in such courtrooms and
areas immediately adjacent thereto consistent with the right of the parties (Plaintiff or Defendant) to a fair (public) trial and subject to express conditions,
limitations, and guidelines which allow such coverage in a manner that will be unobtrusive, will not distract the trial participants, and will not otherwise interfere with
administration of justice.  Looks like a quiet recorder is your right.

>>
“A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the
enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.” Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943).

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”  Miller v. U.S. 230 F, 2d 286, 489;
“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awaremeness of the relevant circumstances
and likely consequences.” Brady v.U.S. 397 U.S., 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463 (1970) See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis 384 U.S. 6 (1966);
Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).

“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

No rule of court, however general it’s terms, may contravene a privilege
based on a Constitutional right.  –  San Joaquin and Kings River Canal
and Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson, 165 Cal. 540, 132 P. 1021

“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be
knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.”

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another.  The rights of a citizen under one may be quite
different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as
such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its
enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

“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.

SUI  JURIS. One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one  who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like.

“The right of holding state office is a civil or political right, which may be
surrendered to the government or to society in order to secure the protection of
other rights ((State) Bill of Rights, art. 3), or the government may abridge or
take away such rights for sufficient cause; for, though such rights may be
considered natural rights (Bill of Rights, art. 2) yet they are not of the class
of natural rights which are held to be inalienable, like the rights of
conscience (Bill of Rights, art. 4)”
– – Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1868) (Note: civil and political rights (liberties) are not in the same class of
natural rights (inalienable), and surrender “other rights” when exercised.) Those who exercise civil rights or liberties must apply for license (ask
permission).

((S))
>>>
Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service, including 28 years as
the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa. Sheriff Schwiesow explains that
the sheriff is unique in the law endorsement arena in that he is the last and
only law enforcement administrator that is elected to his office by the people.

The administrative heads of all other law endorsement entities are appointed to
their positions by mayors, city councils, politicians or other managerial
boards. The people have no voice in the selection of these law enforcers, and no
recourse if they do not agree with their policies.

The sheriff is the only law enforcement official with the authority to summon
the power of the county. The sheriff has the right, granted by Posse Comitatus,
to assemble a militia or posse, and the power to deputize citizens and require
them to assist in the keeping of the peace and the enforcement of laws.

“The sheriff represents the power of the people; he does not represent the power
of the state.” When it comes to keeping the peace no one’s authority exceeds
that of the sheriff. The sheriff of that county not only had the authority; he
had the absolute obligation to intercede to protect the constitutional rights of
the owner.
>>>
Social Security entitlements are synonymous with gifts (charity
from the public treasury), and all participants are paupers (one without rights) at law.
>
SOVEREIGN – A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority
is vested…
Black’s Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

The Executive Branch’s agency, the Internal Revenue Service, has also recognized this by stating in their publications that “nonresident aliens [state Citizens] must
take their case to the Court of Claims, as they do not have standing in the federal district court or the tax court.”  This premise is based upon the fact that the
immunity rests upon the ground that no enforceable right exists “against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polybank,
205 U.S. 349, 353, and it is undisputable that the Citizens of the several States united granted limited powers to the federal government, because the People are
vested with complete sovereignty.
>>”To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown.  There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety.  But,
even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution.  They might have announced
themselves “SOVEREIGN” people of the United States.  But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”   Chisholm v. Georgia, 2
Dallas 440, 455

SOVEREIGNTY – …By “Sovereignty”, in its largest sense is meant supreme,
absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. Black’s Law
Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396. A sovereign man who is within his inherent rights regarding his domain and his
right of travel is not violating the person or property of another, committing a
tort, a trespass, or otherwise required to obtain prior permission from
competent authority.
>
sovereign v. subject

“There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the
government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in
the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by
their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld.” Jillird v.
Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972);

Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966);

Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955);

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).

-Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970 );

The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and
have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people,
as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and
intrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty in every state resides
in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of
government at their own pleasure.” – US Supreme Court in Luther v.
Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:

Sovereign – A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power.

(Blacks Law 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Editions.)

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the
government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides
in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not,
by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” – US
Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421:

Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the
absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q.
v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of
its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q. v.) 2 Dall.
471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const.
§208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h. t.

Standing:
national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
>>
A special appearance, which is preliminary and collateral to determining the merits of an action, is a pleading within this section, and thus, in a hearing on a
special appearance, an affidavit may be used to prove or disprove the factual basis for a court’s assertion or exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Williams v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 862, 443 N.W.2d 577 (1989).
>>

Term State and Defined as:
Distinct wording: as found in Nebraska Statute and US Code.
-74 us 700, Texas v White                  1856? case defined state.
State or state.
In this state.
In this state or within the state.
This state.
>>
Section 58-308
State, defined.
State shall mean the State of Nebraska.
Source:
Laws 1984, LB 1117, § 8
>>
Section 58-224
State, defined.
State shall mean the State of Nebraska.
Source:
Laws 1983, LB 626, § 24
>>
Section 37-1206
Waters of this state, defined.
Waters of this state shall mean any waters within the territorial limits of Nebraska.Source:
Laws 1978, LB 21, § 6
>>
Section 60-666
State, defined.
State shall mean a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a province of Canada.
Source:
Laws 1993, LB 370, § 162
>>
Section 77-2701.17
In this state or within the state, defined.
In this state or within the state means within the exterior limits of the State of Nebraska and includes all the territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the
United States of America.
Source:
Laws 1992, LB 871, § 9
R.S.1943, (1996), § 77-2702.08
Laws 2003, LB 282, § 21
>>
Section 29-419
Fresh pursuit; state, defined.
For purposes of the Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit, the word state shall include the District of Columbia.
Source:
Laws 1937, c. 70, § 4, p. 256
C.S.Supp.,1941, § 29-419
R.S.1943, § 29-419
Laws 2001, LB 299, § 2
>>
Section 86-628
State, defined.
State means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States. State includes an Indian tribe or band, or Alaskan native village, which is recognized by federal law or formally acknowledged
by a state.
Source:
Laws 2002, LB 1105, § 390
>>
Section 71-1795
Nurse Licensure Compact.
The Nurse Licensure Compact is hereby enacted into law and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in the form substantially as follows: .ce
ARTICLE I. Findings and Declaration of Purpose
(a) The party states find that:
(m) State means a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
>>
Section 25-413
State, defined.
As used in sections 25-413 to 25-417, unless the context otherwise requires, state shall mean any foreign nation, and any state, district, commonwealth, territory or
insular possession of the United States.
Source:
Laws 1969, c. 179, § 1, p. 769
>>
4 USC ( 110(d): The term `State’ includes any
Territory or possession of the United States. Each of the fifty
State Republics is sovereign except for the eighteen powers
delegated to the United States by the U.S. Constitution (10th
Amendment).
>>
Section 77-2701.17
‘In this state’ or within the state, defined.
‘In this state’ or ‘within the state’ means within the exterior limits of the State of Nebraska and ‘includes’ (exclusive) all the territory within these limits owned by
or ceded to the United States of America. Source:
Laws 1992, LB 871, § 9
R.S.1943, (1996), § 77-2702.08
Laws 2003, LB 282, § 21

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The below two lines are paraphrased by Paul.
‘In this state’ includes all the territory, within the boundaries of the State of Nebraska, owned by or ceded to the United States of America.
‘In this state’ is all the territory, within the boundaries of the State of Nebraska, owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Section 77-201  Nebr.
Property taxable; valuation; classification.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section, all real property ‘in this state’, not expressly exempt therefrom, shall be subject to taxation
and shall be valued at its actual value.
>>
“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the
meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.” United Sates v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95.

There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United
States; …” Hauenstein v. Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879).
((T))
Tax Certificate / Sheriff Sale / Tax Sale Deed = Color of Law not true title. / US v. Beggarley
>>
“The right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ [includes locomotion] that
a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.”
-Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116;
>>>>>>>>>>>
As noted in People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636] (conc. opn. by Holmes, P. J.), “In the overwhelming majority of infraction…

Richard McDonald said “People v. Battle 50 Cal. F 3, 1           saying finding was –“traffic infractions are not criminal”

But when I Google “People v. Battle” remember the (“”) in the search or it does not find it.

This case comes up as corresponding. People v. Carlucci [23 Cal.3d 249]
>>>>>>>>>>>
Trespass:    Entick v. Carrington (1765) Great English Law on Trespass, [Look on Wikipedia]
>>>
“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the
intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language (TERMS) he has used. He is
presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.”
United Sates v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95.

U.S. v. Laub 385 U.S. 475

jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S.  Constitution, quoted
as follows:

“The Congress shall have the Power . . . To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (NOT
EXCEEDING TEN  MILES SQUARE) as may, by Cession  of particular
States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
Government of the United States [District of Columbia] and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings;  And-To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing  Powers, . .
.”  [Ephasis added]

And Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

“The Congress shall have the 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.”

((U))
The standing 1945 Supreme Court definition of the term United States:
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. (1) It may be
merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other
sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate the territory over
which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or (3) it may be the
collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
(Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
((V))
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES,    CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS, Section 9. Vessel of the United States defined, ”vessel
of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or
under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the
supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly
stated as follows: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution arc null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442.
(add to case law, Paul’s)
((W))
((X))
((Y))
((Z))

 

Posted in CASE LAW / PLUS | 3 Comments

Jurisdiction / General / Travel Right

Posted on October 23, 2010 by Paul John Hansen
Jurisdiction over the person, how does the STATE
Courts get it.

CATION, Jurisdictional agreements often occur far in advance of a dispute. Contracts containing clauses such as “this contract is made pursuant to the laws of

Delaware,” or which are acknowledged by a Notary Public, or other officer of a body with an organized court, delegate jurisdiction as a part of the contract.

The recording of a contract with a clerk or “register,” for a body with an organized court, gives that court “cognizance” of the contract. It begins with a contract when a man recording a document pays a fee to the register. Look back at Black’s definition of jurisdiction. “[Jurisdiction] exists when court has cognizance of [matter in dispute].” Many law reform students believe that recording a deed for land with a county register gives the county either legal title or equitable interest in the land. It appears from the evidence, that recording merely gives the county jurisdiction to settle disputes involving the land, and the parties to the deed.

state defined; corporate state, federal or a subdivision thereof, such as corporate UNITED STATES property, or STATE OF NEBRASKA property. owned defined; having a legal interest in the subject or property.

In their jurisdiction: You did an act on land that is owned by the state.

Post Office,               (look at deed)  (If you want to stay out of federal zone jurisdiction do not use a ZIP code, or City.)

Corporate Land;  Airports, District of Columbia,  or US possessions.

Flying a US corporate flag: This gives a presumption that the Land is owned by the D.C. corporation.                 (SEE Flags)

Consent:  Verbal, written contract, various acts.

Immigration Permission.

Corporate standing.

Not objecting/challenge:

They will presume they have jurisdiction just by the fact you appeared or signed to appear without objection.

Identity:  You showed a state ID (Operators License), that gave a presumption that you are now identified as a state regulate-able entity, or a state regulate able activity.

State Identification:

Flashing a state ID.

I have a private ID.    (SEE ID)

Address:

All addresses are presumed to be “in” a state.

Addresses are issued by the state.

Addresses are a state identifier.

If you give a house number and street associated with a city this is evidence of a state entity.              I give the Postal Location address.

(Remember sovereigns live “on” not “at”.)

Zip Code:  Said are a district identifier associated with District of Colombia associated districts.

citizen:  citizen is presumed as a subject.

resident;  Said is a statutory identifier.

Own property “in”.

If you say you are “in”, “of”, “for”, “with” anything the presumption is that you are a corporate entity.

Sovereigns are “on” the Land, not any of the above.

Appearance:

When you sign a citation with out a proper notice it is taken as a contract to then appear or face the penalties for breach of such contract.  I sign with “All Rights Reserved”.

Plea:   Guilty or not Guilty- Making or accepting a plea without an objection is a granting of personal jurisdiction.

Deed:

All property held under a deed with a city or county location is not evidence of ownership associated with a sovereigns standings.

regulate-able activity: A true activity that the government has a right to regulate, these activities are not clear to this writer at this time.  It is possible that no activity done by a sovereign is regulate-able so far as it does not violate another’s rights.

Guns, explosives, drugs, etc.

Signature:  If asked, in court, if this is your signature on the citation, you just communicated that you “agree” to appearing and to the personal jurisdiction of the court.  Signature = agreement

Autograph is totally different.   Sign given name, no need to bring in a family name.        paul john,     (not- paul john hansen)

I always say it is not my signature, adding I do not agree to this citation.

Notice of “EXPRESSLY RESERVING ALL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES”:                  (print in capital letters)

Always sign a promise to appear with the above.

RESERVING ALL RIGHTS above your name,

paul john

Same day or within three days challenge personal jurisdiction by affidavit.       MORE LATTER.

>>>>

STORY #1:

You (a sovereign) are jaywalking and a cop approaches you.

Cop-Identification please.

You-Officer no one was driving on the entire block.

C-Signature here please, this is not an admission of guilt only a promise to appear.

Arraignment Court Day:

Court- How do you plea not guilty or guilty.

Y- I did not do any act to violate any mans right.  Is there a man claiming a damage here.

Court- The Court enters a plea of not guilty because the Defendant stood mute, move to your left.

Trial Court Date:

Cop- He was jaywalking.

Y- I did not violates another mans rights, no man has presented a claim against me.

Court- Do you jaywalk “in” the STATE OF NEBRASKA?

Y- Yes

Court- Guilty, $35.00 fine plus $45.00 court cost.

Sovereign Story:

You are jaywalking and a cop approaches you.

C- Identification please.

Y- I am paul john.

C- State Identification of some type please.

Y- I am paul john, a man on the land, of the nation state nebraska.

C- I demand that I see some form of identification, something with a picture.

Y- I do not have a state identification, (pointing to your face) but I do have the original, its better than any picture.  I then hand them my Affidavit of Standing/Calling/Name.

C-What is your name?

Y- paul john.

C- What is your first name?

Y- I only have one name, paul john.  Some people have second names for me but they are not appropriate to repeat.

C- What is your middle initial.

Y- I do not have any initials in my name.

C- What is your last name?

Y- The last name  I was called is my name and that is paul john,   p. a. u. l.   j. o. h. n.

C- Is that your full name?

Y- Again, (slowly)    my          name          is          paul          john.

C- What is your address?

Y- Mailing Location is:

paul john

general-post office.

omaha, [68108]

C- That’s it?

Y- Yes.

C- Where do you live?

Y- On the Land of the nation state nebraska.

C- What CITY do you live “in”?

Y- I live on the land, and chose not to live in a corporate city.

C- What is your house address numbers?

Y- As I said I live “on” the land of the nation state nebraska, and I have already given you my mailing location.

C- Do you want me to arrest you for not identifying yourself.

Y- I have no entity to identify.

Y- I have been under arrest now for over ten minutes, may I go about my business.

Y- The Mayor of the CITY OF OMAHA, I presume you are an acting agent under his office, has been notified of my “fee schedule” of $150.00 per hour,

or any part thereof, for unauthorized arrest of me.

Y- I now wish to go about my business.

If I am arrested I sign no (not even one) documents and make no oral request of any type and they must release me after 72 hours.  I can only receive food, anything else is consent for detainment, (permission to be a “ward” of the state and subject to the Warden).  And when I get out I send them a bill for each hour x $150.00.  A rather nice paid vacation, (72 x $150.00 = $10,800) and you get all that time to teach the others in jail with you the truth about jurisdiction.

A friend of mine said that a warden told him personally that without consent they can only hold for 72 hours without a Judges Order.

Police can only detain for 72 hours, they have no arrest powers beyond that.  Detainment with no probable cause = $$$$$.

One black man was jogging in a high dollar neighborhood and did the above, he got paid $80K to settle out of court, unknown to the arresting thug

(Police Officer) this black gentleman was a D.C. federal judge.

>>

Essentially the officer needs a fictional address on the citation to have jurisdiction over your alleged fiction that you stand as surety for.  No address no evidence of a fiction, also he has been given notice that you are a man on the land and only subject to a claim of a man as to having his rights violated, and in this case no such man or claim exists.

City Code does not apply to man, it applies to statutory defined “persons”.

P.S. If you show them any “STATE” issued I.D. they can give you a citation, pass judgment/sentensing, and can arrest you under statutory guidelines.     Best to hide any such “STATE” I.D. off your person unless you are actively operating under such license (OPERATORS LICENSE for example).  Finding a STATE I.D. on you is prima fascia (presumptive) evidence as to you being/acting in their jurisdiction.

Credit Cards are not I.D., they are only a named account.

I put them (Operator Licence) in auto glove compartment, and never give permission for them to search my possessions / auto, ect.

>>>>

STORY #2: The key is to ask a question for every question answered.    Answering is a presumption of acknowledgment of authority.

Question keep the burden of proof on the moving party and of you.      (No one can prove a negative!)

You are pulled over for speeding.         (No plates on automobile.)

Cop- Operators licence, proof of liability, registration, please.

You- Officer are you asking for a licence to transport passengers or cargo for a fee?

C- Do you have an Operators licence?

Y- (a.) Officer am I required to have a licence on me if I am not transporting cargo or passengers for a fee?

C- So you do not have an operators licence? (It would be fatal to your defense if you use a STATE “OPERATORS LICENSE” for identification at this time.)

Y- Repeat (a. above).

C- Proof of liability please.

Y- Repeat (a.) but use the term ‘liability insurance’.        (Now if you have insurance just give it, but caution the insurance policy should be for a man, not a fiction.)

C- Registration please.

Y- Repeat (a.) but use the term registration.

C- What is your full name.

Y- I am paul john.

C- State Identification of some type please.

Y- Repeat (a.) but insert the term state identification.

Y- I am paul john, a man on the land, of the nation state nebraska.

C- I demand that I see some form of identification, something with a picture.

Y- I do not have a state identification, (pointing to your face) but I do have the original, its better than any picture.

I then hand them my Affidavit of Standing/Calling/Name.

C-What is your name?

Y- paul john.

C- What is your first name?

Y- I only have one name, paul john.  Some people have second names for me but they are not appropriate to repeat.

If you wish officer “paul” is my first name and “john” is my last last name.

C- What is your middle initial.

Y- I do not have any initials in my name.

C- What is your last name?

Y- The last name  I was called is my name and that is paul john,   p. a. u. l.   j. o. h. n.

C- Is that your full name?

Y- Again, (slowly)    my          name          is          paul          john.

C- What is your address?

Y- Repeat (a.) but insert state address.    Then add I do have a mailing location, will that suffice?  They usually say yes.

Y- Mailing Location is:

paul john

general-post office.

omaha, [68108]

C- That’s it?

Y- Yes.

C. Date of birth?

Y- Does a DOB have a commercial relationship?

C- Whhhhhat?

Y- In law a birth is a docking of a commercial vessel, so is that what you are asking, or do you know what “defined in law” is a DOB.

C- I just need to know when you were born to search our records.

Y- Is there any law that requires that I know factually when I came forth from the belly of my mom?  You see I was very young then and really can not remember much before the age of five.          If threatened you can say that you believe you were “BORN”, not birthed, on _____/____/2008.

C- Where do you live?

Y- On the Land of the nation state nebraska.

C- What CITY do you live “in”?

Y- I live on the land, and chose not to live in a corporate city.

C- What is your house address numbers?

Y- As I said I live “on” the land of the nation state nebraska, and I have already given you my mailing location.

C- Do you want me to arrest you for not identifying yourself.

Y- I have no entity to identify, but I can only tell the truth, I am called paul john.

C- I know your last name is Hansen!

Y- No I believe you are mistaken, I have no last name other than john, but you are only referencing my family name ‘hansen’.

Y- I have been under arrest now for over ten minutes, may I go about my business.

Y- The Mayor of the CITY OF OMAHA, I presume you are an acting agent under his office, has been notified of my “fee schedule” of $150.00 per hour,

or any part thereof, for unauthorized arrest of me.

Y- I now wish to go about my business.

I was in a car accident on 12-22-08 (I slid on ice and bumped a bus at 3 MPH, no damage but the cop was called.)

I followed the above.

Autographed the citation as:

All Rights Reserved.

By: Paul John

The officer said this stuff is new to me and I am only going to site you with citation for “too fast for conditions”.

I could give a citation and ‘tow’ the car for ‘no plates’, and citation for no presentment of a ‘operators licence’.

He asked me to explain it (right to travel) to him and I gave him my sit-  ‘www.pauljjhansen.com’  (index #31).

I said stay in touch, and he said you may leave now.

I will update everyone of the court issues.

He pulled up my name on the computer and filled the citation out based on their info, so I must rebut the fiction named.

It will be interesting, the last time this happened the ticket completely disappeared from the record, even though the clerk told me that is not possible.

Affidavit to rebut (see below) the above issue was delivered to the prosecutors office before three days expired from the day of the citation.

>>>>

Order by this court to Dismiss.

Dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction ‘personal’ of the STATE OF NEBRASKA.

Regarding Citation # DC 2143724 issued day twelve of December, two thousand eight.

This affidavit is submitted for the record as facts that are currently known by signatory, Paul John, and are directly related to the Citation as

attached. This Affidavit is presented to notice of standing, and FEE SCHEDULE.

1. Affiant shall hereinafter mean the man Paul John: of family Hansen, as a man on the nation state nebraska soil.

2. That Affiant has standing as a sovreiegn on the soil of nation state nebraska soil.

3. That Affiant is an inhabitant on the soil of the nation state nebraska.

4. That Affiant waited for the Police because said bus driver said to this Affiant that; “it is company policy to call for a police accident report under all collisions, regardless of no visible damages”.

5. Affiant told the arriving Police Officer that Affiant was not transporting any cargo or passenger for a fee, and that Affiant is not operating in commerce.

6. Affiant asked the said Officer what he relied upon to have jurisdiction to issue a citation to this Affiant.

7. Affiant gave no information to said Officer as to give any presumption of a corporate STATE OF NEBRASKA interest.

–Below is in reference to information placed on the said citation. (SEE hereto as attached EXHIBIT “C”.)–

8. Affiant gave no information to said Officer that Affiant’s last name was HANSEN, or that PAUL is Affiant’s first name, or that Affiant had a M.I. as “J” as found on said citation.

9.  Affiant gave no STREET, or CITY, or STATE, or ZIP CODE, address.

10. Affiant gave no OPERATORS LICENCE NO.

11. Affiant gave no license document to the said Officer.

12. Affiant gave no CLASS information.

13. Affiant gave no EXP. DATE information.

14. Affiant gave no STATE information.

15. Affiant gave no D.O.B. information.

16. Affiant gave no evidence to said Officer that Affiant’s mobility device was a statutory defined motor vehicle.

17. Affiant gave no V.I.N. information.

18. Affiant gave a chassis number.

19. Affiant did autograph the said citation with Affiant’s calling name as By: Paul John.

20. Affiant wrote “All RIGHTS RESERVED” with Affiant’s above autograph.

21. Affiant told the said Officer that the STATE OF NEBRASKA has produced no evidence of jurisdiction with this private matter between Affiant and the MAT BUS company.

22. Affiant has given notice to the STATE OF NEBRASKA that Affiant’s fee schedule is $150.00 per hour for all forced appearances of any fiction that

lack jurisdiction.       See notice at base of this page.

23. Affiant told the said Officer that Affiant does not wish to contract with the STATE OF NEBRASKA in any way as associated with this private matter between MAT BUS Company and this Affiant.

24. Affiant was using his private mobility devise, a Ford pickup device, at all times of this associated subject between the MAT BUS Company and this Affiant.

25. Affiant has full and absolute ownership is the mobility device associated with this subject matter.

26. Affiant witnessed that said Officer did not witness any activity of any mobility device bumping any Mat Bus, as associated with this subject matter, and said Officer has no personal knowledge of any said activities.

27. Affiant at all times associated with said citation was traveling on the nation state soil of nebraska, as in Affiants non-statutory right and liberty.

___________________

Paul John: family Hansen

Notary only used as proof to signatory, and not associated as to jurisdiction.

State for Nebraska__

County for Douglas__

Personally appeared before me the undersigned, an officer authorized to administer oaths, Paul John: family Hansen, with valid identification, and personally known to me, who first being duly sworn, deposes and says that the forgoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me, this twenty six day of December,two thousand eight.

___________________________ Notary

>>>>

As of 10-22-2010 I have never heard anything back on the above citation, of course that does not mean they will not pond me th next time.

Just give them every thing the law requieres, #1 – name  #2 -  a location that they can mail you notice.  Do remember a legal intity is required to give more!

How does the corporate state courts gain a presumption of personal jurisdiction over a free man (sovereign).

How does a entity that exist by your (sovereign people) permission in time turn and drag you into a totally bias court.

An alleged corporate violation, a citation issued by a corporate policy officer (Police), tried by a corporate elected and paid judge, fines go to support the same corporate system, a federal government that als pays (approximately $60 each day) the same corporate entity for each day they have you incarcerated.

And no one ever told you that same corporation that is flying the US battle flag is in fact a corporate military entity, a completely foreign entity to the sovereign people of the confederacy of the united states of America.

Posted in Jurisdiction / General / Travel Right | Leave a comment

Coconut Oil, FOR LIFE / HEALTH / FOODS

Posted on October 23, 2010 by Paul John Hansen
Great article and timely info, may want to have some on hand?  Here’s a Link to buy: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/virgin_coconut_oil.htm
This Cooking Oil is a Powerful Virus-Destroyer and Antibiotic…

coconut oilYou’ve no doubt noticed that for about the last 60 years the majority of health care officials and the media have been telling you saturated fats are bad for your health and lead to a host of negative consequences, like elevated cholesterol, obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

Meanwhile during this same 60 years the American levels of heart disease, obesity, elevated serum cholesterol and Alzheimer’s have skyrocketed compared to our ancestors, and even compared to modern-day primitive societies using saturated fat as a dietary staple.

Did you know that multiple studies on Pacific Island populations who get 30-60% of their total caloric intact from fully saturated coconut oil have all shown nearly non-existent rates of cardiovascular disease?[1]

Clearly, a lot of confusion and contradictory evidence exists on the subject of saturated fats, even among health care professionals.

But I’m going to tell you something that public health officials and the media aren’t telling you.

The fact is, all saturated fats are not created equal.

The operative word here is “created”, because some saturated fats occur naturally, while other fats are artificially manipulated into a saturated state through the man-made process called hydrogenation.

Hydrogenation manipulates vegetable and seed oils by adding hydrogen atoms while heating the oil, producing a rancid, thickened oil that really only benefits processed food shelf life andcorporate profits.

The medical and scientific communities are now fairly united in the opinion that hydrogenated vegetable and seed oils should be avoided.

These unsaturated fats, artificially manipulated into saturated fats, are also called trans  fats, and no doubt you’ve heard about them lately. Some cities and states have now outlawed their use. There is no controversy anymore regarding the health dangers of these artificially saturated fats.

And guess what?

These are the same damaged trans fats that have been touted as “healthy” and “heart-friendly” for the last 60 years by the vegetable and seed oil interests!

But the truth finally came out. Trans fat was rebuked, debunked, and revealed as the true enemy to good health that it has always been, regardless of what the seed- and vegetable oil shills told the American public for the last half century.

Unfortunately, this rightful vilification of hydrogenated saturated fats has created a lot of confusion regarding naturally occurring saturated fats, including coconut oil.

If one form of saturated fat is bad for you, the argument goes, then all saturated fat must be bad.

Right?

Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Truth about Coconut Oil

The truth about coconut oil is obvious to anyone who has studied the health of those who live in traditional tropical cultures, where coconut has been a nutritious diet staple for thousands of years.

Back in the 1930’s, a dentist named Dr. Weston Price traveled throughout the South Pacific, examining traditional diets and their effect on dental and overall health. He found that those eating diets high in coconut products were healthy and trim, despite the high fat concentration in their diet, and that heart disease was virtually non-existent.

Similarly, in 1981, researchers studied populations of two Polynesian atolls. Coconut was the chief source of caloric energy in both groups. The results, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,[2] demonstrated that both populations exhibited positive vascular health.

In fact, no evidence exists that the naturally occurring high saturated fat intake had any kind of harmful effect in these populations!

That’s not what you expected, is it? Based on 60 years of negative public policy towards naturally occurring saturated fats, you would expect these cultures to be rife with clogged arteries, obesity and heart disease.

It may be surprising for you to realize that the naturally occurring saturated fat in coconut oil actually has some amazing health benefits, such as:

  • Promoting your heart health[3]
  • Promoting weight loss, when needed[4]
  • Supporting your immune system health[5]
  • Supporting a healthy metabolism[6]
  • Providing you with an immediate energy source[7]
  • Keeping your skin healthy and youthful looking
  • Supporting the proper functioning of your thyroid gland[8]

But how is this possible?

Does coconut oil have some secret ingredients not found in other saturated fats?

The answer is a resounding “yes”.

Coconut Oil’s Secret Ingredient

50 percent of the fat content in coconut oil is a fat rarely found in nature called lauric acid. If you’re a frequent reader of my newsletter you already know that I consider lauric acid a “miracle” ingredient because of its unique health promoting properties.

Your body converts lauric acid into monolaurin, which has anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-protozoa properties.[9]

Monolaurin is a monoglyceride which can actually destroy lipid coated viruses such as:

  • HIV, herpes
  • Measles
  • Influenza virus
  • Various pathogenic bacteria
  • Protozoa such as giardia lamblia.

Lauric acid is a powerful virus and gram-negative bacteria destroyer, and coconut oil contains the most lauric acid of any substance on earth!

Capric acid, another coconut fatty acid present in smaller amounts, has also been added to the list of coconut’s antimicrobial components.

This is one of the key reasons you should consider consuming coconut oil, because there aren’t many sources of monolaurin in our diet. But the health benefits of coconut oil don’t stop there.

The Benefits of Medium-Chain Fatty Acids

Coconut oil is about 2/3 medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs), also called medium-chain triglycerides or MCTs. These types of fatty acids produce a whole host of health benefits.

Coconut oil is nature’s richest source of these healthy MCFAs.

By contrast, most common vegetable or seed oils are comprised of long chain fatty acids (LCFAs), also known as long-chain triglycerides or LCTs.

Let me tell you why these long-chain fatty acids are not as healthy for you as the MCFAs found in coconut oil[10] :

  • LCFAs are difficult for your body to break down — they require special enzymes for digestion.
  • LCFAs put more strain on your pancreas, liver and your entire digestive system.
  • LCFAs are predominantly stored in your body as fat.
  • LCFAs can be deposited within your arteries in lipid forms such as cholesterol.
  • In contrast to LFCAs, the MCFAs found in coconut oil have many health benefits, including the following beneficial qualities:
  • MCFAs are smaller. They permeate cell membranes easily, and do not require special enzymes to be utilized effectively by your body.
  • MCFAs are easily digested, thus putting less strain on your digestive system.
  • MCFAs are sent directly to your liver, where they are immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat.
  • MCFAs actually help stimulate your body’s metabolism, leading to weight loss.

Coconut Oil Helps Fight Diabetes

Your body sends medium-chain fatty acids directly to your liver to use as energy. This makes coconut oil a powerful source of instant energy to your body, a function usually served in the diet by simple carbohydrates.

But although coconut oil and simple carbohydrates share the ability to deliver quick energy to your body, they differ in one crucial respect.

Coconut oil does not produce an insulin spike in your bloodstream. You read that correctly, Coconut oil acts on your body like a carbohydrate, without any of the debilitating insulin-related effects associated with long-term high carbohydrate consumption!

Diabetics and those with pre-diabetes conditions (an exploding health epidemic in America), should immediately realize the benefit of a fast acting energy source that doesn’t produce an insulin spike in your body. In fact, coconut oil added to the diets of diabetics and pre-diabetics has actually been shown to help stabilize weight gain, which can dramatically decrease your likelihood of getting adult onset type-2 Diabetes.[11]

Cococut Oil, the Friend to Athletes and Dieters

If you live in the United States, you have an almost 70 percent chance of being overweight.

And, by now, I’m sure you’re well aware that obesity affects your quality of life and is linked to many health concerns.

One of the best benefits of coconut oil lies in its ability to help stimulate your metabolism.

Back in the 1940s, farmers found out about this effect by accident when they tried using inexpensive coconut oil to fatten their livestock.

It didn’t work!

Instead, coconut oil made the animals lean, active and hungry.

However, many animal and human research studies have demonstrated that replacing LCFAs with MCFAs results in both decreased body weight and reduced fat deposition.

In fact, the ability of MCFAs to be easily digested, to help stimulate the metabolism and be turned into energy has entered the sports arena. Several studies have now shown that MCFAs can enhance physical or athletic performance.[12]

Additionally, research has demonstrated that, due to its metabolic effect, coconut oil increases the activity of the thyroid. And you’ve probably heard that a sluggish thyroid is one reason why some people are unable to lose weight, no matter what they do.

Besides weight loss, there are other advantages to boosting your metabolic rate. Your healing process accelerates. Cell regeneration increases to replace old cells, and your immune system functions better overall.

Coconut Oil on Your Skin

Besides the mounting medical and scientific evidence that coconut oil has powerful positive health benefits when eaten, it has also been used for decades by professional massage therapists to knead away tight stressed muscles.

However, you don’t have to be a professional massage therapist to gain the skin and tissue support benefits of coconut oil. Just use coconut oil as you would any lotion.

Coconut oil is actually ideal for skin care. It helps protect your skin from the aging effects of free radicals, and can help improve the appearance of skin with its anti-aging benefits.

In fact, physiologist and biochemist Ray Peat, Ph.D. considers coconut oil an antioxidant[13] , due to its stability and resistance to oxidation and free radical formation. Plus, he believes it reduces our need for the antioxidant protection of vitamin E.

Like Dr. Peat, many experts believe coconut oil may help restore more youthful-looking skin. When coconut oil is absorbed into your skin and connective tissues, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by helping to keep your connective tissues strong and supple, and aids in exfoliating the outer layer of dead skin cells, making your skin smoother.

Coconut Oil and Your Heart

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. And heart disease is often a silent killer. The first sign of cardiovascular disease is commonly a heart attack, and sadly, over one third of heart attacks are fatal.

And despite the propaganda, the truth is this: it is UNSATURATED fats that are primarily involved in heart disease, not the naturally occurring saturated fats, as you have been led to believe.[14]

Plus, the polyunsaturated fats in vegetable and seed oils encourage the formation of blood clots by increasing platelet stickiness. Coconut oil helps to promote normal platelet function.

Coconut Oil in Your Kitchen

I only use two oils in my food preparation.

The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a better monounsaturated fat that works great as a salad dressing.

However, it should not be used for cooking. Due to its chemical structure, heat makes it susceptible to oxidative damage.

And polyunsaturated fats, which include common vegetable oils such as corn, soy, safflower, sunflower and canola, are absolutelythe worst oils to use in cooking. These omega-6 oils are highly susceptible to heat damage because of their double bonds.

I strongly urge you to throw out those omega-6 vegetable oils in your cabinets.

Why?

Reason # 1: Most people believe that frying creates trans-fat . That is not the major problem, in my opinion. Although some are created, they are relatively minor. There are FAR more toxic chemicals produced by frying omega-6 oils thantrans-fat.

Frying destroys the antioxidants in oil and as a result oxidizes the oil. This causes cross-linking, cyclization, double-bond shifts, fragmentation and polymerization of oils that cause far more damage than trans-fat.

Reason # 2: Most of the vegetable oils are GMO. This would include over 90 percent of the soy, corn and canola oils.

Reason # 3: Vegetable oils contribute to the overabundance of damaged omega-6 fats in your diet, which creates an imbalance in the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. As you know from my extensive writing on this subject, I believe that excessive consumption of damaged omega-6 fats contributes to many health concerns.

They are all highly processed and consumed in amounts that are about 100 times more than our ancestors did a century ago. This causes them to distort the sensitive omega-6/omega-3 ratio which controls many delicate biochemical pathways which results in accelerating many chronic degenerative diseases.

There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist mild heat-induced damage, while it also helps you promote heart health and even supports weight loss and thyroid function — coconut oil.

So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil, margarine, or any other type of oil called for in recipes. Even though I don’t fully recommend frying foods, if you must fry, by all means use coconut oil — it’s your smartest choice.

Coconut Oil Safety

The medium-chain fats in coconut oil are considered so nutritious that they are used in baby formulas, in hospitals to feed the critically ill, those on tube feeding, and those with digestive problems. Coconut oil has even been used successfully by doctors in treating aluminum poisoning.[15]

Coconut oil is exceptionally helpful for pregnant women, nursing moms, the elderly, those concerned about digestive health, athletes (even weekend warriors), and those of you who just want to enhance your overall health.

References:

Posted in Health / Foods | Leave a comment

History Time-Line

Posted on October 22, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

Fourteen (14) Presidents before George Washington, 3 served as English Colonies Continental Congress, the 11 states united, the Confederacy.

  1. Peyton Randolph of Virginia, Served Continental Congress as president twice, from September 5, 1774 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23.
  2. Henry Middleton, Continental Congress as President from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775.
  3. John Hancock, Continental Congress the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786.
  4. Henry Laurens, as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777.
  5. John Jay, as President of the United States serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. (skips were due to Continental Presidents, and Confederation Presents offices running at the same time.)
  6. Samuel Huntington, President from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781.  Continental Congress dissolved, the first President under the Articles of Confederation.
  7. Thomas McKean, President from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782.
  8. John Hanson, President from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782.
  9. Elias Boudinot, President from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783.
  10. Thomas Mifflin, President from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784.
  11. Richard Henry Lee President from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785.
  12. Nathaniel Gorham, President from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787.
  13. Arthur St. Clair, President from February 2, 1787 to January 21, 1788.
  14. Cyrus Griffin, President from January 22, 1788 until George Washington’s inauguration on April 30, 1789.

1215 Common Law Jury or Trial by the Country man was first established at Runnymede, England when King John signed the Magna Carta.

1231 > 1826 Inquisition, Catholic. (Lasting 595 years.)

1492 Columbus sets out to sail to the indies by going the opposite direction. ‘Columbus‘ ships land in what is now known as the Bahamas.

1517 Luther nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. The start of the reformation movement.

1606 First Charter of Virginia,  Jamestown as the first permanent English settlement.

1620 May Flower landed on the Land of Americas, established Plymouth in New England area.

1620 May Flower Compact.

1632 Charters from the State of Great Britain to colonize Americas. Charter of Maryland, (In the eighth year of our reign.)First

1632 “County” established in the new America–Eastville, Virginia, in Northampton (originally Accomac) County, dating to 1632.

1638 Fundamental order of Connecticut.  First Constitution.

1643 The New England Confederation.

1679 The Great Awakening Revival.

1732 America now has 13 Colonies.

1763 First defined territory of the USA, See 1763 to 1959  >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwGRheUQMY8&feature=related

1764 Sugar Act /Tax

1765 Stamp Act, first true attempt to levy a direct tax on the American colonies.

1774 Continental Association of 1774

1775 Patrick Henry, 1st revolution, King Georges Time, pastors required to get a license from the King.
Revolutionary war started in churches.  3 pastors killed for refusing to get the license.  “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”.

1775  The first “Continental” army was born on 15 June 1775, when Congress adopted the thirty-six regiments.  Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/continental-army-2#ixzz1BoQxsuqY

1776 Common Sense Pamphlet, Thomas Pain,  Call for a home where freedom can land.

1776 Foundation for the “new order” (New World Order) of the ages had been laid May 1st, 1776, thus founding of the Illuminati (eye of the Great Architect).

1776 Declaration of Independence from Britain. New government/people group is called the united States of America . It was formed through the Declaration of Independence July 4th.

1777  Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777.  (Referred to as the “Perpetual Union”.) (Ratified in 1781)

1781  The Continental congress dissolved, Confederacy known as the United States of America was established on March 1, 1781, when Maryland became the thirteenth and last State of the original thirteen ……….to ratify and adoption the Articles of Confederation.

1781  Once the signing of the above took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. (first written oath to the People to “Office of President” of the United States of America) John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress.  Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period.  Six other presidents were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office.  Washington took  no written oath but inserted the first oral oath, not to the People, but to the Land, and property, owned by the USA as an employment office called  “President of the United States” and another employment essentially at the same  time of “President of the United States of America”, and refused the “Office of President” associated with the People of the Confederation.  (See – http://www.edrivera.com/?paged=42)  Jan 9th page and many more.

1783 The Treaty of Paris, signed to end war between Great Britain and the 13 colonies on the soil of north American. Also parting with what was then called the Northwest Territory.

1783 –?? Shays’ Rebellion, Massachusetts, war investors (among others) demanded payment in gold and silver; confiscation for tax, commoners losing homes fought back, newly organized farmers and veterans faced militia, Samuel Adams claimed it treason among the commoners, and he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a resolution suspending habeas corpus. Debtors in the amount of $5 could be ordered to jail.  Google for more.

1785 Land Ordinance of 1785  The immediate goal of the ordinance was to raise money through the sale of land in the largely unmapped territory west of the
original colonies acquired from Britain at the end of the Revolutionary War.

1787  Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787

1787  Closing of the Constitutional Convention in September.  (Was this the walk out?)

1787  Constitution of the corporate UNITED STATES  (Beginning of an attempt of a Central Government.)

1788 January 22, Last Congress Convened under the Articles of Confederation.  (No evidence exist that the AOC have been repealed, or replaced.)

1789  Opening of the First Federal Congress in March.

1789  All present federal courts were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was enacted when the second Union (refereed to as “The More Perfect Union”.), the United States, consisted of 11 States.

1789  Martial law was declared on April 30, 1789, when George Washington took a oral  oath of Office of President of the United States, which was to be a military and
civilian dictator subject only to the impeachment and conviction of the United States Congress pursuant to Article I of “this Constitution”.  Washington simultaneously took the office of President of the United States of America, but not taking the Office of President. (SEE edrivera.com)

1790  The Whiskey Rebellion, less commonly known as the Whiskey Insurrection.  President Washington, new federal government, called in military to collect the
tax with force.

1791 The first state to join the “perpetual union” making 14 states.  See for all other states added>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLdQ4DUnnw4&feature=related

1791  The first internal excise tax was a tax on the distillation of alcohol on March 3.

1791 First bankruptcy of the United States (Military).

1792  Coinage Act of 1792, Money of account of the United States, shall be the dollar.   SEE #1 GREEN BACK Lincoln.

1800 Maryland and Virginia ceded (gave) “ten miles square” for the Federal Government, now known as the District of Columbia, (Washington D.C.)

1801 Organic Act of 1801 placed Washington, DC, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress and people in the District were no longer considered residents of Virginia or Maryland.

1802 The Enabling Act of 1802 was passed on April 30, 1802 by the Seventh Congress of the United States. This act authorized the residents of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territory to form the state of Ohio and join the U.S. on an equal footing with the other states.

1803  April 30, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, 5,304,320,000 acres of land at the cost of 4.13 cents based on the year of 2010 US Dollar.  Purchased from France.

1812 Congress refused to give the “First National Bank” A British “Power” owned central bank, a renewal of a charter to operate in the U.S. colonies.  ((Many believe this is the true reason for the punitive acts of 1812 by the British.))

1812-1815  The War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and the British Empire, particularly Great Britain and her North American colonies.  (1812 – 1776 =  36  British took 36 years before attacking.)

1814  British troops burned the White House.  Mostly to destroy the 13 amendment.  BAR band.

1835 United states of America has no national debt.  President Andrew Jackson shut down the Central Bank System.

1844 Bar Association stated forming, using business, not law, to infiltrate America. Sir. Mr. terms to establish (forbidden) nobility.

1854 Missouri Compromise, Nebraska and Kansas to decide to be free or slave states. Louisiana Purchase, this treaty between the United States and the French Republic ceded “the colony or province of Louisiana” to the United States of America.

1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) enabling act to establish government for the territory. (I believe that such act (law) only currently applies upon land that the US retains as owner, so when land is patented out by the US it loses taxing authority.

1860 Great Walkout: An Examination of the 1860 Democratic Conventions, slavery split, less than one year before civil war.

1860 Lincoln becomes President of US.

1860 to 1865  Civil War in American, war between the northern and southern states.

1861 Seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861.  (See Index #1 at base of page.)

1861  April 15  President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): “I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene, both Houses of Congress.”  (Was this then the Congress of the “US“, and the Congress of the “USA“?  For he was the President of both.  Elected into President of the USA and receiving President of the US by taking the oral oath.)

1861  Constitutional failure, Reconstruction Act.  (Not confirmed yet.)

1862 – The first act, passed on the 5th of August, 1861, declared that from and after the first of January, 1862, there should be levied an income tax, …but failed to notify the public that the tax was only enforceable on Land owned by the USA.

1862? Lincoln signed “Homestead Act”, providing 160 acres to anyone willing to settle in the West.

1862? Lincoln signed “Conscription Act”, the first draft in the US.  (? US of America.)

1862 Lincoln signed “The Legal Tender Act”,  paper money, GREEN BACKS, to fund the war.

1861  First US income tax applied upon US Military in 1862, then repealed in 1862, and the 1861 law was replaced with Sec. 89 “INCOME DUTY” in 1862 and now held as the present law.

1863  April 24, Lincoln declared martial law by General Order No. 100.  (This order has force for a limited term of ___ months?)  (I think 24.)

1863 Lincoln signed “Emancipation Proclamation”, granting freedom to all slaves behind the Confederate lines.

1864 Enabling Act of April 19, 1864 (to enable the People of Nebraska to
form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission of
such State into the Union on an equal Footing with the original States),
ch. 59, 13 Stat. 47 (1864).

1867  Original Constitution of the .

1868  –14th Amendment to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.  Negro converted to statutory “PERSON” / state citizenship.

1871  Creation of the corporate UNITED STATES entity.  Congress passed “An Act o Provide a Government for the District of Columbia.” (A seat for the government of the US.)  Known as ‘The Act of 1871‘.  The District of Columbia was incorporated by 16 Statutes at Large, 419.  ((Claim of new constitution – Const. for the USA v. Const. of the USA.)  (Article 13 removed, ‘Title of Nobility’.)

1871  KKK (Ku Klux Klan) established, NRA (National Rifle Association) established.  The first rapid fire Colt (6 shot revolver and lever action rifle) went into production.

1875  Substitute corporate Constitution of the STATE OF NEBRASKA.  (Most every state made new constitutions, some say to accommodate the railroad.)

1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year …  (First Federal Tax)

1898  The signing of the Treaty of Paris gave the United States control of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

1898  Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States

1901 Theodore Roosevelt became president. (Fifth cousin to FDR.)

1909 Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the scheme to tax people who convert to legal ‘persons’. The primer for the 1935 Social Security Act.

1912 Titanic Ship sinks on it’s first crossing.

1913 [Twas not a very good year.] Seventeenth Amendment (US Constitution) was ratified taking the power out of the ‘State’ and rendard the States defenseless against federal government abuses. (Essentially disenfranchising the States (People)=big gov.

1913 Congress gave exclusive franchise to the Federal Reserve System (Bank) to issue U.S. currency.  Commercial Banks were limited in creating money only by monetizing notes.

1913  Nebraska statutes started making law under only “People” and dropped “Legislature”.
Constitution changed from:  “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Nebraska” (March 1867).
To> “Be it enacted by the people of the State of Nebraska” (1875).  Nebraska Revised Statutes read that prosecution shall proceed as “The People of the State of Nebraska” and changed in 1913 to shall proceed as “The Sate of Nebraska“.
FROM 1789 to 1913 (124 years) The American People’s “limited constituted government” relied almost entirely on import tariffs to fund the government.

1917 Lenin, Bolsheviks seized power in Russia government.

1917  The United States took possession of the Virgin Islands

1920  League of Nations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and Council on Foreign Relations, all introduced.

1923 Exchange rate between the US Dollar and the inflated German Mark is $1.00 : 4.2 trillion Marks.   (In 1918 it was 1:4)

1925 Most of the industrial world now on gold standard.

1929 September, Federal Reserve raised interest rate to 6.5%, the world elites flood Wall Street with sell orders, grabbing the bulk of the first fruits of the phenomenal prior boom market, banks stooped lending money, gold horded, activating the “Great American 10 year Depression“.

1929 Standard oil gives Bosh/Farben (Germany) $35 billion in Standard Oil Stock, for rights to the patent to creating gas/fuel from coal (hydrogenation process).  To this day no one is allowed to make the cheep fuel.  (XXXXX)

1929 Gold reserves hit all time low of 7% as to credits (money) in circulation.

1929 America’s Wall Street Stock Market Crash.

1930 edition of the D.C. Code No new law created, non repealed.  There is no US Constitution, subsidiary constitutions.

1930 Bank for Internatioal Settlements established in Switzerland at Basle.

1930 Hitler / Nazi regiem begins taking control.

1931 September, British empire goes off gold standard.

1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) becomes president of US, Peak of Great Depression.

1933 Gold Recalled, made illegal to own gold. (Prison $10,000.00 fine and/or for possessing gold.) (See Index #2 below.)

1933 First Bankruptcy of corporate UNITED STATES.  (See Index #3 below.)

1933 First and only closing of Americas nation’s banks. March 6 to March 13.  Banks reopened with non-gold backed Federal Reserve Notes. (See index 213)

1933 May 1, “All persons are hereby required to part with their gold coin, bullion, and gold certificates.” (E.O. 6102)  (See NOTICE #11)  [They failed to mention that that law was only inforcable on Land that was owned by the USA.]

1933 to 1935  New Deal Legislation, Roosevelt.

1933, April 21, The (drivers) license law was passed,

1933 United State Courts stops allowing common law proceedings for the people.

1935  Great Seal first appears on the DOLLAR, President FDR.  (The 32 president of the US, Roosevelt a well known 32 degree mason.)

1868 and 1933 – the de jure constitutionally created and bound government was still in place and operating effectively for the American.

1935 Social Security Act first established, FDR.

1938, Roosevelt released a document entitled Restatement of the Law, which outlines the different usages and effects of law after the bankruptcy of 1933.

1939, in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court officially made commercial law the rule in all federal matters stating that except in cases governed by the Constitution or treaties, state law (commercial law or CODE) would apply.   Here, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there were still those who could demand common law and an Article III Court, but the great majority of the cases had already switched to commercial law.

1939, Buck Act. Congress passed the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939” (4 USC 111) with the purpose of taxing all federal and State employees, as well as those living and working in the federal zone. It became, thereby, municipal law for D.C. and the territories, etc. The next year the government pulled what many believe to be one of its most devious ploys: 1940, It passed the Buck Act (4 USC 104-110), Section 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.”

1944 Seat of Government (Washington D.C.) was quite claim deeded over to the IMF, Britton Woods Agreement, original seats vacated in 1944.  (Yet under investigation.)

1947 National Security Act – National Security Counsel. Central Intelligent Agency (CIA) Now a “secrete” government.

1950 Guam was established as a territory of the United States after the passage of the Guam Organic Act of 1950.

1950 The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed as Receiver of the bankruptcy in Reorganization
Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.

1962 STATE sponsored prayer removed from US (corporate) State/Public Schools.

1963 US Court rules, Bible can no longer be taught as the Word of God but only as any another literature.

1963  JUNE 14th EXECUTIVE ORDER 11.110, President Kennedy reintroduce the first gold backed currency into the Peoples hands. (but not necessarily into circulation)
-6 months later-
1963  The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States, took place on Friday, November 22.   $2.00 United States Note printed in 1963, President Johnson called them all back the day of Kennedy’s funeral.

1964  Civil Rights Act.

1965  Voting Rights Act
(look for of silver standard, Nixon)
1968 Fair Housing Act

1968  Martin Luther King shot dead.

1969 the GPO (General Post Office of Great Britian, UK) was abolished and the assets transferred to The Post Office, changing it from a Department of State to a statutory corporation. In 1981 the organization was split into separate Post Office and British Telecommunications corporations. ((It is unknown to me if this is the same corporate postal service now in the US.))

1975  The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was established.

1976  Foreign Sovereign immunities Act, 28 USC 1502-1611, passed in 1976, this is the form by which one ‘must’ claims independence from the US trust system as an Sovereign American when summoned into a US legislative court. They then can only use a common law process against you.

1986  American Samoa, which is technically considered unorganized because no Organic Acts have been passed by Congress, is governed by section 931 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

1990 Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter ‘IRC’) as of May 15, 1990, at section 3121(e), certain definitions are given.  The term ‘State’ is defined as– “The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”

2001 Home Land Security. 911,  800 Fema Prison Camps Established.  One in Alaska for 2 million prisoners.

Hamilton, central government, federalist papers, propaganda?

Story book on commentaries of the US constitution?

Birth Certificate first activated?

>>
1791
70 (Every 70 years US bankruptcy must be reestablished.)
1861 uncivil war five years, reconstruction, 50% tax on farm equipment,
70
1931 great depression, (1929)
70 (1933 new deal)
2001 home land security.
>>INDEX REFERNCE:
#1. – Lincoln’s second executive order of April, 1861, called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority of the Constitution. In his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law to protect Land owned by the USA the Confederacy, in each of the state.

#2. – Privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America were seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private
Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FRB) under the terms of bankruptcy.

#3 – The legally created fiction called the UNITED STATES is bankrupt (first time) and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold coin to back up or
pay their debts. Privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America were seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the
private Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FRB) under the terms of bankruptcy.

>>>

(((Comments by Paul John Hansen)))

((( I see that Judge Anna von Reitz wrote this and I have little faith in much of what she writes about, she sources next to nothing in her writings. Supposition* upon supposition, such has no value in any court, not even a kangaroo court. Yet interesting bathroom reader stuff.  supposition* – noun – an uncertain belief.)))

 

The Timeline of the Great Fraud and Declaration Of Law

Judge Anna von Reitz

1.      1754-1776: The “United Colonies” take shape as a loose political association, and the First and Second Continental Congresses result.

2.      1776: The Colonies declare independence.

3.      1781: The Articles of Confederation bind “States” — political subdivisions of the United Colonies – together in a “perpetual union”, creating a confederation of States to operate in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea.   [Why a “confederation” instead of a “federation”? –Be- cause the original States gave up some of their natural jurisdiction to the new political entity, the Union, they created.]

4.   1783: The Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Versailles cements this arrangement splitting the land and sea jurisdictions between the States and the Federal Union and places King George III as Trustee of American interests on the “High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways” —which means he kept control of American international commerce. The new “Union” entity operating in the international Jurisdiction of the sea was always controlled by the British and it has al- ways been the British Monarch’s responsibility as International Trustee to manage it and guar- antee its proper operation.   It has instead run amok for 150 years.

5.      1787: The Supreme Perfected Republican Declaration of the United Colonies creates the National Trust owed the Continental United States.

6.      1789: Two years later, “The Constitution for the united States of America” splits off the sea jurisdiction and creates the new Federal United States. A year later (1790) the Federal United States forms a commercial company doing business as the United States (Commercial Compa- ny) to provide the nineteen enumerated services agreed to by the subscribing States.

7.      1812-1814: The British try to horn in again and are beaten back. This skirmish results in the Treaty of Ghent, where the British interests in American shipping and commerce are reaf- firmed and lasting peace is promised inreturn.

8.      1845: The British Monarch and Pope secretly agree to undermine the American System of government via the Treaty of Verona. The British Monarch breaches the Treaty of Ghent and both the Pope and the King secretly breach their trust as International Trustees. They set out on a covert action and issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal to the members of the Bar Associa- tions, allowing them to act as Foreign Agents on American soil and as privateers free to plunder American commerce.

9.      1860: Thanks to the efforts of the Bar Associations a member of the Bar, Abraham Lincoln, is elected to serve as President. Note that he is ineligible serve as President of the united States of America, by the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the actual Constitution— but is eligible to serve as President of the United States (Commercial Company).        This is the same situation we have with Barack Obama who is ineligible to serve as President of the United States of Ameri- ca, but is able to serve as President of the United States (Incorporated).

10.    1861: The Civil War begins. Congress adjourns for lack of quorum and without a date to reconvene. Lincoln organizes a Delaware Corporation and the remaining members of Congress begin functioning as a Board of Directors.

11.   1862: The “Corporate Congress”—a body of men no different than the Board of Directors of IBM, change the meaning of a single word —only and explicitly for use within their corpora- tion.  That word is “person”.  From then on the word “person” is deemed to mean “corporation” for federal government purposes.  (37th “Congress”– Second Session, Chapter 49, Section 68.)

12.      1863: Lincoln signs the Lieber Code as Commander in Chief and puts the Union Army, the Grand Army of the Republic, in charge of the nation’s future and money supply. A day later, he bankrupts the original United States (Commercial Company).

13.    1865: Lee’s Army surrenders to Grant and a general armistice is declared. The Southern States are in ruins and under military occupation by the Union. The original Northern States are bankrupt.        Foreign banks are in control of the new “United States of America, Inc.” and the Union Army reigns supreme. Over the next two years President Andrew Johnson will three times publically declare peace on the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States, but peace is never declared in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea controlled by the Federal United States under the trusteeship of the British Monarch.

14.    1868: The Corporate Congress writes itself a new Corporate Constitution, called “the Constitution of the United States of America” and palms off this look-alike, sound-alike private corporate document “as if” it were the actual Constitution. This is fraud on many levels. The Constitution of the United States of America purposefully sought to confuse and delude people into thinking it was the actual Equity Contract obligating the States to receive services and sub- rogate their international jurisdiction to the federal government.

15.    1871: The Corporate Congress begins to set up shop for itself by creating a separate gov- ernment for the District of Columbia. The initial effort fails but seven years later the Washing- ton DC Municipality is created as an independent international city state run as a plenary oligar- chy by the members of “Congress”. Also in 1871, the Corporate Congress claimed to own all United States corporations— 41st “Congress”– Third Session, Chapters 62, 63, 64, and 65.

16.      1874-1885: All the actual States on the land are reorganized and at the same time com- pletely new “Federal States” are created and new “State Constitutions” are written for them. The original States on the land are renamed in this process. The original State of Ohio operat- ing the land jurisdiction became the Ohio State, while the usurping “Federal State”— merely a corporate franchise of the United States of America, Inc. operating in the international Jurisdic- tion of the Sea—took over the name “State of Ohio”.

17.    1900-1904: Still lusting after more power for itself, the Corporate Congress set up a sec- ond shop for itself and obtained permission to do it from the Supreme Court in a series of cases known as The Insular Tariff Cases. As with setting up the Washington DC Municipality as a foreign city-state on our shores and running it as their own little oligarchy, the “Congress” now took the “federal territories and possessions” and made a new “union” of “American states”-

—Puerto Rico, Guam, et alia—and began calling it “the United States of America (Minor)”. They just forgot to add the (Minor) part of the name from then on, and let people assume that all the repugnant laws they passed governing this “Constitutional Democracy” also applied to the Continental United States.

18.      1912-1913: A private association of European and American banks calling themselves “The Federal Reserve” bought the governmental services corporation known as “The United States of America, Inc.” and its “State” franchises as a business venture, and began operating such familiar agencies as The United States Department of Agriculture and The United States Department of Transportation as private, for-profit businesses—without tellinganyone.          They exercised the “government powers” they didn’t really possess in a vast fraud scheme in collu- sion with members of “Congress” to institute a fiat monetary system and misused their position of trust to put competitors out of business, set up monopolies, rig commodity markets, and com- mit other acts of blatant self-interested criminality and fraud.

19.    1917: Engaging in a war for profit, Congress and their Banker Bosses passed the War Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act, and numerous other illegal and repugnant “Acts” pertaining only to the Federal United States and the international Jurisdiction of the Sea,

but presented them to the public as if this claptrap pertained to the actual States and People on the land of the Continental United States. Deceived by this venal and purposeful fraud, millions of Americans complied with what they believed to be the “Law” passed by a legitimate Con- gress acting as deputies of the States and the People.

20.      1918-1933: Once in control of the monetary system the “Federal Reserve” increased the monetary supply exponentially, causing the “Roaring Twenties”. They built the house of cards and on October 29, 1933, theycollapsed it—deliberately.   This enabled them to put thousands of competitors out of business, allowed them to buy commodities, land, and labor for dirt cheap, and to manipulate the value of the dollar to their benefit.

21.    1933-1940, The banks took full advantage of the “national emergency” they created and the Congress did everything the bankers required:  The Sheppard-Towner Act, the Buck Act, the Alien Registration Act, the Social Security Act(s), the Emergency Banking Act, and more. The purpose of all this was to lay claim to the labor and the assets of the States and People of the Continental United States by securing “private contracts” with them, enabling the perpetra- tors to “represent them” and to set up corporations “in their names”.         Hundreds of millions

of Americans were told that they “had to” sign up for Social Security and have a Social Se- curity Number in order to have a job, that it was “the Law” and that “Congress had passed it” and so, believing it to be a lawful government mandate—when in fact it was a corporate fraud scheme— they were subscribed en masse.

Remembering now the actions of the Corporate Congress in 1862 redefining the word “per- son” to mean “corporation” for federal purposes, and their later claim made in 1871 to hold ownership interest in all United States corporations and seeing that their actions from 1933 to 1940 resulted in redefining the estates of living Americans as public trusts—that is, as a form of corporation— you can see that the “Corporate Congress” has claimed to own living Americans as assets belonging to their corporation and has also claimed to control and own their private assets — in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention Protocols Volume II, Article 3, and in equally flagrant violation of the 1926 International Conventions on Slavery, and in violation of every lawful and moral duty, commercial contract, and trust indenture owed to the Continental United States and the American People.

It is also apparent that all of this – every claim, every salvage lien, every title to land and property held under color of law—being held against the Continental United States and the living civilian inhabitants of the Continental United States, is pure, self-interested commercial fraud created and perpetuated under conditions of semantic deceit, constructive fraud, misrepre- sentation, and mischaracterization by the management of the Federal United States, the various governmental services corporations doing business as some form of “United States” and the British Government.

20. 1940-present:  Among the first actions to be taken by the criminals was to “register” all live births. This established a claim of ownership on the baby and his or her estate, benefiting the “State of Ohio” or other “Federal State franchise”.    This act of identity theft exercised via an undisclosed and forced contract with the Mother of the child, allowed each ”State” franchise to control the name and the property of the baby.       The perpetrators promptly set up new “State franchises” benefiting themselves using names styled like this:  “Joseph Quincy Public” and new “Municipal franchises” set up under the auspices of the Washington DC Municipality using NAMES styled like this:  “JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC”.

The only purpose for creating these franchises structured as various kinds of trusts—was to act as a means for the privately owned governmental services corporations to hypothecate debt against the labor of the living people and their private property assets and to exercise control over them amounting to slavery.

>>>

 

Posted in History / Time-Line, Time-Line / History | 1 Comment

Tax Case, Property, Admission

Posted on October 20, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA

DARREN C. OBRECHT,         )                   Case    DOC. 1099    NO. 363

Plaintiff,                                     )

v.                                                 )

Paul J. Hansen,                          )

Defendant Named,                     )           Conditional written request for the  

Paul-John: Hansen,                     )          admission DISCOVERY, in          

Respondents Lawful Name.       )          Common Law found in § 6-326,

Respondents Lawful Name.       )              General provisions governing discovery.

Comes Now, Respondent, only conditionally, upon proof of personal jurisdiction being

found, on the record, as challenged by Respondent, to give then ANSWER, and all other

participation, to AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE dated June 24, 2010, as follows:

Plaintif shall, or by and through his attorney, answer the following as an admit or deny

each matter of which the admissions requested are separately set forth by the Defendant,

 and the Plaintiff shall be required to answer specifically by repeating the admission and

 responding to the answer or with an objection thereto.  If objection is made, the reasons

 therefore shall be stated.    Or when good faith requires that this party qualify his or her

answer or deny only a part of  the matter of which an admission is requested that it be yet

answered as fully as stated court rule demands. .    The matter is admitted unless, within

thirty days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court

 may allow.

>> The Defendants request for admissions to Plaintiff are yet asked under common-law

for the record is lacking any evidence that Defendant has not the right of a common-law

proceeding, to which Defendant will make a proper, timely, demand.

To: DARREN C. OBRECHT

Defendant submits the following request for admissions to Plaintiff. You are required to

answer each request for admissions separately and fully, in writing, under oath, and to

serve a copy of the responses upon Defendant within (30) days after service of these

requests for admissions.

Instructions under common-law:

  1. These requests for admissions are directed toward all information known or

available to Plaintiff including information contained in the records and documents in

Plaintiff’s custody or control or available to Plaintiff upon reasonable inquiry. Where

requests for admissions cannot be answered in full, they shall be answered as

completely as possible and incomplete answers shall be accompanied by a

specification of the reasons for the incompleteness of the answer and of whatever

actual knowledge is possessed with respect to each unanswered or incompletely

answered request for admission.

2. Each request for admission is to be deemed a continuing one. If, after serving an

answer to any request for an admission, you obtain or become aware of any further

information pertaining to that request for admission, you are requested to serve a

supplemental answer setting forth such information.

3. As to every request for an admission which you fail to answer in whole or in part, the

subject matter of that admission will be deemed confessed and stipulated as fact to the

courts evidence record.

Definitions -    a. “You” and “your” include Plaintiff and any and all persons acting for or in concert with the named DARREN C. OBRECHT.

b. “Document” includes every piece of paper held in your possession or generated by you.

Requests for Plaintiff to, Admit or Deny the following 19 individual admissions separately and distinctly:

1. That Plaintiff has no evidence that the captioned case named Defendant ‘PAUL J HANSEN, an individual’, is in fact a statutory person.

2. That Plaintiff has no evidence that the captioned name ‘PAUL J HANSEN, an

individual’, is in fact a legal fiction.

3. That Plaintiff has no evidence that the captioned ‘PAUL J HANSEN, an individual’, is

in fact a corporate name.

4. That Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant has been residing in Omaha, Douglas

County, Nebraska in times subject to this case.

5. That Omaha as stated in Plaintiffs Complaint is a corporation.

6. That Douglas County as stated in Plaintiffs Complaint is a corporation.

7. That Nebraska as stated in Plaintiffs Complaint is a corporation.

8. That the subject land is owned by the Defendant as private land.

9. That the owner of the subject property is the man called Paul John Hansen, as signed below.

10. That no document exist that is fact proof that subject land had a legal nexus with any

corporate entity for a property tax due and owing.

11. That the Plaintiff has no fact evidence of a document with Defendants signature on its

face to support the Plaintiffs claim of a tax owed

12. That a Douglas County Treasures Certificate of Tax Sale No. 06-00746 is only

presumptive evidence of a tax owed.

13. That Plaintiff has fact evidence that Defendant had a contractual agreement with Douglas County for services or benefits that taxes are now due on as related to the subject of this case.

14. That Plaintiff has a witness who has personal knowledge that Defendant had a

contractual agreement with Douglas County for services or benefits that taxes are now

due on as related to the subject of this case.

15. That Plaintiff has fact evidence that Defendant has no right to a common-law trial by

jury to this case.

16. That Defendant did an act that waived his right to a common-law trial by jury to this case.

17. That Plaintiff has evidence in his possession that Defendant does not own subject

land in absolute.

18. That Plaintiff has evidence in his possession that the corporate Douglas County has a

legal interest in the subject land of this case.

19. That a native-born Nebraska man has a duty to pay for services and benefits to which

this case is addressing even if this same man has not asked for, or did not seek, any

benefits or services from the corporate Douglas County or any non-corporate entity called

Douglas County, as related to this case.

___________________________

Paul-John: Hansen, mailing location

5311 Navajo St

Council Bluffs, IA  51501-8716

pauljjhansen@hotmail.com

402-957-2853

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul-John: Hansen, hereby certify that on October 20, 2010, I caused a copy of the foregoing ‘Admissions #1’, to be served, by U.S. first-class mailing, post-paid, upon Plaintiff attorney:

BRASHEAR LLP, Kermit A. Brashear III (No. 19784) and John S. Hertzler (No. 21728)

North Old Mill, 711 North 108th Court, Omaha, Nebraska 68154-1714

  _______________________
         Paul-John: Hansen, not a name of a corporate person or a statutory person, but is a living man.

 

Personal notes below:  REMEMBER TO DOUBLE SPACE.

Personal jurisdiction is not yet found in the record!!

77-113. Person, defined.

The word person includes any number of persons and any partnership, limited liability company, association, joint-stock company, corporation, or other entity that may be the owner of property.

Source

Laws 1903, c. 73, § 10, p. 390;
R.S.1913, § 6298;
Laws 1921, c. 133, art. I, § 11, p. 546;
C.S.1922, § 5818;
C.S.1929, § 77-111;
R.S.1943, § 77-113;
Laws 1993, LB 121, § 492.

Annotations

For taxation purposes, a partnership is considered as an entityapart from the individual partners. Svoboda & Hannah v. Board of Equalization, 180 Neb. 215, 142 N.W.2d 328 (1966).

State is an entity that may be adversely affected by action of county boards of equalization, and a person within meaning of revenue act. State v. Odd Fellows Hall Assn., 123 Neb. 440, 243 N.W. 616 (1932).

Admissions:

Affirmative Defences:

Element requiered is:

  1. Upon whom dose chapter 77 have force and effect of law. 
  2. What proof do you possess that the Defendant if being in fact a native-born Nebraska man, not a statutory person, is included in the Chapter 77 stated statutes.
  3. What proof do you possess that a non-statutory person, perverbially called a natural man, has a duty to pay taxes on private possissions that the complaint has as the alleged subject property.
  4. What fact contrat do you claim, if any, enters the Defendant into a statutory contractual relationship as related to the alleged taxes due in the Complaint.
  5. What law do you rely upon that states that if Defendat is not a statutory person as defined in Chapter 77 as related to the Complaint, that Defendant has in fact a duty to pay taxes claimed in this Complaint.
  6. What evidence if ant does the Plaintif have that the subject property is not private property in ownership (and use).
  7. What proof does the Plaintiff possess that corporation called DOUGLAS COUNTY has a compelling interest in the subject private property.
  8. Compelling state interest.

 

 77-106. Money, defined.

The term money includes all kinds of coin and all kinds of paper, issued by or under authority of the United States, circulating as money.

Source

Laws 1903, c. 73, § 4, p. 389;
R.S.1913, § 6292;
Laws 1921, c. 133, art. I, § 5, p. 545;
C.S.1922, § 5812;
C.S.1929, § 77-105;
R.S.1943, § 77-106.

>>>

77-1801. Real property taxes; collection by sale; when.

Except for delinquent taxes on mobile homes, cabin trailers, manufactured homes, or similar property assessed and taxed as improvements to leased land, all real estate on which the taxes shall not have been paid in full, as provided by law, on or before the first Monday of March, after they become delinquent, shall be subject to sale on or after such date.

>>>

77-1818. Real property taxes; certificate of purchase; lien of purchaser; subsequent taxes.

The purchaser of any real property sold by the county treasurer for taxes shall be entitled to a certificate in writing, describing the real property so purchased, the sum paid, and the time when the purchaser will be entitled to a deed, which certificate shall be signed by the treasurer in his or her official capacity and shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of all prior proceedings. The purchaser acquires a perpetual lien of the tax on the real property, and if after the taxes become delinquent he or she subsequently pays any taxes levied on the property, whether levied for any year or years previous or subsequent to such sale, he or she shall have the same lien for them and may add them to the amount paid by him or her in the purchase.

>>>

77-1809. Real property taxes; delinquent tax sales; purchase by county; assignment of certificate of purchase; interest.

At all sales provided by law, the county board may purchase for the use and benefit, and in the name of the county, any real estate advertised and offered for sale when the same remains unsold for want of bidders. The county treasurer shall issue certificates of purchase of the real estate so sold in the name of the county. Such certificates shall remain in the custody of the county treasurer, who shall at any time assign the same to any person wishing to buy for the amount expressed on the face of the certificate and interest thereon at the rate specified in section 45-104.01, as such rate may from time to time be adjusted by the Legislature, from the date thereof. Such assignment shall be attested by the endorsement of the county clerk of his or her name on the back of such certificate, and such endorsement shall be made when requested by the county treasurer.

>>>

77-1902. Tax sale certificate; tax deed; right of holder to foreclosure; action in district court; limitation period.

When land has been sold for delinquent taxes and a tax sale certificate or tax deed has been issued, the holder of such tax sale certificate or tax deed may, instead of demanding a deed or, if a deed has been issued, by surrendering the same in court, proceed in the district court of the county in which the land is situated to foreclose the lien for taxes represented by the tax sale certificate or tax deed and all subsequent tax liens thereon, excluding any lien on real estate for special assessments levied by any sanitary and improvement district which real estate has not been previously offered for sale by the county treasurer, in the same manner and with like effect as in the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, except as otherwise specifically provided by sections 77-1903 to 77-1917. Such action shall only be brought within six months after the expiration of three years from the date of sale of any real estate for taxes or special assessments.

>>>

77-1909. Foreclosure proceedings; decree; contents.

In its decree, the court shall ascertain and determine the amount of taxes, special assessments, and other liens, interest, and costs chargeable to each particular item of real property and award to the plaintiff an attorney’s fee, unless waived by the plaintiff, in an amount equal to ten percent of the amount due which shall be taxed as part of the costs in the action and apportioned equitably as other costs.

>>>

77-1917. Foreclosure proceedings; redemption; subsequent taxes paid; conditions.

(1) Any person entitled to redeem real property may do so at any time prior to the institution of foreclosure proceedings by paying the county treasurer for the use of such holder of a tax sale certificate or his or her heirs or assigns the sum mentioned in his or her certificate, with interest thereon at the rate specified in section 45-104.01, as such rate may from time to time be adjusted by the Legislature, from the date of purchase to the date of redemption, together with all other taxes subsequently paid, whether for any year or years previous or subsequent to the sale, and interest thereon at the same rate from the date of such payment to the date of redemption.

(2) Any person entitled to redeem real property may do so at any time after the decree of foreclosure and before the final confirmation of the sale by paying to the clerk of the district court the amount found due against the property, with interest and costs to the date of redemption and, in addition thereto, when the real property has been sold at sheriff’s sale to a purchaser other than the plaintiff, any subsequent taxes paid by such purchaser, as shown by tax receipts filed by such purchaser with the clerk of the district court, with interest at the rate specified in section 45-104.01, as such rate may from time to time be adjusted by the Legislature, from the date or dates of payment of such taxes, and also interest on the purchase price at the same rate, for the use of the purchaser, from the date of sale to the date of redemption. During the pendency of a foreclosure action any person entitled to redeem any lot or parcel may do so by paying to the court the amount due with interest and costs, including attorney’s fees, provided for in section 77-1909, if requested in the foreclosure complaint. Within thirty days after receipt of payment of all amounts due, the holder of the tax sale certificate shall dismiss its claim in the foreclosure proceeding with respect to any redeemed tax sale certificate. The holder of the tax sale certificate shall be required to provide the county treasurer with written notice that a foreclosure suit has been instituted and provide the county treasurer with an affidavit setting forth the costs incurred in the foreclosure action and indicating whether attorney’s fees were requested in the foreclosure complaint.

(3) The person redeeming any lot or parcel shall be required to provide the county treasurer with an appropriate receipt evidencing the payment to the court of the amount due with interest and costs and the holder of the tax sale certificate shall file with the county treasurer notice of its dismissal of the claim in the foreclosure proceeding.

>>>

NOTES-

Nebraska Registry – SOS:

Promulgated rules to person, and another objects subject, property.

Nullity

Motion to dismiss.

Land Patent filed, 30 days to clear,

Undisputable fact:

Averments:

Affirmative defenses:

Posted in Taxes / Property | Leave a comment

Credit Card Agreements

Posted on October 20, 2010 by Paul John Hansen

Nebr. Rev. Statute 45-1,113

Agreement must be signed!  Bank must hold original signed document if challenged.

Posted in Banking/Money Issues | Leave a comment