You are on page 1of 40

COURT PROCESS FRAUDS REGULARILY PRACTICED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3oP-t-YGJM
RETURN THE SUMMONS FAMILY COURT (LONG ARM JURISDICTION)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6HNEcbdr0Q
TRINSEY VS PAGLIARO STOP THE COURT BREAK JURISDICTION

UN REBUTTED THE AFFIDAVIT IS JUDGEMENT IN LAW

SUMMONS IS TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION WHICH IS VOLUNTARY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81LcNYPQi0Q
DISMISS TRAFFIC TICKETS SIGNATURE EQUALS CONSENT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0URuTLH93k
TRAFFIC COURT DEFENSES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vieooNH-SkE
Rod class Lawyers and their supposed authority

Get a Good Attorney? Read This First

Are the court actors a fraud? If so here is what to do. The


Remedy for all of American is hand, and its not the election, it's
up to you.

By David-William, thelibertybeacon.com from April 15, 2016

ABA liberty and justice Connecticut Attorney, Simeon E. Baldwin, invited


a group of 100 Attorneys from 21 states and the District of Columbia to
meet on the 21st day of August of 1878, at Saratoga Springs, New York, to
organize the American B.A.R. Association. Most of the men were elite
corporate lawyers. Author Jethro K. Lieberman described early ABA
membership: You could become an invitee to membership if you were
white, Protestant and native born, preferably with a British surname, and
attended the elite law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Columbia; only
then did you have a chance of prospering. Catholics, Jews, women and
blacks were automatically excluded from membership. This exclusion was
necessary to the elite bars sense of identity. Any fraternity is defined not
only by whom it accepts but also by whom it excludes. The Association
also pinned the stigma of immorality on the lower class of lawyers as
shysters who talked, dressed and acted differently.

In 1902 the ABA quit meeting regularly at Saratoga Springs; from that
point to 1936 it met in different cities as a means to attract new
members. Thus ABA membership grew to 29,008 in 1936. Other statistics
demonstrated the same story. The bar went from just two sections, each
with two officers, to 14 sections with 960 officers in 1935. The number of
committees rose from 18 in 1902 to 27 in 1935. Membership revenues in
those years increased from $8,255 to $197,877.66.

The ABAs fight against the New Deal led more liberal attorneys to start
their own society called the National Lawyers Guild. A mixture of
populists, Marxists, and progressive attorneys, mostly on the East Coast,
formed the guild in 1937. This move was also motivated by the fact that
the ABA represented a largely elite base of lawyers associated with big
business while ignoring the legal needs of the lower classes and
minorities.

In 1950, the 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and


determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists
under definition. Thus, any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R.
will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.

Blacks Law Dictionaries 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st: Lawyers: A person
learned in the law as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor, a person licensed
to practice law, any person for who for fee or reward, prosecutes or
defends, causes in courts of record, or other judicial tribunal, of the United
States, or of any other State, or whose business it is to give legal advice,
in relation to any case or matter, whatsoever. (Act of July 13, 1866
Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121)
The B.A.R. Association has no Legislative Authority to have been
created. Theyre a private corporation. The Attorners are self
appointed! They gave themselves their authority, and theyre using
fraudulent Statutes which does not apply to "We the people". They just
came in, took over, and theyre taking full advantage of the fact that no
one will dig and read their real history.

THERE IS NO SUCH STATUTE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE!!! THE


B.A.R. IS A PRIVATE INDUSTRY, A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION. Theyre trying to
make everyone believe they have Congressional Authority, that they
simply do not have.

Where in the Statutes at Large were Lawyers, most especially Crown


Temple B.A.R. Attorners, ever given the authority to practice law in the
courtroom? There isnt even Legislative Authority for the
International B.A.R., or the American B.A.R., the British Accreditation
Registry, to be created, much less, authority to work in the courts, and to
monopolize the courts. Theyre a private corporation, and they issue their
own union cards, which they deceptively call Licenses. Imagine a private
Carpenters Union issuing their own licenses. This type of monopoly is
against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton Trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust
Act, and the Smith Act. Theyre a SELF-APPOINTED monopoly. These are
foreign Agents registered under F.A.R.A.

As the years passed, these foreign Agents managed to get themselves


unlawfully into Offices of Trust (poliical offices) so they could shape
statutes and codes to suit their agenda, rendering all their
unconstitutionally created garbage, null and void, nunc pro tunc.

Article XIII put the teeth into this:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by


the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under
them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or
foreign state.

Article XIII If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of
Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of
any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such
person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States (COMMENT vs US
Citizena different thing), and shall be incapable of holding any office of
trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Do you have an understanding of what is meant when the original Article


XIII says, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and
shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or
either of them. Does it mean federal citizen of the United States only
when it says, under them, or either of them. Doesnt that mean federal
(corporation) United States and also unincorporated United States?

So as anyone can read, especially the fraudsters who claim to have gone
to law school, THEYRE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS THEY
DO! In 1871, the B.A.R. Attorners/Brokers for the CrownSwiss Banksters
created a Military Coup on D.C., setting up the Banksters seizure of all
commerce. Theyre foreclosed from parity with the living, so they created
"U.S. citizenship", so all U.S. citizens would be in contract with the Crown,
as DEBTORS for the artificial BANKRUPTCY.

A lawyer is some one who studies law. An attorney is someone who holds
the profession of attornment, the taking of property, people and goods for
its owner/master.

Under the Attorney General Manual, while under Martial Law Rule, section
3.2 110, History, all one needs is to be "learned in the law", not Color of
Law.
Every single court case has been based upon fraudwow!. No
B.A.R. Attornery has any legislative authority to prosecute anyone in any
court room. The B.A.R. Attorners do not know law. They cannot sit at the
Bench. They live in Color of Law! the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Editions clearly
are written to mislead the readers, alleging and suggesting they were
created by Congressional Authority, but they werent. Blacks Law 5th has
no such history either Attorney House Counsel, Right to an Attorney,
Counsel, Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121 was REMOVED!!! Theyre a
FRAUD! No one masquerading as a Judge, or government official can
produce proof of their delegation of authority. There is no law
allowing them to walk into the courtroom, much less to sit at a
bench. They have NO JURISDICTION, so being all of this up in the
beginning! Theyre robbing America! Its a closed union shop, and an
overthrow of our constitutional form of government. All court cases
are Piracy!

The Crown Temple British Accreditation Registry is nothing but a


continuing criminal enterprise. Theyre Administrating and
monetizing everyones Estate Trust for the Bankruptcy created by the
Crown Banksters. Theyre weaseling everyones consent into being
collateral for the DEBT, without full and complete disclosure, under the
FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913, after they set THEMSELVES up, for
themselves, by themselves, with no lawful authority. Theyre imposters!
Blacks Law said they have authority, when they DONT. Under the
Private Attorney General Act, the people can do what they do. They have
nothing! They cant claim the P.A.G. Act, but we can!

Color of Law, is NOT law. Its fiction for corporate fictions. Its
time to prosecute them, under real law, for prosecuting living people
under Color of Law. Again, they are TERRORISTS, for the foreign Crown
Banks. They are not qualified to hold Offices of Trust. The Judiciary Act of
1789 created the lower Courts and the Office of Attorney General, but
these offices are not to be filled by the B.A.R. Attorners. The
Administrative Procedure Act, Senate Bill 7, says we, people can walk into
a Court to represent people, not B.A.R. Attorners. The law says who can
walk into the Courts, and thats only us.

B.A.R. Rule 11: An Attorney cannot represent you! Corpus Juris


Secundum, volume 2, volume 4. They have no duty to us. Theyre also
in violation of the Patriot Act, Section 800, Title 18 USC 2331
TERRORISM. This violates Title 18 USC 241 and 242 CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS. Also Title 18 USC 1621 PERJURY. Also Title 18 USC 1346
HONEST SERVICE. Also Title 18 USC 1918 LOYALTY. Felony after felony
after felony! In Blacks Law, the Attorneys who wrote the books quoted
Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121 for Lawyers and its not even in
there! No matter where an Attorney is involved, in any type of case, its
FRAUD. Anything a Lawyer does in a Court room is a FRAUD. They have
no authority to sit at a Bench or file anything. As soon as they tell you
that you "cannot bring law into the Court room", they just proved they
have no Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Theyre nothing but foreign Agents
under CITY OF LONDON.

Title 31 USC 3729 FALSE CLAIMS, EMBEZZLEMENT, FRAUD.

To demonstrate how rotten they really are, look at the material below:

Murdock vs. Pennsylvania explains that no State can make you get a
license or pay a fee to exercise your rights. Forcing someone to join
the B.A.R. and to get a license violates Murdock v.s Pennsylvania, and
ones rights under Article X. The B.A.R. is under the Crown, not the united
States of America. In the July 1868 Congressional Record, the B.A.R. was
never ratified. The B.A.R. issues its own B.A.R. Cards, not licenses, and
their requirements are made by their rules.

The New Hampshire B.A.R. Supreme Court created its own rules for this
requirement in the sneakiest way imaginable. Article 73-a was added to
the Constitution. After the Article passed through the House, AFTER, they
weaseled in a clause, Rules so promulgated shall have the force and
effect of law. Thats how they coerce the B.A.R. agenda upon anyone
who wishes to uphold the real rule of law over the foreign B.A.R. Courts.

Well worth mention, theres a STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Family Court


Rule 1.2 Waiver of Rules. Their rules can be law, then they can waive
their rules! The B.A.R. does what it wants, while the people are
oblivious.

Now, the stinking B.A.R. is pushing U.N. upon us like no-one has ever seen
before. Theyre nothing but Agents for the Crown-Swiss Bankster whores
who just cannot get enough. These Pirates are robbing us of our lives.
Theyre the ones stealing our homes in fraudclosure. These are the Pirates
stealing our kids. Theyre making money by putting people in prison for
smoking a weed that grows in nature. These creeps need to be prosecuted
by everyone until theyre destroyed.

If their authority is not created by law, then theyre not


accountable to law. This is why they rape and plunder everything and
everyone. They do whatever they please. The only thing theyll
comprehend is PROSECUTION. Demand their proof of Legislative
Authority. They want to prosecute people for practicing law without a
license, when THEY DONT HAVE ONE!!! All they have is a stinking UNION
CARD. Theyre nothing but two bit hoods. If B.A.R. Attorneys had a real
guts, theyd commit more respectable crimes, like snatching purses from
little old grandmothers. Show them no respect, because they dont
deserve any. Theyre ruining America for the Crown.

Are You Going to Jail Because of Your Birth Certificate?


A major implication of not knowing who you are and
what a birth certificate represents, can mean the
difference of going to jail or not

What you dont know CAN and will hurt you! What you say and do WILL
be used against you!

First, a clarification about the Ownership of the Birth Certificate. The BC is


NOT the property of the governmental services corporations operating as
your E-State and usurping the public trust you are owed. It is a
Certificate of Title (like a car, boat, or cattle). The was created by your
the Birth Certificate is your
creations behind it. In the end
property in trust. It is your indemnity receipt given
to you in exchange for the legal title they have
received and hold to your estate. When you present
yourself in court with a certified copy of your 3 Step
Authenticated Birth Certificate in hand, you hold both
the legal and equitable/ beneficial title, which is the
complete title to THAT name, and the certificate is
your legal title to property in hand.

There can be no excuse for any judge or lawyer mistaking this fact,
however to keep their money machine going based on your ignorance,
they routinely contrive to continue presuming a role
as executive administrator of your estate, when YOU
answer as the NAME or respond as THE ALL CAPS
NAME on a warrant, bill, indictment, in any capacity
other than as the agent for the NAME estate at that
time. You then default into becoming defendant/trustee/surety because
you mis-identified yourself and didnt claim your beneficiary
position thus you lose. They get you at hello with that name.

They then pretend to have the right to overrule you, when you are no
longer acting as the lawful and adult beneficiary of your estate. Why can
You volunteered to act as an incompetent
they do this?
and as trustee/surety for the entity, and not as a
flesh and blood living being and beneficiary to your
estate, the one who is holding title.

You have to know you are and what you are doing. The court then proceed
on this basis by deliberately falsified public records and conduct a probate
court as if you are dead, as someone with no rights. Do the dead have
rights? NO!

You do this all to yourself by your status and standing, and conduct. The
court presumes a duty to administer and take form your estate as it now
Any charge (in the monetary sense) ,
appears unclaimed.
civil or criminal, is organized theft, or so it seems. Or
did you actually give it to them? A gift is not theft
get it?

Therefore what they are doing is legal and proper, because you
volunteered a gift, in every case. These probate courts (they all are
actually probate even if they call themselves, civil, criminal, etc.) have
been misinformed by YOU to the effect that you are missing and
therefore are presumed dead by your own actions. Unclaimed and dead
as if you were Robinson Crusoe lost at sea and unaccounted for.

Acting upon this known and obviously false presumption, the judges
act as executors de son tort as they should, and
dispose of you and your property however they see
fit. This unclaimed property they hold is why they can claim a bond value
on the case, then go strait to wall street under the courts trading
account, and start trading bonds backed by YOUR estate. They hold
something of value, so why not?

You failed to identify yourself as the beneficiary of


your own estate, thus they presume you abandoned
that property right. This happens in nearly every
court case, which is why 98% of defendants (trustees
by default), lose. It costs the court too much trading profit to let you
win (they are Municipal Corporations with an EIN# like any other
corporation).

These lower courts (State courts and US District Courts), have nothing to
do with the facts or real victim based crimes. THAT is the game that is
This is a form of fraud known as a Reverse
going on.
Trust Scheme in which the trustee of an estate,
public or private, contrives to usurp the position of
the lawful beneficiary for their own or an accomplices
gain. But it is not a crime for them to do this if you volunteer, as most
everyone does without realizing what is really going on. SO STOP DOING
THAT. It is that simple.

This is all being done via the use of deceitfully similar names, e.g., John
Quincy Adams versus JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. They are getting away with it
because the basis of the fraud has been set up many years before you
whenever you enter a courtroom with an attorney or without knowledge of
by entering with
the real game. AND YOU VOLUNTEER for it. Yes,
an attorney you are already abandoning your estate
and admitting to being incompetent and assume the
role as trustee vs. and therefore abandoned your
claim to being the sole beneficiary (you cant be both
positions in a trust).

This has all been constructed without your knowledge or consent, while
you were still a baby in your cradle, and equally without the knowledge or
consent of your parents. Then they spend a lifetime keeping this from you,
especially now using propaganda in TV and movies and public schools to
teach you how to answer to these people as SIR, and as if they are
Authorities, when in reality they are your servants. Dont they always
tell you to get a good attorney? Its all taught backwards folks.
Didnt they say in the movie The Matrix it is all about control (mind
control). That movie is one of the few telling you what is really going on.

We do perish for our lack of knowledge. The Bible told us this a long time
ago. It is the perfect law and trust manual if you look at it firm the point of
view. Dont give up your estate for a meal.

Senate Document Shows We Own Nothing Unless

Senate Document #43, 73rd Congress, First Session

Regarding Ownership vs. Mere Use of Property we purchase


without Gold or Silver Why can't really own anything unless paid
in gold, thus we are mere tenants with rights of use, in regards to
our property we presume to own.

AN ARTICLE ENTITLED 'CONTRACTS PAYABLE IN GOLD", BY


GEORGE CYRUS THORPE, SHOWING THE LEGAL EFFECT OF AGREEMENTS
TO PAY IN GOLD

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1933

SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62

Submitted by Mr. Shipstead

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, April 17 (calendar day, April 24),
1933.

Resolved, that the manuscript entitled "Contracts Payable in Gold", by


George Cyrus Thorpe, showing the legal effect of agreements to pay in
gold, be printed as a Senate document. Attest.

Edwin A. Halsey, Secretary


CONTRACTS PAYABLE IN GOLD

By George C.Thorpe, Washington, D.C.

Holders of commercial paper and parties to contracts, involving billion of


dollars, stipulating for payment in dollars in gold, or "in American gold
coin" or "in gold coin of the United States of or equal to the standard of
weight and fineness existing" on a certain date, or "in gold and silver coin,
lawful money of the United States", etc., are interested in the legal import
of the qualifying phrases, in the face of present suspension of gold
payments and the possibility of a
depreciated currency.

In a recent English case, Mr. Justice Farwell, in chancery, has held, under a
bond providing for payment of "the sum of 100 pound sterling in gold coin
of the United Kingdom of or equal to the standard weight and fineness
existing" on the date of the bond, there was an obligation to pay 100
pounds in gold currency, satisfied by tendering 100 pounds in gold
currency, satisfied by tendering 100 pounds in any form that was legal
tender in England, (In re Societe I ntercomunale Beige d 'El ectri cite.)

A similar conclusion was reached in many American cases in State courts


when their jurisdiction first was invoked to give effect to the effort of
businessmen to avoid loss through compulsory acceptance of a tender of
depreciated currency in payment of debts incurred for a gold
consideration, in n the era of the "greenbacks."

The laws of the United States recognize two kinds of money, namely
coin and paper. The term "dollars in specie" means gold or silver coined
dollars. "Dollars in currency" means dollars in notes or any paper money
current in the community. (Trebilcock v. Wilson (1872) 12 Wall. 687, 20 L.
Ed. 460.)
A Missouri contract of June 17, 1862, to pay "in the current gold coin of
the United States, in full tale and count, without regard to any legal tender
that may be established or declared by any law of Congress" was held
satisfied by payments in the nominal value in any legal tender money. The
court said that it was not a contract to be paid in bullion, or in so many
pounds or ounces of gold, but in a certain number of dollars, in coin. The
transaction did not regard gold as a commodity but as money. The Legal
Tender Act had made Treasury notes of like value with gold. As a legal
medium there could be no distinction between notes and gold. The theory
of the suit brought on contracts payable in specific chattels is that
the court's judgment Is not for payment In articles in kind, but for
the damages resulting to the creditor in consequences of breach
of contract, and this judgment can be paid off and satisfied in
whatever money the law has clothed with the attributes of legal tender.

Although It was a notorious fact for purposes of trade and In commercial


transactions a difference was made between Treasury notes and specie
coin, whatever fluctuations might arise from extraneous causes, the
debtor's right to pay in whatever medium he chooses could not be
affected. In administering the law. It was necessary that gold and Treasury
notes should be considered equal. (Appd V. Woltman (1860) 38 Mo. 194.)
A note payable "in gold" was held enforceable only for the face value of
the note payable in any lawful money, and a judgment for a premium on
gold In addition was declared invalid. (H Henderson v. McPlke (1864) 35
Mo. 255.)

A ground rent payable in "lawful silver money of the United States of


America" was satisfied in Pennsylvania by payment of Treasury notes of
the Issue of February 25, 1862, the court saying that the addition of the
word "silver" was merely descriptive of the "lawful money" and bound
neither party, It meant simply a kind of lawful money in which the tender
could be made, not a prohibition of other forms of money. It was declared
that no party could exact, and no party consent to, a stipulation
Impugning the power of the law- making branch of the Government
(Shollenberger v. Brinton (1866) 52 Pa. St. 9.)

In another Pennsylvania case, the defendant promised to pay a certain


number of dollars, "silver money of the United States, each dollar
weighing 17 pennyweights and 6 grains at least." Upon the plaintiff's
demand for a certain amount due in 1863, the defendant tendered
Treasury notes of the Issues of February 25, 1862, and July 11, 1862. The
plea of tender "In lawful money of the United States" was sustained.
(Mervlnev. Sailor (1866) 52 Pa. St. 9)

The decision was the same way in another action in Pennsylvania on a


promissory note wherein there was a promise to pay a certain number of
dollars "In gold, without defalcation", and the plaintiff demanded gold, or
If the defendant had not the gold, that he would accept United
States legal-tender notes, adding the premium on gold, 33 percent.
(Laughlln v. Harvey (1866) 52 Pa. St. 9, 30)

In the same State, plaintiffs had deposited gold in the defendants' bank
and received a certificate as follows:

Has deposited in this office- dollars, gold, payable to the order of herself
on surrender of this certificate, in like funds, with interest. On demand for
gold, the defendants offered legal tender notes, which was held sufficient.
(Sanford v. H ays (1866) 52 Pa. St. 9, 26.)

In a Pennsylvania action in assumpsit on a bank's promise to pay $14,145,


the paper bearing on its margin "$14,145 specie", it was admitted that the
consideration was gold and that "specie" meant payable in coin, gold or
silver. A tender of legal tender notes was held good. (Graham v. M arshall
(1866) 52 Pa. St. 9, 28.)

In assumpsit for money had an received, gold having been pledged a


security, it was held that the damages should not include any premium on
gold, and that, even if the action was in the form of trover only the value
at the time of conversion could be allowed as damages. (Frothingham v. M
orse (1864) 45 N .H . 545.)

In New York, the words "in specie, gold, and silver coin" were held not to
effect the right to discharge an obligation, for the payment of a certain
number of dollars, by paying in legal tender notes. (Murray v. Harrison
(1867) 47 Barb, 484, affirmed (1868) 52 Barb. 427.) So also a bill of
exchange payable "in specie or its equivalent" could be paid in legal
tender notes called "greenbacks." (Jones v. Smith (1867) 48 Barb. 552.)

In an Indiana case, a contract for payment in gold also provided that if


paid in paper the amount thereof necessary to purchase the gold at the
place of payment would be required. In sustaining a tender in paper
money in the nominal amount of the debt the court said that when
Treasury notes were made legal tender in payment of debts they were
made the equivalent of coin as means of payment in all but the cases
excepted by the law. "This, and this only, is meant
by making them legal tender." For that purpose a Treasury note dollar
could accomplish all that a gold coin dollar could accomplish, for by the
law the latter would pay no more than $1 of indebtedness. The court could
not know that its judgment would be paid in paper. There could be no
warrant for a judicial assumption that the judgment debtor would
discharge the judgment by payment in paper. Gold coin might be used.
The court could not know that paper money would not be withdrawn from
circulation before satisfaction of the judgment. (Brown v. Welch (1866)
116lnd. 117.)

In Texas, a note made payable "in gold" was held dischargeable by the
payment of legal tender notes; judgment on such a note could not be
rendered for specie. (Shaw v. Trunsler (1867) 30 Tex. 390.)

In the same State, the word "specie" in a judgment in an action


on contract providing for payment of $500 in specie, or $894 in
United States currency, was held surplusage that could be struck out
on appeal. (Flournoy v. Healy (189=69) 31 Tex. 590.)

But the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was reversed, entering


judgment for an amount in Treasury notes, equal in market value to the
amount of coined gold reserved as rent in a lease wherein the contract
provided for a yearly rent of 4 ounces 2 pennyweights and 12 grains of
pure gold in coined money, the Supreme Court of the United States saying
that the contract was for the payment or delivery of a specified weight of
pure gold, solvable in coined money, and the judgment should have been
entered for coined dollars and parts of dollars, instead of Treasury
notes equivalent in market value to the value in coined money in
the stipulated weight of pure gold. (Dewing v. Sears (1871) 11 Wall.
379, 20 L.Ed. 189.)

Earlier, but after the passage of the Legal Tender Acts, the Supreme Court
had sustained the proposition that express contracts to pay coined dollars
could be satisfied only by the payment of coined dollars, and that such
contracts were not "debts" which could be satisfied by the tender of
Treasury notes. (Bronson v. Rodes (1869) 7 Wall. 229, 19 L.Ed. 141.)

Our highest court said in another case that when it appears to be the clear
intent of a contract that payment or satisfaction shall be made in gold or
silver, damages should be assessed at the sum entered in coin for that
amount. (Butler v. H orwitz (1869) 7 Wall. 258, 19 L.Ed. 149.)

Bronson v. Rodes, supra, became the leading case, followed by


later decisions in State courts. But before that precedent there
were decisions in State courts which enforced the qualifying phrase.

Thus under a contract to return gold, the promissor was held bound to
return the things specified, as he would be bound to return a specific
quantity of any other certain commodity. The court's view was that "paper
promises" having been substituted for a national money consisting of gold
and silver coins, those metals had disappeared as current money and no
longer possessed the functions of national instruments of exchange,
becoming merely articles of commerce, having the same characteristics
and being liable to the same legal disposition as other articles of
commerce when subject matter of contracts. (Bank of Commonwealth v.
Van VIeck (1867) 49 Barb. 508.)

And a stipulation to pay rent "in American gold coin" could not
be discharged by payment in legal tender notes of a nominally
equal amount with the gold promised, unless it should happen that
the notes were at par with American gold in the market. (Myers
v. Kauffman (1868) 37 Ga. 600, 95Amer. Dec. 367.)

A note given in August 1863 providing

Six months after date, without grace, for value received, I promise to
pay to the order of A the sum of dollars in gold coin of the standard value
of 1860 of the United States of America, with inters at . And if said
principal and interest is not paid in gold coin, as above stated, then, for
value received, I promise to pay to the order of said A, in addition
thereto, and as damages, such further amount and percentage as may
be equal to the difference in value at market between such gold coin and
paper evidence of indebtedness of the States or of the United States
that are or may be hereafter made a legal tender in payment of debts by
the laws of this State or of the United States was construed as
manifesting a first intention of the payee to secure a payment I gold if
such payment could be enforced lawfully; and.
secondly, if that could not be done, payment in legal tender notes at their
value (at the place stated in the note) when converted into gold. (Lanev.
Gluckauf (1865) 28Cal. 288, 87Amer. Dec. 121.)

The plaintiffs, depositors in defendants' bank, alleged a banking custom in


the District of Columbia of receiving gold and silver coin and money
currency to be returned in kind, separate entries being kept as to the
classes of money deposited, and balances maintained as to those classes;
in February 1864, having a balance in coin, they drew checks for coin
which the defendants refused to pay in coin; that coin at that time was
worth $1.57 in Treasury notes. Plaintiffs sought compensation in damages
for injuries resulting by the defendants' refusal to pay the checks.
Defendants plead: (1) That they did not promise as alleged, and (2) that,
upon presentation of the checks, they offered to pay i n Treasury notes
made legal tender in payment of debts by the act of February 25, 1862.

The trial court excluded testimony offered to prove the alleged custom as
to the difference in receiving and paying deposits in coin and paper
money, and instructed the jury:

If the jury find from the evidence that the defendants were bankers
in 1861 and 1862 and that the coin mentioned in the declaration was
deposited with said defendants as banker, to be paid in coin, said deposit
created a debt from the defendants to the plaintiffs which could be
discharged by payment or offer to pay the same in legal tender notes; and
if the jury further find that said tender was made, the plaintiffs are not
entitled to recover."

In affirming judgment of the defendants, the Supreme Court said that the
clear inference from the whole testimony was that the deposits were
made without condition or special agreement of any kind, and that in such
cases the law was well settled that the depositor parts with title to his
money and loans it to the bank, and the transaction is not affected by the
character of the money in which the deposit is made. The bank becomes
liable for the amount of the debt, which can be discharged by such money
payment as is by law a legal tender. (Thompson v. Riggs (1867), 5 Wall.
663, 18 L.Ed. 704.)

However, the court also said that contracts between a banker and his
customers doubtless are required to be performed, and must be construed
in the same way as contracts between other parties.
When the banker specifically agrees to pay in bullion or in coin he must do
so or answer in damages for its value; and so if one agrees to pay
in depreciated paper the tender of that paper is a good tender, and in
default of payment the promisee can recover only its market value and
not its nominal value. (Same case.)

All of these American decisions were rendered long before the enactment
of the Parity Act of 1900, providing that
The dollar, consisting of 25.8 grains of gold nine-tenths fine shall be
the standard unit of value and all forms of money issued or coined by
the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this
standard, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to
maintain such parity. This has not been repealed.

Other existing statutes provide:

(a) The gold coins of the United States shall be legal tender in
all payments at their nominal value when not below the standard weight
and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, and, when
reduced in weight below such standard and tolerance, shall be legal
tender at valuation in proportion to their actual weight. (R.S., sec. 3585)

(b) Silver dollars coined under the act of February 28, 1878, together with
all silver dollars coined by the United States of like weight and fineness
prior to the date of such act shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value,
for all debts and dues, public and private, except where otherwise
expressly stipulated in the contract. But nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the payment in silver of certificates of deposit
issued by the Secretary of the Treasury for deposits of gold bullion. (Act
Feb. 28, 1878, c. 20, sec. 1,20 Stat. 25.)

(c) The silver coins of the United States in existence june 9, 1879,
of smaller denominations than $1 shall be a legal tender in all sums not
exceeding $10 in full payment of all dues, public and private. (Act June 9,
1879, c. 12, sec. 3, 21 Stat. 8.)
(d) The minor coins of the United States shall be a legal tender, at their
nominal value, for any amount not exceeding 25 cents in any one
payment (R.S. sec 3587.)

(e) Various commemorative silver and gold coins (50-cent piece,


gold dollar and gold $2.50 pieces), coined at the mints of the
United States under authority of law, area legal tender in any payment
to the amount of their face value. (Various statutes compiled in section
461 of title 31 of the U .S. Code)

(f) Gold certificates of the United States payable to bearer on


demand shall be legal tender in payment of all debts and dues, public
and private. (Act Dec. 24, 1919, c. 15, sec. 1, 41 Stat. 370.)

(g) United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender
in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United
States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.
(R.S. sec. 3588, derived from statutes passed in 1862 and 1863.)

(h) Demand Treasury notes authorized by the act of July 17, 1861, chapter
5, and the act of February 12, 1862, chapter 20, shalI be lawful money
and a legal tender in like manner as United States notes. (R.S. sec 3589,
derived fro acts of 1861 and 1862.)

(i) Treasury notes issued under the act of July 14, 1890, chapter 708, shall
be a legal tender payment of all debts, public and private, except where
otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. (Act July 14, 1890, c. 708,
sec. 2, 26 Stat. 289.)

(j) Treasury notes issued under the authority of the acts of IMarch 3, 1863,
chapter 73, and June 30, 1864, chapter 172, shall be a legal tender to the
same <tent as United States notes, for their face value, (eluding
interest: Provided, That Treasury notes issued under the act last named
shall not be a legal tender in payment or redemption of any notes issued
by any bank, banking association, or banker, calculated and intended to
circulate as money. (R.S. 3590, derived from acts or the dates stated in
this section.)

Is there anything in the legislation subsequent to the decision in Bronson


v. Rodes, supra, which would require a different decision as to the legal
import of such phrases as" dollars payable in gold coin", etc.?

In forming its opinion on the meaning of that phrase, the court found it
"necessary to look into the statutes regulating coinage." After reviewing
such statutes as it deemed pertinent to the inquiry concerning the import
of the quoted phrase, it concluded that the contract for payment in gold
should be enforced. The assertions in the court's opinion that: (a) Gold
and silver coins are legal tender in all payments; (b) there are two
descriptions of money in use, authorized by law, and both made legal
tender in payments; and (c) the statute denomination of both descriptions
is dollars, but they are essentially unlike in nature, the coined dollar being
a piece of gold or silver of a prescribed degree of purity and weighing a
prescribed number of grains, and the note dollar bang a promise to pay
a coined dollar though not a promise to pay on demand or at any
fixed time, present time, within the letter of the above-quoted
statutes relating to legal tender, without regard to the parity act.

Does the parity act, quoted above, make specie and currency equivalent if
in fact one or the other should become depreciated in actual market
value?

The court said, that case, that it was "impossible, in the nature
of things, that these two dollars should be actual equivalents of
each other", and that there was nothing in the Currency Acts
"purporting to make them such." How far they were from being
actual equivalents had been stated earlier in the opinion, i.e., $1 in
coin equivalent to $2.25 in United States notes.

Under similar circumstances in the future the court still could say, "It is
impossible, in the nature of things, that these two dollars should be actual
equivalents of each other"; but could it say that there is nothing in the
currency laws "purporting to make them such", in view of the parity act?

The parity act does not declare that all forms of money issued or coined
by the United States are at parity of value with the standard gold dollar,
for that would be declaring to be a fact that which is not, or may not be,
the fact, or cannot be the permanent fact. Value is purchasing power and
that in turn implies varying degrees of willingness of holders of
consumable commodities to exchange them for money. If both coin and
currency are in circulation, the holder of a commodity desired by different
groups of persons, one group possessing specie and the other group
currency, will surrender in exchange for money a larger quantity or a
better quality of the commodity for, say, specie, than for currency, of
equal nominal amounts. No law declaring parity can achieve actual
equal acceptability, or purchasing power. And so the parity act,
in declaring that "all forms of money issued or coined by the United States
shall be maintained at a parity of value with" the standard gold dollar,
might be construed as the declaration of a policy a mission, and the
concluding clause, "it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to
maintain such parity", as the definition of a duty.

When gold is unobtainable and currency in circulation, can it be said that


specie and currency are at a parity? When both specie and currency are in
circulation in such proportions that the citizens much prefer specie and
actually will pay a premium therefore, can it be said that these two kinds
of money are at parity of value with the standard gold dollar? If the Parity
Act can be said to purport to make the two kinds of money actual
equivalents of each other, but if
as an actuality the two kinds of dollars are not, or may not
be, equivalents, will the Supreme Court's judgment be the same,
as before the passage of the Parity Act, if called upon to construe the legal
import of promises to pay in specie? May it not again refuse to "suppose
that it was intended by the provisions of the Currency Acts" and the Parity
Act of 1900, "to enforce satisfaction" of contract to pay in coin "by the
tender of depreciated currency of any description equivalent only in
nominal amount to the real value of the bullion or of the coined dollars",
as in Bronson v. Rodes, supra?

Or shall we hear that the Parity Act is the declaration of something which
must be accepted as fact, even though that be contrary to the operation
of economic laws?

The power to issue currency is not specifically given in the Constitution,


the express authority to "emit bills" originally in the "Resolutions" before
the Constitutional Convention having been stricken out on motion after
considerable debate. Daniel Webster said in the Senate in 1836 that
although no express prohibition from making anything but gold and silver
a tender in the payment of debts is applied to Congress, yet as Congress
has no power granted to it in that respect but to coin money and regulate
its value and that of foreign coin, it clearly has no power to substitute
paper or anything else for coin as a tender in payment of debts and
discharge of contracts. (Webster's Works, vol. 4, p. 271.) For the first 70
years of this Government's existence there was no national currency,
all transactions of the Government having been in gold and silver
coin. Paper currency used in private transactions consisted almost
entirely of bank notes issued by numerous independent
corporations variously organized under State legislation, of various
degrees of credit and very unequal resources, administered often with
great and not infrequently with little skill, prudence, and integrity.
National laws prohibiting the receipt or disbursement of anything except
gold and silver in the transactions of the Government and State
laws requiring the exemption of bank notes in coin on demand
prevented the disappearance of gold and silver from circulation. (See
Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869) 8 Wall. 533, 19 L.Ed. 482.) As a matter
of history, paper money in the shape of bills of credit was issued by
the Colony of Massachusetts about 1690 to pay the Army
returning unexpectedly from a disastrous expedition against Canada. All
the Colonies, at various times, followed this example. Sometimes
these bills were made a legal tender in the payment of all debts. Some
bills were receivable i n al I payments of taxes and dues to the
Government. Some were nominally payable in specie. Generally a certain
fund was pledged for their redemption. But some were issued on the
mere credit of the issuing Government.

Although the power to issue currency was not expressly given to Congress
by the Constitution, Congress has found the power implied and has called
it into full activity since 1861 in undertaking to supply a national currency
for the entire country. It has made currency receivable in payment of
debts to itself; has provided for its redemption and its uniformity in
description and value. (See Veazie Bank v. Fenno, supra.) To the
enumeration of the powers of Congress is added that of making all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying the enumerated powers
into execution, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(United States Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.) The "sound construction
of the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature that
discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are
to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform
the high duties assigned to it in a manner most beneficial to the
people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of
the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to that, which are not prohibited, but consist with
the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." (M 'Culloch
v. State of M aryland (1819) 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579.)

So Congress has the implied power to issue currency and to provide for
uniformity in description and value of its currency, as well as the express
power to coin money and regulate the value thereof; but do those powers
include the power to make the coined money, the value of which it can
regulate, the exact equivalent of its currency, for the uniformity in
description and value of which it can "provide"? Is this third power implied
as "necessary" within the doctrine of McCulloch v. Maryland?
The regulation of the value of coined money consists in fixing the classes
of coins that shall be issued and a standard of measurement of specie.
Similarly, it is possible to classify bills or notes issued or to be issued and
to declare the Government's promises as to their redemption and their
receivability by itself in governmental transactions or in the payment of
debts. For some 70 years of the Government's existence Congress acted
under only one of these
powers that of coining money and regulating its value. Then it acted
upon the other power that relating to currency.

The exercise of these different powers resulted in two kinds of


national "money": (See Bronson v. R odes, supra). But they did not
produce two kinds of money of equal value equal acceptability, equal
purchasing power. Between 1862 and 1866 the premium on gold rose and
fell from 30 to 160 percent. (See Shollenberger v. Brinton (1866), 52 Pa.
St. 9, 33.) If "money" is the medium for effecting exchanges and is a
measure of value, when the law made both species and currency legal
tender, without actual equal purchasing power, gold became a
mere commodity or article of commerce (see Bank of Commonwealth v.
Van VIeck, supra.) since it had inherent value as a metal, while currency
had no inherent value, only conceptional value as ideal money. But
a uniform medium of exchange is essential to the commerce
and prosperity of every civilized and commercial people. Money as such is
of value, or is in demand, not because it is more valuable than
the quantity of property it will purchase, but because it readily can
be exchanged for any article. (See Brown v. Welch, supra). The
existence of two kinds of money, lacking uniformity of exchangeability,
created an impossible situation, or, at least, a situation which tended to
nullify the purpose of the legal tender laws. Obviously, some law was
necessary to integrate the currency and legal tender laws.

The enumerated power from which the power to pass such a law as the
parity act may bethought to be implied is, of course, the power to coin
money and regulate its value. The end sought to be accomplished is to
maintain as "money" that which Congress expressly is empowered to coin,
for that power is to "coin money" and not merely to stamp coins. The
parity act became necessary in order to maintain the circulation of specie
as money and in order effectively to regulate the value of coined money.
The end sought to be accomplished by the parity act, therefore, is
legitimate and within the scope of the Constitution. The parity act is an
appropriate means plainly adapted to the end in view, i.e., to standardize
money for use as a national medium of exchange. It is only by virtue of
law that paper notes are money or legal tender; and it is only by virtue of
law that either coin or paper has a declared value; and only by virtue
of law can coin and paper be maintained at a parity in order to afford
a proper medium of exchange. A parity law therefore is a
necessary complement to the currency laws.

The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State;


individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of
Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in
accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the
State. The fact that citizens, at a given time, may prefer specie to
currency, or vice versa, cannot prevent Congress from enacting those
laws which it deems necessary to the maintenance of a proper monetary
system. If the law makes specie and currency equivalent for purposes of
payment, a failure to pay a given sum in specie, according to contract,
cannot possibly beget an obligation to pay a greater sum in legal-tender
notes, whatever premium men may choose to five for gold, when forced
to obtain it for a specific purpose, or when impelled by a spirit
of speculation, or by a distrust of Government. (Brown v. Welch, supra.)

While the courts cannot control our citizens' preferences for


one kind of money over another kind, or prevent them from
giving a premium for the one or the other kind of money, when the
fiscal affairs of the Government necessitate the adoption of a certain
policy, expressed in constitutional legislative enactment, such as the
maintenance of a monetary system consisting of specie and currency, to
be acceptable interchangeably as to the value of the dollar, the courts
should not give effect to a stipulation impugning the power of the
legislature to make such laws, and should not apply those laws to the
construction of contracts i n such away as to defeat the
legitimate purpose of those laws, upon the enforcement of which the
very existence of the Government may depend, or, at least, the
aggregate well-being of the whole people is contemplated .

As it is not strictly correct to say that a contract is "invalid"


merely because the courts will not enforce it, since enforcement may
be withheld from valid promises because some provision of law prohibits
enforcement, such, for example, as the statute of limitations, or the want
of a legal consideration, valid contracts may be made and carried out
between parties, without regard to legal limitations, so long as the
jurisdiction of courts is not invoked to enforce the agreement. But when
judicial enforcement is sought, the courts must find all pertinent
constitutional laws tacitly written into every contract they construe.

So a contract to pay dollars tacitly includes the laws of the United States
defining "dollar" and regulating the value thereof and prescribing its
usability as money. And a contract to pay dollars "in gold" or in any other
form of money of the United States, tacitly incorporates into that contract
the parity act declaring all forms of money issued or to be issued by the
United States at a parity. Hence, the courts, in construing such a contract,
must read into that contract the parity act, and if the promisee brings an
action on the contract, the defendant's plea that he has tendered in
payment any money that is lawful tender under the laws of the United
States, is good, since all forms of money are at a parity and the
defendant's plea, in effect, is that he has tendered the equivalent of the
thing promised.

Furthermore, although in Bronson v. Rodes, supra, the Supreme Court said


that "when contracts made payable in coin are sued upon, judgments may
be entered in coin dollars and parts of dollars", it is doubtful if it could so
rule now, in view of the necessity of reading into the contract the parity
act, for the court would be bound to recognize that dollars coined or
issued by the United States are at a parity, from which it follows that
judgments in all such cases must be for dollars, or for dollars and parts of
dollars, without qualification as to coin or paper. If the promise to pay so
many dollars in gold be restated as two promises, one to pay dollars and
the other to pay in gold coin, the courts must read into those two
promises the existing pertinent laws at the time of the demand, and give
judgment on the promise to pay dollars (which may be satisfied by
payment or tender in any lawful money that is legal tender), and give no
effect to the
promise to pay in gold coin since under the laws the second promise adds
nothing to the first promise.

In other words, the contract creates an obligation to pay dollars


in gold, satisfied by tendering the stated number of dollars in any
form that is legal tender of the United States.

How to set up a Common Law Case

STRATEGY TO SET UP YOUR COMMON LAW ACTION

Here is a suggested strategy when using common law/ court of


record.

1. IF YOU'RE A DEFENDANT, IN A SMALL CASE SUCH AS


TRAFFIC, then pay the fine/bail without prejudice, and get out of
there. That way you will not have to expend any energy defending the
small stuff.

Initially, don't sue the government, judge, prosecutor, or


attorney. Just sue any individual who you believe had the power to
stop the process against you, but failed to do so. Typically, that would be
the cop who issued the traffic ticket. Also, name the court as a defendant,
but only sue for decision, not for money. Here's an example of how to
identify the court:

United States District Court, People vs. [your name], Case Number
23cr12345 (hereinafter Inferior Court)

If the government steps in to defend the cop, and claims the cop
was just doing his job and has immunity, then you can thank them for
their admission that what the cop did was gov't policy. Then amend your
action to add the gov't as a defendant.

If the judge, prosecutor, or public defender appears to you to be


personally and emotionally vested in giving you a hard time, then amend
your action to add him as a defendant.

The first cause of action would be a challenge to jurisdiction.


When jurisdiction is questioned, then they must stop their proceedings
and take time out to prove the basis of their jurisdiction to your court. If
they attempt to proceed anyway before final judgment in your case, use
writs of error and contempt process to stop them.

1 IF YOU'RE A DEFENDANT, IN A BIG CASE SUCH AS ONE THAT


INVOLVES LARGE FINES OR JAIL TIME, DON'T WAIT! As soon as
you can, file a counterclaim like the action suggested above.

In any action consider:

The Venue is the place where you file your action.


Where the contract was made.
Where the contract was breached.
Where the injury occurred.
Where one of the defendants lives or works.
The court you would choose would likely be the state civil court for
unlimited jurisdiction, IF state law applies; or either the state or federal
court if Federal Law applies. Federal rules of procedure are simpler. Go
for Federal District court (ask where to file claims), vs US District
court.

Note: even though you file the case with the civil clerk, your
court can still be a court of record proceeding in accordance with the
common law procedure, if YOU make that decree in the Action in your
initial claim/complaint.

If no current case is coming against you but you fear it might soon (maybe
government is accusing you of some duty or debt, file a new Action
(Claim/complaint), based on being damaged by their exceeding
jurisdiction against a man, one of the people of your state of the union,
NOT as a US Citizen. But first be sure to send several simple
notices and a bill for damages, based on them exceeding jurisdiction
thus causing you injury or harm.

The suit is then mostly about the bill and how it was created through the
notices, not some other action.
Massive Fraud in the Court

Case Reveals Breakthrough for The People

Federal tax case breakthrough: Petitioner demands Courts


constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner
demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and
damages of $1,841,451.45

Partial resource www.supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioners Demand


for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional
Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter
Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from
a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas
(the Demand for Dismissal).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional


authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler
County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of
the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and
neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has
responded in any way following Petitioners demands.
The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or
deny Petitioners filings, is that anything that any of them may say in
writingwhether for or against Petitionerwill evince treason to the
Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal
judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death,


the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing
situation on their hands:

The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at


stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take
jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United
States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any
county, parish, or borough in Americaand there is no reason why the
above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other
Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.

If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in


America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the
American People are numbered.

The Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on
Federal tax liens filed against Petitioners ranch. Judge and plaintiff having
departed the field of battle, said case is over in substancePetitioner
prevailing.

Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which
the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies
available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will
be posted on this website as they occur.

The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is


Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.
There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same
Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin
Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the Lufkin Case).

Petitioners filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges
and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has
made no progress in 14 months.

When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case
Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clarkto recuse (self-disqualify)
himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided
evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six
weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler
Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin
Division; Judge Clark is not involved.

Get Your Winning Facts Seen and Heard

Why struggle to prove obvious facts?

Every court (state or federal) has an easy way to prove obvious facts. Its
called Judicial Notice.

Make your opponents legal bullets bounce harmlessly off your educated
chest, by moving the court to take judicial notice of obvious facts. They
will do all they can to keep your facts out and ignore obvious facts against
them.

Are You Dead or Alive?

See what happens when you find out

Cestui Qui Trust = The Strawman


The Key to Winning or Losing The Facts Don't Matter (unless you want to
lose guaranteed).

Rule of Grammar for the use of CAPITAL LETTERS used in a NAME: when
CAPITAL letters are used anywhere in a NAME this always refers to a
LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION, COMPANY or CORPORATION no exceptions (not
you as a living man or woman). e.g. John DOE or Doe: JANE (PASSPORT,
DRIVER LICENSE, MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE and BIRTH CERTIFICATE).

CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in NEW


ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA or STRAWMAN common term in USA or CANADA
is a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION created and owned by the GOVERNMENT
whom created it. Legally, we are considered to be a FICTION, a concept
or idea expressed as a NAME, a symbol. That LEGAL "PERSON" has no
consciousness; it is a juristic PERSON, EN LEGIS, a NAME/word written on a
piece of paper Jason Whitney, Presenter & Researcher: The Occult
World of Commerce.

When you are born, (your Mothers WATER broke) your parents name
you, for example John or Jane DOE. The Nurse or Doctor along with your
Parents sign your Record of Live Birth (Title of Deed to Real Property) so
your BIRTH CERTIFICATE could be created (a certificate is a negotiable
instrument; see Certi & fi-duc(e) iary & fi-cat(e) iary) for the purpose of
creating the LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION (this LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION is
regulated and works in commerce, as GOVERNMENT can only regulate
that which it creates and it didnt create the living breathing man or
woman God didwhether you believe it or not, the legal system knows
it is true.

The LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION is registered by the Secretary of State and


held by a Vital Records Department in your state and the Department of
Commerce, under the ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW/ JURISDICTION (LAW of
the WATER). It is under JURISDICTION of Commerce and War.
You (the baby) are what is called a Cest tui Que (pronounced Set
akay) Trust, the STRAWMAN, or rather the COLLATERAL or the CORPUS
(body) of the Trust (like babies were in fact batteries for energy in the
movie "The Matrix" the writers of tha movie know what is going on). In
this world, your LABOUR is the ENERGY you generate as a Living Being.
However, as a baby, you are deemed Invalid (invalid/disabled) and
Incompetent, and even though your Mother Birthed you, she agrees to be
the TRUSTEE of the Trust (by her SIGNATURE), which was SETTLED
(createdSettlor) by the Federal Government, so you (your body) are
ENTRUSTED to her for safe keeping until the age of eighteen. But she
completely fails to fulfill her duty as a trustee, and you are then
considered abandoned and a ward of the state when they must take over
the trust. Then when you identify yourself with the NAME when it is called
or named in a legal matter, you lose for being incompetent and then you
go on to then assume the role as trustee (liable party) without even
realizing it.

The case is over when you give your position as beneficiary of your
trust and take on the trustee position as an adult over age 18 in a court or
legal matter. All their courts are doing probate court proceedings not
traffic, tax, family court, civil, or criminal, etc. All of that is just a show
if you're involved in any form of statutory (admiralty) case. You
only pay a fine or go to jail for contempt or by your voluntary consent
when hiring an attorney, claiming to be the ALL CAPS NAME (dead fiction),
plus by "understanding the charges" (meaning accepting), and pleading
(begging and denying to pay).

Cestui Qui Trust = The Strawman 2 / 3

Under Biblical Law: WOMEN are incapable of entering into binding


agreements/contracts, their Husband or Father must be present when
making agreements or the contract is void. In most cases both parties are
present during birth or manifestation of a maritime vessel product.

Unless prior written consent and approval by the male representative


exists, the Mother who would not DREAM of giving her newborn baby to
the Government, does so unknowingly, by the undisclosed conditions of
the signed Contract which is the submission of an Application for
Registration for a BIRTH CERTIFICATE e.g..

Youre parents agree/consent to be the Trustee and sign your BIRTH


CERTIFICATE. (BIRTH CERTIFICATES were only for slaves prior to women
becoming equal to men). Usually the mother is the ONLY one
required to sign, because she is deemed to be the direct blood more so
than the father. She has the higher claim to the living baby. But in
biblical law, the father must sign thus he abandons the baby to the
state because the mother has not rights on her own signature. The baby
just got granted as a ward of a state (an estate which leads to why ALL
court matters are probate-estate matters).

How Your Birth Certificate is actually a valuable Certificate of Title


you can claim as yours free and clear (Look up Minnnesota Rule
220).

Once the negotiable instrument (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) is transferred to the


Dept of Commerce, they pledge your Labour for your Lifetime as its
secured asset (backed by a free and clear Certificate of Title (Certificate
of Live Birth(no different than a title to a car), and proceeds to assure
(different from insure) YOUR labour against its (the governments) DEBT,
and it subsequently gets an underwriter to insure your Labour.
The underwriter determines a lowball figure from your Labour to be
valued at $1 Million dollars, and it takes out a Bond which is held at the
Bank, the numbers on your BIRTH CERTIFICATE are the tracking numbers
for your LEGAL ENTITY/FICTIONS Bond. $1 million FEDERAL RESERVE notes
are then issued with that same number and put into circulation.

On the LEGAL ENTITY/FICTIONS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the one with your


name in ALL CAPS (which represents an ENTITY/FICTION, CORPORATION)
there is a Bond tracking number. That number has 79 digits with a
letter in front of it. Get a 1 dollar bill and compare that serial number
with the number on it. You will see the similarity. On the face of the dollar
bill, is a letter inside a symbol with the words FEDERAL RESERVE Bank of
(State Name) That is the letter designation of the State Bank which holds
that Bond. example E is the Bank of Virginia. The letter of the number
on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the Bank that is holding a Bond which
represents your labour for your lifetime. Your labour has been
insured and assured, and money has been borrowed against it. This
is HOW people have been turned into collateral for the FEDERAL
RESERVE Bank(s). Where else did you think they get money/credit from?

Cestui Qui Trust = The Strawman 3 / 3

Legal Definitions

Person: A human being is not a person because he is a human being, but


because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. The person is the
legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes Blacks
Law Dictionary Not a human being, but the human being invisible coat

Application: Means to beg, plead, petition, implore, entreat or request


Must: Legally can be synonymous with may. Has two senses; Imperative
or a directive. One creates obligations, the other defines conditions.
Always a directive when used with apply

Submit: To agree to anothers will or to leave to anothers discretion.


Form of surrender. Always voluntary. Implies lawful right to fight. (nearly
everyone submits themselves under the jursidiction of their satanic
probate/dead/fiction courts and loses automatically)

Registration: To sign over all chattel content for safe keeping. always
voluntary. Abandons complete ownership for partial interest instead. Yes,
you can sign away your rights.

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of


capitalization) In
Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or
curtailment of a mans status or aggregate of legal attributes and
qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through


the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) The lowest or least
comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a mans
family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation
[pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own
right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who
had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of
liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11;
Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the


use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) A lessor or medium loss of status.
This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without
losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through
the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) The highest or
most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a mans condition
was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a
slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

LAW OF VOIDS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A Huge Percentage of Judgments with victimless matters are in fact VOID.


But YOU must move this issue with a void judgment action. Its never too
late.

Before a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be


complete consisting of two opposing parties not their attorneys,
although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only
the parties can testify (in other words mere attorneys cant simply
read statements into the record alone. Therefore, until the plaintiff
testifies under oath, the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially.
This must include the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction = the
statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory
of indemnity), and the testimony of a competent fact
witness regarding the injury (the cause of action).

If it is found there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the


record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and can
never be time barred. A question which naturally occurs: If I vacate a
void judgment, can they just come back and try the case again?
Answer: A new suit must be filed and that can only be done if within the
statute of limitations.
Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc (now
for then). The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a
mistake in the records; it cannot be used to rewrite history. E.g.,
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v.
Ionization Intl, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central
Laborers Pension and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir.
1999).