Going to court.

You can easily represent yourself with a little knowledge. It is scary, it is demeaning, it can be
empowering, and it will be work. There are many places to learn about the court process, my
favorites (and I’m a total amateur with no formal legal training). First all cases start off with a
complaint. The complaint states the facts, the evidence, an ‘injury’ and a demand for ‘damages’.
We never go to court because were good people and dislike airing our business in court if we can
avoid it. However sometimes we have to defend against someone else’s’ claim against us. The
Plaintiff always wins, the defendant always looses. If the defendant goes free what did he ‘win’,
if the Plaintiff loses what did it cost him? We want to become the Plaintiff, so how do we do that?
The Plaintiff is the Creditor and the Defendant is the Debtor. In Common Law the Defendant is
innocent till proven guilty, in Admiralty1 (the current system-the Defendant is guilty until proven
innocent). We file a counterclaim. Now we are the counterPlaintiff and they are the
counterDefendant. That feels better. Now we have Power and the judge has to serve us
(supposedly). Next there are rules of court. First off there are 4 different forms of LAW listed in
the u.S. Constitution-Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty Law, and Maritime Law2. Which
form do you as the Plaintiff wish to declare? In Common Law no statutes and codes,
regulations, and legislated laws apply and the jury is the tribunal who decides the outcome. Only
an injured party can sue you. If the People of the STATE OF TEXAS are suing you, that is a
fiction (the STATE OF TEXAS only exists in someone’s mind) and as such can they be put on
the stand to be cross-examined? As you can see, our system is not functioning as it originally was
intended and is set up to proceed in Equity where the Judge can arbitrarily decide any way he
chooses and you are bound by his decisions. Admiralty only applies to the Sea obviously and
only in times of WAR. Are we at war? Yes, we have been under emergency war powers since
the time of Abe Lincoln. There is always a declared War,-War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on
Poverty, etc. How about getting an attorney? An attorney3 does not have to do what you tell him
and can actually go against your wishes because once you sign up you are legally declared a ward
of the court, a child incapable of representing yourself, unable to make decisions for yourself.
They really really want to assign you a ‘free’ public defender so they can keep you from making
any of those unpleasant, crucial demands for justice. You will not be able to learn enough to put
on a lengthy trial of examining witness, etc but you can make all of your points in your writing
and what I do is prepare everything I wish to say in a prepared statement to read off of. Bring a
digital voice recorder and keep it in your pocket, you can’t imagine how handy it is later to be
able to ‘transcribe’ what was said, and also bring a 3rd party to witness the trial and later swear an
affidavit stating they heard “….” in court that day (from your transcripts and recording to refresh
their memory) otherwise you have no ‘evidence’. Without it you will not be able to remember
what was said. Often they will not allow you to record courtroom actions but as a sovereign I
claim it is my right to record, however I have never had the digital recorder not go through the
metal detector guardians. If I get all my points into the record in my writing then not much needs
to be added in open court anyway. This system works great. All your points get entered and you
can learn to say ‘I object’, ‘I don’t’ consent’ and ‘I don’t understand’ to anything stated and it
will get into the record. Next, lets look at places to study the law for a better chance, 1. Bill
Thornton’s site: http://1215.org/lawnotes/index.html, where you can spend an enormous amount
of time, I highly recommend getting his video package for $70 here
:http://1215.org/seminar/denniswhipple.htm and then to see how the Equity court will operate
Jurisdictionary does a great job at giving a study course at home for representing yourself
http://www.jurisdictionary.com/ Peter Graves has done a great service here. So you have a claim
against you and you have been notified by the court and or opposition party. You have 21 days to

1
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html
2
http://www.svpvril.com/meador_it.html
3
http://www.usavsus.info/AttorneyBarCA.html
file an ‘answer’ to the complaint from the file stamped date on the original filing (not the time
they served you). You file a court document that mirrors the header of their complaint with your
name in the upper left corner and the name of the court, the parties listed, ect. See my examples at
this site and when you get your complaint it will be in the correct form for your system so copy it
for your writings. Label it in New Times Roman 16 Point “ANSWER” and then write their
points number 1. Blah blah blah whatever it accuses you of then below that you would list your
answer: either ADMIT, if you agree to it, DENY, if you disagree with it, or I HAVE NO
KNOWLEDGE, if you don’t know. Also file a separate ‘DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL’ same
format as usual, and just has to be in writing to the court. The judge works for the Bankers
ultimately and for the Corporation known as the UNITED STATES, and it’s subsidiaries STATE
OF TEXAS, etc., COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, etc., so don’t expect justice if dealing with a
Bank or Corporate government entity from a judge. You can recuse (dismiss) any judge for any
reason one time and for good reason anytime. You have a right to Jury trial in any matter over
$20 (7th amendment) and in any criminal case (traffic tickets are technically criminal) so demand
if it’s less than $20 say ‘here’ and hand them a $20 and say ‘dispute settled’. Even though the
average man and woman know little law they will give you more justice than the corrupt system.
If one juror votes against the Plaintiff, the Defendant goes free.
Then make 3 or 4 copies, you will send 1 copy off Certified Mail with a ‘proof of service’ (signed
and mailed by someone NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE) to the opposition (the prosecutor or the
attys for the other side). You will make 3 or 4 copies of the proof of service. The original wet-
ink signed proof of service will be handed in, with the original wet-inked signed ‘Answer’ and
entered into the courthouse at the Clerks office where they will stamp the copy entered into the
court’s record, you will also present an extra copy (for your records to prove entering into the
record) and the Clerk will file stamp your copy. The Clerk will assist you often with corrections
you need to make. IF they flat out refuse to take your filing, write ‘file on demand’ across the top
in pen and ask to speak to the supervisor and get it entered, don’t take no for an answer, they have
no right to deny your RIGHTS to be heard in court and your plea is your RIGHT. See: TITLE 18
USCS Section 2071 (2002) Section 2071. (Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally)4.
Once they receive your docs they are considered filed. They will need to see your proof of
service which if its an original suit started by you- you will have to physically serve the other
side, but if you are responding to a suit then mail service is acceptable. So you will have sent 1
copy off to the ‘oppositition’ first, then enter 1 (original wet-inked signed copy) to the Clerk of
the court who will file stamp it and enter it into the record and have 1 copy file stamped for
evidence for your records. That’s the same process for all filings. Then to get better position, you
will file a ‘counterclaim’ wherein you will state your complaint, the facts substantiating your
injury, and your claim for damages. If you are going to use Sovereignty and Common Law then
you will also claim they lack jurisdiction in your counterclaim because the court has no
jurisdiction over a sovereign.
The opposition will kick and scream to get rid of your counterclaim. They have 21 days to
‘answer’ it, if they don’t answer within 21 days from the date you got it file stamped, go to the
clerk of the court and demand (in writing) a default judgement in your favor. They will probably
file a MOTION to dismiss or to strike or something within the 21 days to avoid having to
‘ANSWER’ it. You will then file an ‘OPPOSITION’ to their motion. Once again you will go
through their MOTION point by point and try to destroy their position. Look up their case cites
and see if it applies to you, if not turn it around on them and show it doesn’t apply. Failure to
object and demand things will get you ‘nothing’. Silence is tantamount to agreement. There is
Honor and Dishonor in court. You will get nothing if you don’t ask for it. When you make you
case in your ‘Complaint’ you should list each statement of fact by number. 1. The Bank did not
send me a Notice of Default. 2. The Bank engaged in fraud by not disclosing the elements of the

4
look up any Title at Cornell law : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18
 contract at the time I signed the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust. Now when they
‘ANSWER’ your complaint they have to admit, deny, etc each point. If you make a long
statement listing everything they did as one long statement all they need is one element to be ‘I
have no knowledge’ and they can put that down as their answer. If you address each issue
individually they can’t snake out of it, and instead have to answer each numer individually. To
know case law is a large subject and this is where you win or lose along with your writing.
Findlaw can help you verify case cites. See here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=case&court=us&vol=226&page=260 Sign up its free. Then you can look up all the
supreme court cases and some others.
One caveat. Many times patriot websites and others will cite case law and when I look it up it
doesn’t exist. Often times it does exist. However the opposing side if they are eager will assign a
gopher to look up your cites and if they can prove they are false, you will be seen as a liar and a
fraud. So be careful using case cites. That said you would have a wonderful source of case law at
various websites that can lead to interesting uses for you. I look up cites I can and then write
‘verified’ after them (I can remove later) to tell me which ones I have looked up and know for
sure are good law. On good thing to look up and read is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
You can read it online http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/index.html it’s not overly long and
lets you know what standard court procedures are. They are applicable to every state. I assume
all the states have a statute that brings them in automatically. Check it out.
You can easily use Microsoft Word to add numbering like legal paperwork and make excellent
looking documents. There are sites for legal interested people such as http://suijurisclub.net/
You can ask questions there. Sui Juris means I am over 18, of sound mind and can handle my
own affairs. In the case law below just because I didn’t verify it doesn’t mean it’s not there, I can
only look up Supreme Court decisions and California decisions. If you want to bring evidence
into a court you have to have certified documents under the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure.
To get certified Documents, it could be an actual printed book, but the easier way is to go to a law
library and find the page with the quote and have the notary or law librarian photo copy the page
and stamp it ‘certified’, now it has to be admitted. If the opposition doesn’t have certified copies
object to them being admitted. If they are certified copies of Promissory Notes or Deeds of Trust
object as copies don’t have ‘your signature’ on them and are hearsay evidence.
READ your Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, and demand your inalienable (not
lienable) Rights.Here is some of my collection of case law:
NEW STUFF
Next up, is the most important part of going to court:
Court is a ‘show’ put on to convince the people of validity of the proceedings and it’s all ‘lets make a deal’.
There is very little law going on there, it’s whole purpose is to contract with you.
Think of everything the judge says as an ‘offer’, not a command. There is a set series of ‘ offers’ that get you
to ‘consent’ to their having ‘jurisdiction’ (control) over you. As I stated, I find it best to have a prewritten
script of what to say to read off of when my ‘name’ is called. You will have to do some serious reading to
understand the concepts behind this but basically each man and woman are sovereigns in this country with no
higher authority over them and as such the only thing the courts (which are private corporations) can do is to
get you agree to their offers unless you have actually ‘injured’ somebody and they are ‘joined’ to the plaintiff
as a complaining party.
The following is my script, I read off of and the answers I give to the prearranged questions. I know the Judge
will ask these questions at every arraignment and I know how to counter them. By practicing and getting an
understanding of the concepts you can make your case without faltering. If the judge refuses to let you read
you case cites into the record remember that is an ‘offer’ and you just start in again reading them after the 3rd
time he will give up denying you your right or you have proof positive that he is a private pirate and using
threat and duress (a man with a gun) to control you instead of being fair and impartial. Bring a friend to be
your counsel and give moral support, I have a whole page of challenges to you having to be a licensed atty.
 OPENING STATEMENT
COURT: Is JOHN DOE present, Step forward JOHN DOE (you stand up but don’t cross the bar)
jd:“I am here on that matter (not case)judge, I am one of the people5 of [your republic state] in this court of
record6am presenting myself John Doe in upper and lower case letters as the authorized representative for
JOHN DOE in all capital letters who is an ens legis, legal fiction and who I believe is the Defandant in this
matter. I am presenting myself by special visitation7 and not generally to challenge jurisdiction8 only.
JUDGE: Are you a lawyer?, if youre not a lawyer you cant be an authorized representative
jd: I object9, I am the authorized representative and unless you can show proof of claim that I am not.
JUDGE: step forward, cross the bar, stand next to the defendants table
jd: I will cross the bar as long as I can retain all my unalienable rights and waive none, do you agree?
JUDGE: no, cross the bar now or I will hold you in contempt of court
jd: I will cross the bar as long as I can retain all my unalienable rights and waive none, do you agree?
JUDGE: bailiff explain to this man he has to cross the bar.
jd: For and on the record for the 3rd time, I will cross the bar with all my rights or is the Judge showing
malicious intent10 to deny me my rights?
JUDGE: Fine you can step forward with whatever rights you think you have
JUDGE: JOHN DOE, you have been charged with violating code blah blah blah
jd: I object, I don’t understand how the court can proceed without first proving jurisdiction?
JUDGE; objection noted, or overruled, or ‘this court has jurisdiction’
jd: I object, I will only accept proof of claim in writing that establishes jurisdiction
JUDGE: you have constitutional rights to representation, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed for you, do you wish me to appoint an atty for you?\
jd: I object, the court has not shown cause to proceed (no proof of claim of jurisdiction)
JUDGE: I can’t hear you (can’t hear you unless an atty is appointed or you are allowed to represent yourself –
pro se or pro per)
jd: I object, the court has not shown proof of claim to proceed
JUDGE: I am going to appoint an atty for you, or I am going to order a psych evaluation for you, etc
jd: I object, I conditionally accept your statement based upon proof of claim that you have personam
jurisdiction over me.
JUDGE: if you want to represent yourself, you will have to fill out a Farreta form (trap)
jd: I object, I have not been shown cause that this court can proceed
jd: I have not been shown a valid charging instrument11 (they cannot have a lawful arraignment)
JUDGE: will the prosecutor present the complaint or charging instrument to the defendant
5
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are
sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440,
455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472. verified
. “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers
are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government
exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886) verified

6
. A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate
designated generally to hold it, and preceding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a
perpetual memorial. Jones v Jones 188 Mo. App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,229: Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , Mass. , 171, per Shaw, C.J. See,
also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406,155 N.E. 688, 689 - Blacks 4th pg426 verified
7
special visitation does not grant jurisdiction but generally does.
8
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one
or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) (Marshall)verified from: United
States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) verified
9
you object to everything the judge does, practice, practice, practice till it comes out automatically
10
Rule of 3’s.= First time is Knowledge, Second Time is intent, Third time is Willfullness
11
FedRulesCrimProceedure Rule 10. Arraignment (a) In General.
jd: I object, I have shown I am the authorized representative of the Defendant and not the defendant
JUDGE: You have the sworn complaint (check to verify the officer who witnessed the ‘crime’ signed it ask
who the signature is from if it’s not the officer its’ hearsay and inadmissible)
jd: I object, the charging instrument is invalid12
JUDGE: how do you plead to the charges?
jd: I object, I don’t understand13 the nature and cause of the charges and no proof of claim of jurisdiction has
been shown
JUDGE: I am not here to give you legal advice, you need to see an atty for that, I will plead not guilty for the
defendant
jd: I object, on behalf of the defendant I revoke any contracts and any power of atty that any member of this
court is presuming to have to speak for the defendant and accept the oath of office of the judge as binding bi-
lateral agreement with the defendant. Furthermore the Judge is accepting surety for the Defendant and
showing intent to represent the defendant in this matter by speaking on the behalf of the defendant.
JUDGE: objection noted, you will have an opportunity to put all of your objections and challenges to
jurisdiction in writing and present it at the next hearing, on XXXXXXX
jd: I will need to see that in writing
JUDGE : you will be given the minutes [look them over for errors like Defendant present and failure to note
challenge to jurisdiction written on minutes, it’s all lets make a deal and if you fail to object, you agree-
maxim of law: he who fails to deny, agrees- look up www.marcstevens.net/ for Corpus Delecti and Standing
for ea state, and include them. Practice being talked over by the judge and bringing them back on point, they
are word masters who will disrupt your thought process, and presentation so have someone beat up on you
role playing the judge and you will do much better.

An arraignment must be conducted in open court and must consist of: (1) ensuring that the defendant has a copy of the indictment
or information ( rule 10)
“Even when the person who makes the constitutionally required "Oath or affirmation" is a lawyer, the only function that she performs
in giving sworn testimony is that of a witness.”, ” The Fourth Amendment requires that arrest warrants be based "upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" -- a requirement that may be satisfied by an indictment returned by a grand jury, but not by
the mere filing of criminal charges in an unsworn information signed by the prosecutor. GO>Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103,
GO>117 (1975); see also GO>Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) verified
“It is plain from this fundamental enunciation, as wells from the books of authority on criminal matters in the common law, that the
probable cause referred to, and which must be supported by oath or affirmation, must be submitted to the committing magistrate
himself, and not merely to an official accuser, so that he, the magistrate, may exercise his own judgment on the sufficiency of the
ground for believing the accused person guilty: and this ground must amount to a probable cause of belief or suspicion of the party’s
guilt. In other words, the magistrate ought to have before him the oath of the real accuser, presented either in the form of an affidavit
or taken down by himself on a personal examination, exhibiting the facts on which the charge is based, and on which the belief or
suspicion of guilt is founded.” “The rule which was established was that the warrant should issue “only upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation of the person making the charge, in which should be stated the facts within his own knowledge
constitution the grounds of such belief or suspicion.” United States v. Tureaud, 20 Fed Rptr 623 (1884) verified

12
U.S> Amendment IV:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ anytime an officer detains
you it is an arrest and if the charging instrument wasn’t signed at the arrest, if it was not signed by arresting officer or an injured party
didn’t complain, it is void]

13
Amendment VI:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
CARL MILLERS favorites:

“If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the
legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both
apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) verified

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the
land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those
only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137 (1803) verified
sentence

“Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S., verified

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U. S., 230 F
2d 486, 489 verified

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) verified

A conviction for exerting a constitutional right is void Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262
(1963) verified Not a quote- a summary

“The Court, in fact, has recognized that the word "willfully" in these statutes generally connotes a
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as
"bad faith or evil intent," Murdock, 290 U.S. at GO>398, or "evil motive and want of justification in
view of all the financial circumstances of the taxpayer," Spies, 317 U.S. at GO>498,” United States v.
Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973) verified

“By its terms, § 1983 "creates a species of tort liability that, on its face, admits of no immunities."
GO>Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, GO>417. Its language is absolute and unqualified, and no mention
is made of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that may be asserted. Rather, the statute imposes
liability upon "every person" (held in GO>Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, to encompass municipal corporations) who, under color of state law or custom,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Owen v. City of Independence,
445 U.S. 622 (1980) verified

“It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement: an unconstitutional act is not a law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
(1886) verified

“There is no constitutional principle that gives one person the right to give another's property to a third
party” Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) verified

“This Court has held that…the act declares a willful failure to observe the directions a penal offense, an
evil motive is a constituent element of the crime.” United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1933) verified

“The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have
been given by the people. It hardly seems necessary to reiterate that ours is a dual form of government; that
in every state there are two governments -- the state and the United States. Each State has all governmental
powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the
States, or reserved to themselves. The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only
such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted.
In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or
limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the
discretion of its members.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) Roberts lead op. verified

“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same
rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the
government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a
law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end
justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction
of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should
resolutely set its face.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) Brandeis dissenting

“The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and
limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the
people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the
Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or
secured are left under the protection of the States.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) Waite
lead opinon

“The Fifth Amendment provides that no, person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself." The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a
witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions
put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might
incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. “ Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) White lead op.
Verified

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but
a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but
a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the
federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,
225 F2d 938, at 941.

History:

• Napoleon Bonaparte - "History is a fable agreed upon."

• George Santayana (Spanish-American philosopher) - "History is a pack of lies, about events that
never happened, told by people who weren't there"
• Henry Ford - "History is bunk"
• "Written History is an Act of Faith" (Charles A. Beardy)
Thomas Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence is as important today as it was in 1776,

"... it is their [your] right, it is their [your] duty ... to provide new guards for their [your] future
security. ... and such is now the necessity which constrains them [you] to alter their [your] former
systems of government."
The Revolution was fought over liberty of choice

SOVEREIGNT CASE LAW, [THERE ARE MANY CASE LAW CITES LISTED IN MY OTHER
WRITINGS AT SCRIBD, LOOK FOR THEM] :

“In this country, written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the
people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments, and the provisions of
Magna Charta were incorporated into Bills of [110 U.S. 532] Rights. They were limitations upon all
the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial” .Hurtado v. California, 110 US
516. verified

“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty,
and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we
familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of
this sovereignty. ..." [Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and
limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the
people." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

COMMON LAW CALIF: CALIFORNIA CODES verified CIVIL CODE SECTION 22-22.2
22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. 22.1. The will of the
supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution. (b) By statutes. 22.2. The common law of
England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

"for a man shall not prescribe in that which the law of common right gives," Noy. 20; "for the common
law is the best and most common birthright that the subject hath, for the safeguard and defense of
his rights of person and property," Co.Litt. 142, a. Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 410 (1838)
verified
" On page 1238 of Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition) we find the entry: "OMNES HOMINES
AUT LIBERI SUNT AUT SERVI. All men are freemen or slaves. Inst. 1, 3, pr.; Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2."
•This Latin dictum declares you must be either a "freeman" or a "slave."

“The vagueness doctrine " 'bars enforcement of "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an
act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as
to its application." ' [Citations.]" People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1115 (Acuna).) A
vague law "not only fails to provide adequate notice to those who must observe its strictures, but also
'impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc
and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.' [Citation.]"
(Id. at p. 1116.) In deciding the adequacy of any notice afforded those bound by a legal restriction, we are
guided by the principles that "abstract legal commands must be applied in a specific context," and that,
although not admitting of "mathematical certainty," the language used must have " 'reasonable specificity.'
" (Id. at pp. 1116-1117, italics in original.) In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 716; 153
P.3d 282] verified

“When the Revolution took place, the people of each State became themselves sovereign, and, in that
character, hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them for their own
common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution.” Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan,
44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845) verified

MAGNA CARTA:
34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement
whereby a freeman may lose his court.

“Sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed
in our constitutional schools. It is an appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. I
firmly believe, that the idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic, is incompatible with the
existence and permanent foundation of civil liberty, and the rights of property. The history of man, in all
ages, has shown the necessity of the strongest checks upon power, whether it be exercised by one man, a
few or many. Our revolution broke up the foundations of sovereignty in government; and our written
constitutions have carefully guarded against the baneful influence of such an idea henceforth and forever. I
can not, therefore, recognize the appeal to the sovereignty of the state, as a justification of the act in
question. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501 verified

“Although the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, it does not
follow that the National Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for expressing the
people's will.” Alden vs Maine, 527 US 706 (1999) Souter Dissenting verified

“Since, in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase
are ordinarily construed to exclude it. 5 But there is no hard [312 U.S. 600, 605] and fast rule of exclusion.
The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the
statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation
within the scope of the law.” 6 UNITED STATES v. COOOPER CORPORATION, 312 U.S. 600
(1941) verified

“Even if our examination of the Act stopped here, we could hardly assent to this conclusion. There is an old
and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or
privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. 20 It has
been stated, in cases in which there were extraneous [330 U.S. 258, 273] and affirmative reasons
for believing that the sovereign should also be deemed subject to a restrictive statute, that this rule
was a rule of construction only.” UNITED STATES v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258 (1947) verified findlaw dec.2009

“By its terms, § 1983 "creates a species of tort liability that, on its face, admits of no immunities."
GO>Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, GO>417. Its language is absolute and unqualified, and no mention
is made of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that may be asserted. Rather, the statute imposes
liability upon "every person" (held in GO>Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, to encompass municipal corporations) who, under color of state law or custom, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
verified

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.
[Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.] not verified

“Whatever springes the state may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the state confers,
the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the
name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923) verified

When charged with violating a law, one should subpoena the certification of the act by the state supreme
court. One should also subpoena the Attorney General of the state to testify to the constitutionality of the
act
Well, you need 3 things to be a nation under international law: 1. de jure money 2. de jure law 3. a de jure
army

“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and
even judgments.” US vs Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. (1878) verified

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not
according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal.
652 not verified cant find it

“what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Law; all the rest is
Commentary” Talmud , Shabbat 3 id ?

“ The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without
compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money,
may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered
as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing
as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government
of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this
country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have
not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld. It seems, however, to be supposed
that, as the power was taken from the states, it could not have been intended that it should
disappear entirely, and therefore it must, in some way, adhere to the general government,
notwithstanding the tenth amendment and the nature of the constitution. The doctrine that a power
not expressly forbidden may be exercised would, as I have observed, change the character of our
government.” JUILLIARD v. GREENMAN. 110 U.S. 421 (1884) verified

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private
business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books
and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of
his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in
accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity
of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to
the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

“Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658
F.2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982

Jurisdiction
"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial,
decides at his own peril."Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y)
607, 608.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is
not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264
(1821) (Marshall) verified from: United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) verified

"No suit can be sustained against a state; but an unconstitutional law affords no justification to a state
officer for an act injurious to an individual. The officer is not the state, and can set up no exemption under
it, unless he act within the authority of law." Astrom v Hammond (1842), 2 Fed.Cas, 71, Fed.Cas.No. 596,
3 Mclean 107.
" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another, no number of individuals [in
a deliberative body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object, are
injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the public at large." People v. Fisher, 14
Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501.

DUTY TO RESPOND

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States vs. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th cir.
04/08/1977).

“In the latter case we said that the right to be heard "has little reality or worth unless one is informed
that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether [395 U.S. 337, 340] to appear
or default, acquiesce or contest." 339 U.S., at 314 .” SNIADACH v. FAMILY FINANCE
CORP., 395 U.S. 337 (1969) verified

CONTRACT

The contract entered into with the bank was unconscionable in that it didn’t contain the necessary
elements of a lawful contract as declared in Blacks Law: “an agreement between two or more parties,
preliminary step in making of which is offer by one and acceptance by other, in which minds of parties
meet and concur in understanding of terms.” Lee vs. Travelers’ Insurance Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. 173
S.C. 185, 175 S.E. 429 .

CONSTITUTION

It has been long settled that a promise made in consideration of an act which is forbidden by the law
is void. It will not be questioned that an act forbidden by the Constitution of the United
States, which is the supreme law, is against law. CRAIG V. MISSOURI, 29 U. S. 410 (1830)

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land,
the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only
which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137 (1803) verified

“There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the
United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and
whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen
of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those
governments will be different from those he has under the other.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.
542 (1875) verified

“And, if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of
sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and
inoperative, because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal
jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the
cases in which it is expressly granted.” Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845) verified
JURY RIGHTS, NULLIFICATION
The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. (1804) Samuel Chase supreme court
justice 1741-1811

"It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment,
and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams, 1771

“The judge cannot direct a verdict, it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of
both law and facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920) holmes lead op. verified

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972): "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's
exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

“On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to
the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is,
on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully,
within your power of decision.” Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794) JAY
lead op. verified

4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1006, 1969): "If the jury feels
the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to
the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the
defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances

RIGHT TO SUE AND NOT BE DISMISSED

“Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and "it is
the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy
encroachments thereon."” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) verified

“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.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) verified

BANKS FALSIFYING STATEMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY COURT:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 9 > § 152
Prev | Next
§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery
A person who—
(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court
charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors
or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;
(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11;
(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under
penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11;
(4) knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any
such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an agent, proxy, or attorney;
(5) knowingly and fraudulently receives any material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a
case under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11;
(6) knowingly and fraudulently gives, offers, receives, or attempts to obtain any money or property,
remuneration, compensation, reward, advantage, or promise thereof for acting or forbearing to act in any
case under title 11;
(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case
under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the
provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property
of such other person or corporation;