No License to Practice Law In michigan

Under the respective case Docket numbers, referenced hereinbelow, the afrorementioned Defendants did act in their individual/private capacities, Doing Business As d/b/a Judges and Attorneys, without License to Practice Law in the STATE OF MICHIGAN as mandated by the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION OF 1963, Article 6 19; MCL 600.916; PEOPLE ex REL. HUGHES v. MAY, 3 Mich. 598 (1855); OP. ATTY. GEN. 194748, No. 803, P. 740, and other authorities, thus without jurisdiction. The MICHIGAN BAR ASSOCIATION, acknowledged as a Pubic Body Corporate (SEE MCL 600.901; 913.916; 913.946 and other authorities) possess no license to practice law in the State of Michigan, STATE BAR of MICHIGAN v. LANSING, 361 Mich. 185 (1960), nor does the STATE BAR, or its parent, the American Bar Association, issue any licenses. Further, to reveal the utter deceit and criminal intentions of the BAR ASSOCIATIONS collectively, and the dissemblers that created it, is the following cite from 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 9: In view of the decision that creation of Public Corporations by special acts is prohibited by State Constitutions, the State Bar Act creating the State Bar Corporation as a Public Corporation has no viability, and designation of State Bar as a Public Corporation has no legal efficacy. BRIDEGROOM v. STATE BAR, 550 P.2d. 1089, 27 Ariz. App. 47. Also, the MICHIGAN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION is not registered as a corporation with the MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE, and thus, does not legally exist, (See records thereof). The MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT having inherent powers to regulate the qualifications of persons of practice law in the STATE OF MICHIGAN (See MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION OF 1963, Article 6 1, 4 and 5), such as requirements in Education, Character, Fitness, and Examination Components, (See MCL 600.943; 600.937; and 600.940) does not, nor can issue a license to practice law without violating the Separation of Powers Clause of the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, Article 3 2, and the practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/STATE, SCHWARE v. BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 353 U.S. 234, 77 S.Ct. 752 (1957). Said license can only be issued by a duly constituted, State Board of Law Examiners within the Department of Licensing and Regulations, established by the Legislature as authorized by the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION of 1963, Article 4 1, as it is the Legislature which must give force to the licensing mandate of Article 6 19; and the Legislative Records of February 03, 1969 on House Bills 2115-2116, wherein such Board was sought, but denied, further substantiates the fact that the reason why these Bills were denied is due to the actual breach of the Separation of Powers Clause, in most of those in the Legislature and other Government Offices are Members of the BAR (See any Bar Journal) and a Judge has to be an attorney under the BAR before he/she can be a judge. In accordance with the BAR RULES, creating a ruling class which is forbidden by Article 4 4 of the Organic united States Constitution of 1781. Further proof of such violations of the Separation of Powers Clause are found in the case: PEOPLE ex rel. LEONARD v. PAPP, 194 N.W. 2d. 693, 386 Mich. 672 (1972), wherein

it is stated that: Conduct of Prosecution on behalf of PEOPLE by PROSECUTOR is an EXECUTIVE ACT. Under the Self-Executing provisions of the 13th Article of the Organic Constitution for the united States of America (1781), as was duly proposed at the Second Session of the 11th Congress and ratified in 1820, the aforementioned Defendants, by automatic operation of law, forfeited there United States Citizenships the moment they were made a Member of the BAR by the Michigan Supreme Court, being deemed an OFFICER of the Court (See MCL 600.901; American Jurisprudence 2d. 5; In re LORD, 97 N.W. 2d. 255, 287 and 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 4) as such act lies further direct contradiction the NO TITLES OF NOBILITY CLAUSE, Article 1 9, Clause 8 and Article 1 10, Clause 1 of the Federal Constitution of the UNITED States of America (1846), and as such the aforementioned Defendants MUST have a Foreign Registration Statement on file with the Michigan Secretary of State in accordance with U.S.C.A. Title 22 611-619, RABINOWITZ v. KENNEDY, 376 U.S. 605, 84 S.Ct. 919 (1964); U.S.C.A. Title 18 219 and 951; MCL 750.213 1 (b)(c) and 4 (a), which they do not. Further, under their status as an officer of the court, they are operating under competing and conflicting interests, another fact ruled as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CULVER v. SULLIVAN, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708 (1980); GLASSER v. U.S., 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457. Further, with the STATE OF MICHIGAN, as well as all Cities, Counties and the like being Corporate entities. (See MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION of 1963, Article 7 1; In re CERTIFIED QUESTION, 465 Mich. 537, 543; 638 N.W. 2d. 409 (2002); STREAT v. VERMILYA, 268 Mich. 1; 255 N.W. 604 (1934); JOHNSON v. GENESEE COUNTY, 235 F.Supp. 567, it is unconstitutional for any de facto Corporate entity to create or attain parity with sentient, living being, i.e. flesh-and-blood man, such as Complaintants. (See PENHALLOW v. DOANES ADMINISTRATORS, 3 Dall. 54; TRUSTEE OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE v. WOODWARD, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); WATER-PIERCE OIL COMPANY v. TEXAS, 117 U.S. 28, 20 S.Ct. 28 (1900). The aforementioned Defendants are to be bound by Oath and Allegiance to follow and uphold the Constitution both STATE and FEDERAL as mandated by MCL 15.151 et. seq. and U.S.C.A. Title 4 101 and 102 et. seq., as well as all Laws, Codes, Statutes, and the like which stem therefrom their Constitutions, as the Source of Law, to deliberately violate any part of said Constitution, but also the flesh-and-blood men and women of America, which are acts of usurpation, tyranny, treason, sedition and the like. The aforementioned Defendants have openly, willingly and intentionally violated International Laws and Treaties, i.e., Constitutional Impermissible Misapplication of their Laws, Codes, Statutes etc., due to the Complaintants being (1) Sentient, living beings, i.e., Sovereigns;

There, every man is independent of ALL laws except those prescribed by nature (e.g., gravity). He is not bound by ANY institutions formed by his fellowmen with out his consent. CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. 70 (1796). And (2), Complaintants are not parties to i.e., named therein, nor signatories to any Constitutions, STATE, FEDERAL, and the like, nor have taken any Oath or Affirmation to uphold or be bound by such Constitutions and the issue of those who are, is succinctly resolved by Article 6 of the Constitution, and who shall be Contractually bound to support such Constitutions in consideration for offices of Public Trust and those Benefits of Public Service and Public Employment. The State Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial Officers both of the UNITED STATES and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution And furthermore, no power of Congress, defined and set forth in Article 8 1 operated directly or indirectly upon Complaintants. Thus, NO Laws, Codes, Statutes and the like, which stem therefrom any Constitutions, as the source of Law, applies to Complaintants, nor ever has. (See U.S.C.A. Title 44 1505 (a)); the definition of PEOPLE as in WE THE PEOPLE, as to who these PEOPLE are: The popular leaders who in all ages have called themselves THE PEOPLE, Blackstones Commentaries 438; Pallentines Law Dictionary; and PADLEFORD, FAY and Co. v. MAYOR AND ALDERMAN, CITY OF SAVANNAH, 14 GA. 438, 520, 211 U.S. 78 (1854), wherein it was stated: No private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The STATES are a party to it.