Divine Law and Man’s Law
Law: Length, Angle Width of ALL energies permeating and emitting throughout the universe. As Above - So Below - Land Air Water. Thus, you and I are the Law manifested in flesh. Law is also interpreted by Logos And Words, Signs and Symbols, and by whatever proceedeth from your Mouth.
Photo fusion by Mizraim El
Contracts
Lawful & Legal
Colorable Defacto Court
As Above - So Below
Maat established the first Temple (not court) of justice and truth, balance and cosmic harmony. Sumerians (Mesopotamia) was first earthly courts.
Divine Law is the Highest Law. Natural law is understood to be the system or collection of laws arranged together in a methodical order. The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it.
Institutes of American Law - Preliminary Book #
[Even] the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
Cruden vs. Neal 2 N.C. 338 (N.C. Super. 1796).
Right Reasoning
.…”The knowledge of all these laws belongs to philosophy, which, in its immensity, embraces all the knowledge which man can acquire by the use of his reason. More circumscribed in its object, jurisprudence regulates only human actions. Law, in this view then, is the rule of human actions; that is, of those actions which are the result of free exercise of intelligence and will.
Many moral obligations exist, that are NOT enforced by the civil law, these are left to the operations of conscience.
—Institutes of American Law - Preliminary Book 1
MAXIMS - Universal
Maxims are above man-made laws, they are founded in morals of ages of conscience.
Maxims are rules or principals of law universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason. They are something like axioms in geometry. Many maxims are merely the statement with short sentences of principles which claim the assent of mankind. These existed before the law, for, it has been well observed, nations have been found without laws, none without maxims. Just as nations have been found without law, but none without equity. Law is nothing without equity and equity is everything even without law. Such maxims may be considered as fragments of the natural law, which was promulgated at the beginning of the world.
Reference Institutes of American Law Book of Equity
Remember there are many moral obligations that have nothing to do with civil laws or man's laws. We all have a higher self and lower self, which is a reflection of self. Strengthen your morality and be a positive builder of and in society.
You owe only due care to the rest of the community. It is IMPERATIVE to KNOW when you are violated and equally imperative to recognize when you are the violator.
DO YOU NEED PERMISSION TO EXERCISE LAW?
The practice of law is an occupation
of common right.”
Sims v. Ahern, 271 SW 720 (1925)
'The practice of law cannot be licensed
by any state/State."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports
353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
WHO CAN COUNSEL?
Litigants can be assisted by 'unlicensed' laymen during judicial proceedings, in Argersinger "No accused may be deprived of, his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied assistance of counsel."
RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. VIRGINIA BAR, 377 U.S. 1 (1964) GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972) 70-5015
A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA
"Next Friend" US v. Tallmadge 829 F2d 767: "...
COUNSEL BY GROUP ASSOCIATION
Man is a social being, fond of the company of his fellows, and always disposed to live with others. It is thus that families, tribes and nations are formed. Men render to and receive mutual benefits and assistance from each other. But in such societies there must constantly arise causes of difference among the several members, and these must be adjusted or settled, either by the parties themselves, or by some power which is superior to them. Their rights must also be regulated, so that the parties may know to what each one is entitled. This is done by an actual or presumed agreement of all the members of the society, state or nation, by the establishment of certain rules, which acquire the name of laws. The knowledge of these laws, or the SCIENCE by which they are understood, is called Jurisprudence.
Institutes of American Law - Preliminary Book #1
Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S.
Constitution - Who For?
Important
Be CLEAR that there exist the National Constitution and the State's constitution for those who confess to be state citizens, as a group of people occupying or inhabiting a fixed portion of the land. State citizenship is not National citizenship, however all state’s are held to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land - the National Constitution.
The Constitution was NOT written for Aboriginal, flesh and blood People. HOWEVER, it is their duty to enforce it so they are not molested by “other citizens”. It being the National Constitution, law of this land includes the rules of engagement for companies / corporations operating upon the land (Articles 1 - 7).
If we understood that, we recognize as a governing entity, corporations do not have power and authority over people to violate their inherit rights / liberties. Corporations have no parity with the real. It is important that the people themselves acknowledge same, and know that there exist Law and “Color of Law”, as well as “Color of Authority” and “Color of Office”. Color means it is a semblance of that which is real, but is not.
Clearing Up Who Constitution is For
The Law of the Land was not established for you as aboriginals per se', however it is definitely meant for you to enforce it so you are not molested by "other" citizens. It is taken from divine principals of the Iroquois confederation, which established the “Great Law of Peace” and the “League of Nations”, which is now the “United Nations”. It was never meant for you to become a branded state, corporate or subject citizen. You may want to reflect on how much has been given up, lost, by partaking in being a "subject" citizen in a society and government that does not have subjects …..mmmm.
Unfortunately, because it hs gone on for so long, lacking true knowledge of government, people may say things like: “well people just want to be citizens of usa, theywant to come to this land and be citizens”…then they will correct it and say be American citizens, and that is where the train begins to go off the track because usa citizenship is not American citizenship or membership. One can be a member of a corporation or an organization or a library. The membership they are talking about is that of a state and a state is but a member of the federal corporation called united states OF America and not America. In bringing the colonies that emerged into states into the fold of government, they were given Executive Powers in this 3 branch system of governing: Legislative, Executive. Judicial. That means they are to execute “Law”, not make up what they call law and impose it upon the natural, national people. Whatever they made up, not being positive law, is for those who are members willingly subscribing to the limited jurisdiction of the respective states and “managed” by the Federal, which is likened to their boss or their “management. That does not mean it is a managing branch for natural, national people. The law of this land is designed to protect and secure “rights” of peple, not demote them into an inferior status, such as the 14th amendment. The establishment of the 14th amendment came appproximately 100 years after the constitution. It was not and is not positive law. It created a feigned subject citizenship, of which they call birthright citizenship today, having nothing to do with birthrights, (you can not be born in the usa). Rights of birth are in nature by way of one’s blood line decent (just sanguine) and not by jus solil (soil). If one’s natural, national status is not acknowledge by where they are born, then this type of so-called birthright citizenship is in fact feigned, and a construct. In other words if you had a child today while in China, it does not make you Chinese. You can subscribe to Chinese citizenship, but it cannot and does not change your desent nature. Same goes for the 14th amendment citizen or citizenship of usa, which is the exact same definition of a 14th amendment citizen / person. It is made up and has no parity with flesh and blood. It was created on paper, was never ratified and was not for natural, national. living breathing people. One who is a natural, national, is one who is”In Full Life”, as opposed to being “Civil Liter Mortuus”.
-
The appearance or semblance without the substance of legal right.
-
That semblance or presumption of authority sustaining the acts of a public officer which is derived from his apparent title to the office or from a writ or other process in his hands apparently valid and regular.
-
A claim or assumption of right to do an act by virtue of an office, made by a person who is legally destitute of any such right. An act unjustly done by the countenance of an office, being grounded upon corruption, to which the office is as a shadow and color.
-
Description text goes here
-
Description text goes here
13th - 14th Amendment
Civil Liter Mortuus is what a 14th Amendment citizen is. If you look at the 13th amendment, which comes BEFORE the 14th, you get a better idea as to what may have been the inspiration for the 14th in their eyes and strategy.
THE 13th AMENDMENT
(with 20 sections)
The 13th amendment with 20 sections was ratified and is in the documents of american history as such. The 13th amendment with only 2 sections was never ratified, yet it was placed into media (print) and is actually propaganda. Section #12 of the 20 sections made it clear that descendants of “Africans” (called today negroes, coloreds, blacks, african-americans, american indians (no such thing), and we can add the newly founded Foundational Blacks, etc., etc. If you are any of those [brands] you are not a part of the family of any nation.
Many, to this day, mis-understand the 13th amendment and think they were being discriminated upon. They did not know they were being protected from becoming a subject citizen. They thought they were being unfairly excluded. What came with that was a host of civil rights agendas, marching, protesting, etc., etc., under the 14th amendment, which was established as a catch-all and cattle them in.
THE 14th AMENDMENT
Definiton of a u.s. citizen:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are “citizens of the United States” and of the State wherein they reside.
Definition of a 14th amendment citizen:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It could not be any clearer that anyone who is a citizen of the usa, is a 14th amendment subject citizen. This is why we were warned hat there is no ned for the 14th amendment and this is what the current day so-called birthright citizen debacle is all about right now. Have they cattled enough people in to it - is THEIR question and campaign today.
It was rather brilliant plan to their end. The 14th amendment was established 1866, almost 100 years after the consitution was ratified (1791). It was presented as the answer to the citizenship problem and it steered people like cattle into it and it's feigned civil rights constructs. Although the 14th amendment was not law and was never ratified, it "offered" people a limited and restricted status and feigned citizenship. They say it was established for the “newly freed people”. But… who are they really? As we know we are not slaves (slavics) and all of us were not enslaved. The brands of negro, colored, black are slave brands and they do not identify you outside of said brand. Those brands also do not afford any rights or protections.
If we knew this, all along, we may not have allowed color of law to be viewed as Law, and the violations and injuries would not have gone as far as they have, generaton after generaton. Knowng the difference makes you a true Law abider and an asset to the community, instead of a victim.
HYPOCRISY:
State constitutions are obligated to uphold the Law of the Land, and are not to make any rules, statutes, etc. that ‘they’ may call law, which abrogates (violates) it. As they are really statutes under "color of law" and can always be challenged as “unconstitutional”. “Color of law” is a semblance of that which is real, even in phraesology, but is not. Read Article VI of the Supreme Law of the Land for yourself so that you don't have to believe anyone else or anyone's possibly tainted or construed interpretation. Then you will be qualified to ‘see’ for yourself when you are being violated.
“We are bound to interpret the Constitution in
the light of the law as it existed at the time
it was adopted.”
-- Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243.
Remember the Constitution was established and written in the "Spirit of Divine Law". No law has binding effect if it violates divine law. Those principals were adopted and sworn by oath and affirmation in respect to the operations upon the land.
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
-- S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
We have atleast two things to think about here. 1. They confess the 14th amendment was established to provide equal protection of the law and due process to “the”newly freed people. The thing is the constitution already provided equal protection and due process. AND…..
2. If all men were created equal, then there would be no need to provide a separate citizenship or status in order to have equal rights and due process. This is further proof that the 14th amendment was offering an inferior subject citizenship status. Today, they call it u.s. birthright citizenship. We must realize they were not then, nor are they now, talking about you, none of that applies to you.
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance."
US Supreme Court in US vs. Minker, 350 US 179 at page 187
SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT
They have assumed and presumed you are the subject. Your remedy is to declare and proclaim otherwise, for the record, as there are no assumptions at law. Otherwise, here we are today with subject citizenship on the table due to lack of knowledge, intended trickery and deceit. Although the 14th amendment citizenship was intended to put a nail in the coffin of their agenda to chattel everyone and anyone in, it must backfire as it exposes the hard hearted and rebellious.
We trust this explains what the citizenship of the u.s. is and why the 14th amendment was established and why you cannot be a 14th amendment citizen, and why there is no need for the application of the 14th amendment for your earthly or divine salvation.
National citizen or a state citizen?
Many have been calling themselves ‘State Nationals”. There is no such thing as a State National. It is a designation made up by the u.s. for those who are are citizens. Even upon claiming non-citizen national, it still puts you under the jurisdiction of the U.S. as a non-citizen national. They don’t even respect when you say you are an American national. They dismiss the entire concept of National anything, unless they make it up and as noted, they are a quasi-national docmicile, not a national one. If you pay attention to the definition of non-citizen national, it speaks for itself.
Legal Definition: Under U.S. law, non-citizen nationals owe permanent allegiance to the United States but lack full citizenship rights, such as voting in federal elections.
What kind of a construct is that? Many people think the north american continent is the U.S., when the U.S. is a corporation operating on the north american land continent. Their headquarters is at Washington, D.C. and they are NOT a continent, they are not the land.
“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.”
--United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
What Does the Contract Say?
Waivers of Contracts and Tacit Agreement
Life is a series of contracts whether they are verbal, expressed, implied or written. It is a matter of one agreeing or accepting offers, although those offers in themselves may be cloaked and deceiving, or what is called an unconscionable contract. It is your agreement that binds them (unless you declare or act otherwise). You possess certain liberties by sheer existence, and they cannot be waived unless you waive them. If you waive them, it must be done with sufficient knowledge by you. Therefore if you find yourself being violated by assumption, it is because somewhere along the way you may have agreed, possibly by implication or by not saying anything otherwise, which is called tacit agreement. Check all written contracts for adhesions (meaning hidden clauses). That happens often in written agreements and is why many say beware of the fine print or “buyer beware”. Maybe someone just made an assumption on your behalf as things were not made clear or there was some kind of a mis-communication. Allow NO Assumptions In Law. No matter what, in law, if any rights were waived by you, there must be some proof showing that you, yourself actually waived them.
“Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748
Tacit agreement shows up as a failure to say or do anything in the face of a violation of law made against you, or brings you injury, be it actual or pending. Even the constitution does not impede YOUR ability to contract. The good thing is you can void any contract that violates the laws of contracting. Such as lack of full disclosure, non-mutuality.
Silence is Fraud. In a court or tribunal, silence by the magistrate or any judicial officer who has an obligation to speak, but does not, is Fraud. They are held to the law and have no immunity when violating it, In fact if an officer of the court vioates the constitution, he or she is warring against the people.
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622.
Some contracts are void abinitio (from inception), others are voidable and some are just Void, wherein you dont have to make them void, they already are on its face. The good thing is they hold no binding effect and neither does a judgement made from a defacto court, a kangaroo court, or a clerk or administrator who executed the order, and had no jurisdiction to make such an “order, or one that violated “due process of law when making judgments and orders. Any order made against you must give you the opportunity to rebut it. That is why even after so-called judging or convicting you, you are given 20 days or so before they schedule “sentencing”. However many who don’t know, do not respond to the so-called order once executed by the Clerk of the court, instead they just wait the 20 days and in doing so, waive the opportunity to respond.
Lawful and Legal
Study the Law and procedures of Law (Due Process), how it is proceeded upon lawfully, not colorably. Then Study the difference between What is Divine, and Natural and what is Man-made constructs and statutes. All things lawful, which mean it possesses the substance of law, is also legal. However, all things legal, which is the form, and it may ‘look good’ in form, but may not be lawful. Know this very important thing because many have been chatteled into "Color of Law" activities. Remember "colored" is anything painted, stained, varnished, or dyed, in other words not the "real thing", starting with yourself and your relationship to the community. Do you show up as the “real”, or as a corporate persona.
One who relies on a legal interpretation by a government official assumes the risk that it is in error... it has also been held or said that the government could scarcely function if it were bound by its employees unauthorized representations
-- Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F2d 477.
Courts / Color of Authority / Defacto
With all the "Points of Law", documented, many who are held to the oath bound obligation of upholding Law in a free national constitution violate it. They are chosen representatives and Trustees. They seem to get away with it, as if it is the "will of the masses".
The ONLY reason they don't uphold it, is because the people themselves do not uphold it, yet in source they (the people) are the Law. The only reason governments are formed (by the people) is to preserve and administer (if you will) the people's sovereignty, at the request of the people, through those chosen representatives and Trustees.
The U.S.A. has limited sovereignty. And the states that are the members of the U.S.A. union, has limited sovereignty. In fact you can say they don’t have sovereignty at all EXCEPT for whatever is enumerated in the Constitution.
You, as a fleshand blood were born sovereign with god-given unalienable / inalienable rights and liberties. No state citizenship makes you sovereign, nor does it void your inherent sovereignty, and there is no city, called Sovereign city for you, or anyone to be a sovereign citizen of or from.
The so-called Sovereign citizen is propaganda, a feigned construct and effort to create a citizen status. Therefore as far as sovereignty being held by a citizenship / membership, it does not exist and a corporation, or created construct, such as the U.S. cannot have parity with any real flesh and blood born sovereign, born free.
CLIPPED SOVEREIGNTY
The United States has no inherent powers of sovereignty and only those enumerated in the constitution... the manifest purpose of the 10th amendment has been put beyond dispute.
Kansas v Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51L, Ed.956; John Bouviers Concise Encyclopedia of Law -Francis Rawles, 3rd Rev. pg 639 - Definition of Constitution.
-
"the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-
"the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Retained vs Not Delegated
As you can see, the 9th amendment is referring to rights retained by the people. However, the 10th amendment is referring to rights not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. This is because the ONLY sovereignty the United States has is that which is enumerated in the constitution, which is the law of the land that ALL states MUST abide by. So if you are vested and comfortable in the State Constitution that yes, is supposed to not violate the law of the land, and you do not look closely at what that state is charging you with, or making a claim upon you with, as it relates to whetehr it is law, or is it a statute made up yesterday in their meeting room, then you are missing the points of law yourself.
COLORABLE - DEFACTO COURTS
A Tribunal that does not have a Delegation of Authoirty via the Constitution Art. 3, and attempts to adjudicate as a court, is a defacto venue, a kangaroo court. As such, Sham Pleas are the ONLY thing that comes out of a kangaroo court proceeding.
Sham Plea: False; - said of pleading. A sham pleading is therefore one good in form, but false in fact.
“Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by consent of parties.”
Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 3.
The above means that no one can just “say” they have jurisdiction or that they have a delegation of authority order. They have to show it, it must be attached as is stated in the above definition of what a comptent court is, one who who can show, or have it attached, as it is an Averment of Jurisdiction, herefor is a document sworn to that fact, so “show it”, attach it”,
Kangaroo Court: Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the court or other tribunal.
Black’s Law Dictionary - 4th edition pg.
-
Competent Court: A court, either civil or criminal, having lawful jurisdiction with the showing and attachment of jurisdiction.
-
Inferior Court. This term may denote any court subordinate to the chief appellate tribunal in the particular judicial system (e.g. trial court); but it is also commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment.
-
A court established by statute apparently valid, which has organized with a Judge appointed, and has exercised authority as a court. Burt v. R. Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18N. W. 285, 289. Pg.766
Sanctions for using
the term ‘Court’
As a matter of truth and function of law, if a ‘Judge’ says he is a Judge and has no “Oath of Office”; and if a ‘Court’ says they are a court and has no “Delegation of Authority”, then the Judge (so-called) is a “Defacto Judge” and can be charged with “Impersonating an Officer of the Court” AND the Hearing Room or Tribunal of sorts, is not a court and both can be fined for using, or mis-using the term “Court”.
CHAPTER 30 of the CONSOLIDATED LAWS – JUDICIARY
Article 1. Short title (Secs. 1-1-a).
General provisions relating to courts and judges (Secs.2-39-b).
Sec. 3. Use of term "court" prohibited.
No person, firm, association or corporation shall hereafter use or employ the term "court" as part of or in connection with the name of any body, board, bureau, association, organization or corporation, or in referring to any body, board, bureau, association, organization or corporation, in such manner as to be calculated reasonably to lead to the belief that the body, board, bureau, association, organization or corporation is vested with judicial power or is a part of the judicial system of the state; the use of such term being expressly limited by this section for reference to a court of record or a court not of record, duly organized and existing under the laws of the state as a part of the judicial system of the state. Any violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor.
The above is why they began calling themselves “Hearing Rooms” and began sending summons to you to attend ‘Hearings’ instead of to appear in Court. They are administrative venues - not courts. The people became aware and began suing (power really is in the people). So…… they don’t change what they do, they change, or try to change, the way they do it.
Defacto Judge
De Facto Judge. One duly elected, qualified and acting as such, under conditions on which one might be properly appointed, but who failed to comply with some necessary act to qualify him, as taking the oath of office.
You will never find a Judge (Article 3) in an Administrative court, as he loses all his Judicial authority if he sits in one.
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities."
Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".
Thompson v. Smith,154 SE 583.
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."
ASIS v. US,568 F2d 284.
Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.
Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 cal. 3d 518, 533
The Constitution is Due Process.
The Constitution is the Lien Against Them.
"Void Judgements"
Void: Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect;
unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.
Whereas, a Writ may be void because it is defective in language, because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ;
Big Torts 122 Nixon v. Reeves, 65 Minn. 159, 67 n.W. 989, 33 L.R.A. 506. Also see Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3rd revision Pg. 1182.
The Clerk of the court who issues a defective writ, or one not authorized by the Court, is liable; and so is a judge who orders a writ which he had no right to issue or where he had no jurisdiction.
Big Torts 128. Also See Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3rd revision Pg. 1182.
These feigned void judgments and sham pleas can, and have, ruined people's life. They present them in legally, however, all things legal are not lawful, while all things lawful are legal. Anything that is absent of the substance of Law has no standing in or at law.
Many may have heard of an Article 3 court (according to Article 3 of the National Constitution). Yet, may not know the IMPORTANCE and walk themselves like cattle into venues that are Kangaroo courts shelling out sham pleas. A court MUST have lawful jurisdiction, must be properly seated and in possession of a Delegation of Authority. Look at it this way: What if (hypotehticaly) they are a court that can hear matters concerning apples and your matter is about oranges? Wouldn’t that concern you?
So who are you really talking to? The showing or attaching, for the record, of their “Averment of Jurisdiction” / puts an end to having to guess if they are who they say they are. Sounds pretty fair and simple. They do not possess it and that is the reason why they do not produce it upon request. -- Just that Simple. believe it or not.
Removal to Federal District Court?
Removal of Causes: the transfer of “cause” from one court to another. Commonly used of the transfer of jurisdiction and cognizance of an action commenced but not finally determined, with all further proceedings therein. More particularly, the transfer of a cause, before trial or final hearing thereof, from a state court to the United States district Court, under the acts of congress in that behalf.
Black’s Law Dictionary Pg. 1459
Let’s talk about it. The highest court of any state is the STATE Supreme court, and even unto that court, it is for corporate persons, not flesh and blood natural, nationals. That ought tell us everything we need to know regarding why as Nationals, we do not belong in inferior court venues (state courts all the way down to municipal). You are with a Federal question as a National. As well, the lower courts have no delegation of authority to be a judicial function in accord with the “Law of the Land”. They really, really are pretending and that is highly penal.
The Federal is likened to their (the states) management and they seem to be fighting each other at this time for a power they are not vested with. Some people finally get to the federal district court (which is the arm of ‘THE’ supreme court, where ALL Judicial authority is vested according to Article 3 of ‘THE’ supreme constitution - Law of the Land.
So we are talking ‘THE’ supreme court and not a State court, and not a state supreme court. If you are a citizen of any state you cannot enter “diversity of citizenship” issues into a federal court, as your citizenship is on the same shelf of the state,so there is no diversity.
Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879 a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and,
b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities:
c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
Are you a citizen of and residing in a State, which is the definition of a 14th amendment or corporate person?
CIVIL COVER SHEET
(for Federal Case entries)
One of the biggest mis-understood entries on the civil cover sheet is that you are to check off “Foreign Nation” for yourself, not a foreign state, not a foreign citizen, not a foreign city, not a citizen, which in being a citizen, you are a franchised invividual entity of the federal. The cover sheet is SIMPLY a form for the clerk to enter your suit and it is not any lawful determination or adjudication, just a clerk’s process, and it says so on the form itself (in the disclaimer instructions.
Resultantly, many, I suppose, think they are the foreigner in the land We are foreign to them, they to us, but we are not the foreigner. We are of a nation (regardless to what you think of the condition of said nation). But we are not the foreigners by no means. We ought all know by now we cannot be foreigners in the land we say we are aboriginal to.
The other thing is you can only check one thing or category box on the cover sheet. However, the contents of your suit can contain more than one thing or category, points of law and claim. We suggest to check #950 - “challenging the constitutionality of a statute.”
Think about it, they usually give you a summons/ ticket / suit with a statute they say you violated - right? Well, look at that statute, what does it say? Is it constitutional? Probably not. Some will read the statute they stuck on you and see that it may even have nothing to do with whatever is going on, OR they just made up stuff, and it is in error, and is unconstitutional.
This is especially true when they try to say you committd fraud because you presented your self executing name correction and it does not match what they, not only want you to be, but need you to be, because the name (birth certificated) puts you in their jurisdiction and they can continue to extract from you with that ens legis, or nom deguerre, or what many call a straw. That is THEIR view of things to meet their end game. It is a nom deguerre:
Nom Deguerre: A War name, a fictitious name, a name used for a time.
In the wording of the statute where they are charging you, for example, with forgery or fraud because you presented YOUR national appellation, or another name, for whatever reason, of which you can change at will. If you look up the statute and look at the explanation of it, usually on the opening line, the first sentence of said explanation, you will see the error and see that they are not talking to or about you. Example it may read as follows on the first line:
“a person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person”…
OOPS, there it is, with intent ? You had no intent to defraud, you made a lawful self executing correction or change. Right off-the-bat, that statute is void to you and void against you. It is in error and it is clear they are NOT talking to you, nor about you.
Upon reviewing the statute further, it may be very obvious on its face that it is an consttitutional violation of rights and liberties. So one is a direct and obvious violation of the law and the other is worded in such a way that even in an attempt to construe it, it cannot be construed. They usually try to construe it to mean something it does not. So, we have to become more aware and that way, we don’t have to go down all the rabbit holes, especially those of commerce. Because they are the commerical entity themselves - not you. Don’t let them drag you there. Many do because we have a mental block that thinks they are the law, that this American land is somehow theirs, when it is not. We almost cannot help it, we act out as if we are going to get into the commerical box with them and show them who they are (commercial entities) and then show them how they are not gonna mess with you, when by even entertaining a parat of that, (depending on how you do it, what you say, what you don’t say, and how you say it), is engaging in them, we often act a if they are the authority, we often bandon everything, our right, our privilege, our inheritance, the whole 9 yards as if we are going to start our own governmnt when we REALLY are part and parcel to this one, we birthed it, it did not birth us, it certainly though, has tried to change who we are, change our identity right down to “trying” to alter our DNA by the foods we eat. They tried to bury us, but they forgot we were seeds, as Sister Kareemah shared in her “Eugenics” presentment.
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425.
The State Attorney General is the highest judicial officer of any state, and that is why you keep him, or her, on courtesy notice when you are challenging one of their state statutes, he ought to know that one of his statutes are being challenged at the federal level.
So yes the states are to set up their ‘court’ system in concert and accord with the supreme law of the land. Unfortunately they may do so at the start, but they violate it - like all day long, and twice on the weekend, or twice on Sunday, as many may say. They start making statutes, constueing dn miscnstuing and then call it law and impose it on you.
In short. The constitution is due process. The Federal only hears constitutional violations and that means you may never get to the subject matter if they cannot get pass personum jurisdiction and due process, thereby, have no subject matter jurisdiction as well.
So you are not challenging the federal, you are presenting a matter of their citizens and franchised invividual entities challenging you, and measuring it up against the constitution, not the state and not the municipalities statutes,
This postion is right and exact but one MUST know law in order to affectuate law. You must know how to erect a suit and AI may or may not give that to you correctly, as most of the times they are feeding in and out of state staatues and color of law. Most conventional law classes, do not address anyone’s status, their relationship, or who are the parties is the first issue at law and is your relationship to the rest of the community, also referred to as your status, but it is not valid if there is no nationality.
Once you make the entry into the federal and get the case number assigned, the lower court that you removed it from, must immediately cease and desist from making any court summons or proceedings because the Federal has ‘possession’ of the jurisdiction and that is in accord with original jurisdiction / .United States Republic constitution, ‘ law of the land, Ministers, Consuls, Diplomats, Article 3, section 2; and Article 6; Due Process; Religious Liberty and Supreme Court Rulings. And, it is being entered by a natural person, In full life, In propria persona. The standing as such does not have a place in a state or especially a municipal venue. So, how you write it, is very important to that end.
There are 5 Parts:
Parties
Jurisdiction
Cause of Action
Conclusion
Remedy or Relief Sought.
We suggest a strategy that is right and exact, simple and leaves no wiggle room for construance. Whatever they may be suiting you for usually falls under (USC Title 18: 241 & 242). Either there exist a violation of rights and liberties or a conspiracy to violate. That is basically for most all situations. So use Title 18: 241 and 242 not 42USC, as if you really read 42USC, it says it is for US citizens and it is under the color of law, however Title 18: 242 also “addresses” color of law, while one is not a u.s. citizen in Title 241. So… there is no need to use 42USC it is already done in Title 18: 242. Also take notice that in Title 18: 241 it does not even have the word citizen.
We have instructions for the Federal Removal as a set of 6 digitally recorded classes that explain in detail, how to do a Removal. We do not suggest anyone go into it without some knowledge of rules of law due process.
If you are interested, click the icon below to obtain the 6 Removal classes for $50.
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed.
Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42
CONCLUSION:
How Could You Possibly Hold Anyone to any of the Above, If You, Yourself Do Not Know it?
Something unlawful is unlawful thereby has no standing in Law. As Law abiders, one ought not fall in that trap. Way too many have and have passed it down as if it is the right and lawful thing to do. Now many are squawking about the unlawfulness and the unconstitutionality of statutes offered as law, which have always been unlawful, yet they themselves lack the knowledge of law, and of the supreme Law of the land that simply keeps violators from violating you. But ONLY IF you ENFORCED it instead of giving strength to wicked practices. So... the boogey man and the big bad wolf and the "Wizard of Oz" has been at your door all this time and you did not recognize it. Some actually chastised others who did recognize it and warned them of it. Many did not heed the warning, did nothing, aspired to learn nothing, to know nothing, essentially they turned a blind eye. Others thought ....well, if this is the law then why don't "they" do something about it; Why do "they" keep letting it happen. Great question, but who is "they"? No one can "speak for you". No one can initiate a claim or tort for you. By "the people" unknowingly going along with it, letting it occur for whatever reason, it indicated that it is alright with them. Meaning you agreed (contracted). Silence is agreement. It is called "tacid" agreement. By doing nothing differently, either written, verbal, expressed or implied, still doing nothing. Then there were those who were WAITING for someone else to do "it". As they say, "weight broke the wagon down" and so it is pretty much broken down. You must stand up for you, as no one else will. Let's fix this because......
Many have lived and passed form and never knew, thereby they could not pass it down to you for its truthfulness and your usefulness. And many continue to BELIEVE and accept that which is falsely applied as being lawful, as if it is lawful, when it is not. It must be said just as simply as that, as that is the truth and we are sharing the facts that support what is true. What if anything, will you do about it? What can be done about it? Waiting for someone (else) is not the answer because in truth, your savior is within you.
Don't give up - don't give in. Join our ongoing class sessions and /or obtain our pre-recorded sessions. A true lawyer is a lay-man, just as a civilian is (as in a civilized being). A civilian means one who is "skilled in law".