The PEOPLE are supreme over government – by JH Hill, M.D.

The PEOPLE are supreme over the various States and the United States governments; and the United States Corporation

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
May 20, 2013; Reposted April 28, 2014

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine

We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with matches.”  — Will Rogers

“He who would be deceived, let him.”   — ancient Roman maxim of law

The Constitution and the Union (called the “United States of America”) were creations of the PEOPLE; and NOT of the States. Note that, until the early 1900’s, the country called the “United States of America” was called the “Union”. Thus, the people of the northern States usually stated that the reason for the fighting the Civil War was to “preserve the Union”; and NEVER as “to preserve the United States”. Indeed, if you were to ask a man in 1865 the name of his “country”, he most likely would have responded with the name of his sovereign STATE – NOT with the term “United States”. “My country is Massachusetts.” or “I am a citizen of Ohio.” And within one’s own State, each man remained an individual sovereign with supremacy over his State government. This was common knowledge and almost never debated, as it was accepted by almost everyone.

The people were and forever remain “individual sovereigns”. A careful reading of the Preamble affirms that the people, as individual sovereigns, wrote and gave authority to the Constitution as a contract that created as a TRUST – a type of legal corporation. However, the people were NOT parties to the contract called the Constitution; the only parties to this contract were the individual States that ratified the Constitution. In short, the Constitution was a contract among the various States that ratified it; it was NOT a contract between the States and the people. (Did any actual people sign it? Did YOU sign it? If a man does NOT sign a contract, it can NOT apply to him – no contract can be inherited.) The states remained superior (sovereign) to the Trust called the United States and, therefore, superior to all officers and employees of that Trust called the United States. But the individual man, the people, remained sovereign over the States and therefore over the United States.

 PREAMBLE of Constitution for the United States of America:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE  [the Preamble contains all the elements of a TRUST]

TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]

VENUE: of the United States

PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,

ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]

ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]

WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for TRUST as a corporation]

TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

Analysis of the Preamble

 

The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here is an explanation that affirms the concept of retained individual sovereignty:

After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the Common Law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen–and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).

In the Constitution (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative words are “establish” and “ordain”. The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People “establish” (bring into existence) and “ordain” (grant legitimacy and authority to it) a constitution, there is nothing in the words “establish” and “ordain” that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (see Republican Government and Democracy in DEFINITIONS above). Please note that the word “people” is grammatically correct as either singular or pleural – therefore, the word “people” can correctly mean one man or many men. [The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution show clearly that the word “people” means each individual man; and the rights therein guaranteed refer to individual rights. Consequently, every man was and remains an individual sovereign with all the Natural rights of a sovereign.

The Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819]. See also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470 [1793]; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 93 [1795]; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 [1816]; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247 [1833]. The preamble contemplates the body of electors composing the states, the terms “people” and “citizens” being synonymous. Negroes, whether free or slaves, were not included in the term “people of the United States at that time. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 404 [1857].

“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
“D.” = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own rights, power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own rights, power or authority. What was before, continues to be so today.

From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do NOT apply to People, who remain sovereigns. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country, are sovereigns of the country and may NOT be involuntarily subjected to the laws (acts or statutes) of the United States. Instead, the Constitution, as a Trust, apples ONLY to the officers and employees of that Trust. Just as any corporation can make internal rules applicable for its officers and employees ONLY, so too is the Congress acting as the legislative or rule-making body within the Trust. Consequently, ALL statutes legislated by Congress apply ONLY to the officers and employees of the Trust called the United States.

During the ratification debates, anti-federalists insisted the federal government would not remain constrained to limited, enumerated powers as supporters of the Constitution promised. Even Madison asked what happens in “those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it.” In other words, what remedies would be available to the various States and to the people if all three branches of the federal government conspired to exercise undelegated powers?

Madison argued that the various States would serve as the first check upon the federal government. “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular State…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be addedon such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

But the anti-Federalists still worried: what remedy would be available to the people should the various States and the federal government conspire to exercise powers not delegated to them?  The people of the various States created the federal government in the first place as a contract among the various States; and the creator always remain the master and sovereign over his creations. That is, the people of the various States retain the right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of the powers they delegated to the governments they created at the federal, state and local levels. Ratification of the Constitution was possible only after promises were secured regarding future amendments known as the “Bill of Rights” which guaranteed the natural and unalienable rights of the people. And that was to be enforced by the people themselves through the use of Common Law, freedom of speech and the press, trial by jury, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and – as a last resort – the people as the armed militia. The people, as individual sovereigns, were ultimately responsible for preserving their own rights.

Thomas Jefferson believed the people serving on a jury operating under Common Law would be the primary means by which the people could avoid abuses of power by the government. “The function of a jury is not, as many people think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.” And, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Thomas Jefferson)

The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves–the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with.” Lysander Spooner

“The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation [of power by government], without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” Theophilus Parsons (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams’ nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts Supreme Court).

“Yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power [as individual sovereigns] to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. And thus the community [of individual sovereigns] perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they [the legislators] shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject [people].” John Locke (Locke’s works were perhaps the primary influence on the political thought of both Madison and Jefferson, as well as many other Americans at that time.

Thus, as stated above, it was very clear that the people themselves, as individual sovereigns, were ultimately responsible for preserving their own rights against abusive government – either by peaceful or forceful means, as necessary.

The 9th and 10th Amendments also confirm that the people remain individual sovereigns.

  • 9th Amendment (Protection of individual rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.)

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We first must distinguish between “powers” and “rights”, whose definitions below are taken from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition-revised, 1968

POWER: The right, ability, or faculty of doing something. Clifford v. Helvering, C.C.A.8, 105 F. 2d 586, 591. Authority to do any act which the grantor might himself lawfully perform. In re Morrison’s Estate, 173 Misc. 503, 18 N.Y.S.2d 235, 241. In a restricted sense a “power” is a liberty or authority reserved by, or limited to, a person to dispose of real or personal property, for his own benefit, or benefit of others, or enabling one person

to dispose of interest which is vested in another. In re Vanatta’s Estate, 99 N.J.Eq. 339, 131 A. 515, 518; Hupp v. Union Coal & Coke Co., 284 Pa. 529, 131 A. 364, 365; Security Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Ward, 10  Del.Ch. 408, 93 A. 385, 388. “Power” is sometimes used in the same sense as “right,” as when we speak of the powers of user and disposition which the owner of property has over it, but, strictly speaking, a power is that which creates a special or exceptional right, or enables a person to do something which he could not otherwise do. Sweet.  Technically, an authority by which one person enables another to do some act for him. 2 Lil. Abr. 339.

Inherent powers: Those which are enjoyed by the possessors of natural right, without having been received from another. Such are the powers of a people to establish a form of government, of a father to control his children. Some of these are regulated and restricted in their exercise by law, but are not technically considered in the law as powers. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition-revised, 1968)

RIGHT: As a noun, and taken in an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin “jus,” and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it an ethical content. As a noun, and taken in a concrete sense, a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. “Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere, and giving to the term a juristic content, a “right” is well defined as “a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others.” Holl. Jur. 69.  Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and political, to which there is sometimes added the class of “personal rights.”

Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; or they are those which are plainly assured by natural law (Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 44 Am.Dec. 217) ; or those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. 1 Woolsey, Polit. Science, p. 26. Such are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation. See Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) 523.

Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C.C.Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.

Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition. Black Const. Law (3d Ed.) 524; Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681.

Personal rights is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life, limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty.

(Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition-revised, 1968)

In returning to the 9th and 10th Amendments, three points deserve emphasis.

(1) The 9th Amendment guaranteed the natural RIGHTS possessed by the individual man (the people), whether or not listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10). Thus, the 9th Amendment is an affirmation of individual sovereignty.

(2) The 10th Amendment guaranteed the POWERS reserved to the States or the people (as individuals) provided that:

(a) such powers had not been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; OR

(b) such powers had not been prohibited to it by the States.

(3) While a POWER derived from a right may be delegated and the exercise of a RIGHT (which is a POWER) temporarily waived, a man – as an individual sovereign – NEVER waives or gives up possession of his natural rights. At most, he may choose to temporarily waive the exercise of powers derived from a right.

While item (2)(a) above – the issue of “delegated powers” – is often brought up in the courts, the issue of “powers prohibited by the States” is often ignored in terms of the powers of a single sovereign State. As the papers of the Federalists and anti-Federalists make clear, the “powers prohibited by the States” clause affirms the right of each State to prohibit the exercise of a particular power by the federal government – in short, what is currently being termed in newspapers as the “state nullification of federal statutes” under the concept of each State’s sovereignty over the federal government. However, it should be remembered that each individual man forever has retained all of his natural rights and that, as an individual sovereign, his rights are NOT subject to any limitations by government under any circumstances. He may temporarily delegate some POWERS to a government, but as an individual sovereign with all his RIGHTS intact, a man may revoke from government those previously delegated POWERS at any time for any reason at his own will. As an individual sovereign (like a king), the man’s wish becomes the law. (derived from the English kings: “Your wish is my command.”; and the king’s wish was a command or decree of LAW. Once again, The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047 and “To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144_148]

It is stressed again that the people (either individually or collectively) were NOT a party to the contract – as a Trust or compact – called the Constitution. The Constitution was written and put forward (“ordain and establish”) by the people, but it was a contract among the various independent sovereign States ONLY!  

1.) It was NOT a contract between the States and the Federal Government, since the Federal Government did not yet exist.

2.) It was NOT a contract between the people and the Federal Government, since the Federal Government did not yet exist – the people merely proposed the constitution for the various independent States to contract into.

3.) It was NOT a contract between the people and the various States, since the people, as individual sovereigns, NEVER ratified or approved the constitution – ONLY the various independent States approved or ratified it. (A valid contract requires the voluntary approval of ALL parties to that contract, usually in written form. Also, one generation of people can NOT bind future generations of people – also individual sovereigns – to any contract. A man can bind ONLY himself to a contract – no one else!)

Thus, the people, as individual sovereigns, retained all of their inherent natural rights. ONLY the various States had delegated a few powers to the federal government; and therefore, these federal powers could be exercised over the people ONLY through each man’s individual consent (”consent of the governed”). Finally, as individual sovereigns, any man could withdraw his consent at ANY time for ANY reason and thereafter no longer be bound by any legislated “rules” (as acts or statutes).

*****************

Some relevant quotes by James Madison (with comments):

“The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.”

Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

“Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the community. . . .”

Madison was issuing a WARNING to us against tyranny by the majority as in a true democracy, where the majority rules !!!

“If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is that EVERY MAN has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs, but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.”

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

*****************

 Madison clearly stated below that Congress did not possess the power to pass unlimited legislation.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they make take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of LIMITED Government established by the people of America.”

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact [contract called the Constitution], to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact [Constitution as a contract creating a TRUST], the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” Virginia Resolution of 1798

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, Madison wrote of the principle of interposition and clearly affirmed that ONLY the States that ratified the Constitution are parties to the contract called the Constitution. Here Madison asserts what is implied in today’s nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty of the people, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people (as individual sovereigns) of the various States. “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they [the various sovereign States] must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” (James Madison)

Here Madison confirmed that ONLY States that ratified the Constitution are parties in that contractual Trust called the Constitution; NOT the people. However, from the other information I have provided above, it should be clear that in this last paragraph, the phrase “…”that there can be no tribunal above their authority…” refers solely to the relationship among the various States and the new federal government – most certainly NOT to the people who remained individual sovereigns. Every man, as one of the People, was and remains an individual sovereign; and therefore is bound by State and federal legislation only to the extents that he freely consents to those jurisdictions. Consequently, EVERY statute (or act) legislated by either a State legislature or by the federal Congress requires a man’s individual consent before he falls under its jurisdiction. That, by the way, is what the Founders meant when they wrote about the “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED” – not some type of hereditary, ethereal mass consent; but rather the consent of each individual man in his sovereign capacity.

One might wonder HOW in the world would it be possible, especially in the late 1700’s, to obtain the consent from every adult man and or woman for every statute enacted by a legislature before that statute could become applicable? The answer is that it was obviously NOT possible! Real LAW refers only to Common Law. Strictly speaking, legislated acts (statutes) are NOT “law”, but merely rules (or internal policies, by-laws, regulations or whatever one wishes to call them) applicable ONLY to the officers and employees or members of a corporation (organization) OR to others who VOLUNTEER to be subject to the jurisdiction of such rules.

STATUTE, n. An act of the legislature declaring, commanding, or prohibiting something; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government; the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state. Federal Trust Co. v. East Hartford Fire Dist., C.C.A.Conn., 283 F. 95, 98; In re Van TasselFs Will, 119 Misc. 478, 196 N.Y.S. 491, 494; Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601, 109 So. 588, 591. This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown, 199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d 530, 535. See Common Law.  Statutable or Statutory: That which is introduced or governed by statute law, as opposed to the common law or equity. Thus, a court is said to have statutory jurisdiction when jurisdiction is given to it in certain matters by act of the legislature. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition-revised, 1968)

The topic of JURISDICTION has filled numerous volumes and is too complex to discuss here. Suffice it to say that there is an ancient maxim in law, “If you fail to object, you have consented.” It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record”, which by definition means that the court must proceed according to the Common Law (NOT statutory law).  The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties.  For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law.  The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties.  That is the primary (but hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure.  During arraignment the administrative-statutory court offers the “Defendant” three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre).  But each of these three choices leads to the same jurisdiction, namely statutory jurisdiction, NOT Common Law jurisdiction.  That is to say, in an administrative-statutory jurisdiction, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated; NOT whether another man suffered injury and the Common Law violated. In a true “Court of Record” (a Common Law court – a true judicial court), the man brought before the tribunal is called the “Accused”. And he may plead using the term “Innocent”, since under Common Law, the accused is “innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.” Further, by filing a counter-claim challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the “accused” (called the “defendant” by the administrative-statutory court), the accused can become the “plaintiff” with the judge and court personnel becoming the “defendants”. And under Common Law the plaintiff, the man as a sovereign can preside over his own court – it becomes YOUR court in which YOU act as the Tribunal (decider of facts and law, thus BOTH judge and jury). The judge becomes merely an administrator in YOUR court and is NOT allowed to make any rulings or impose sanctions (such as fines or detention). If the judge decides to issue rulings or sanctions, YOU as the tribunal can simply written judicial orders (called “writs”) to invalidate the judge’s actions. The new defendant’s – the judge and other court personnel - sole option is to request a jury to act as the tribunal(decider of facts and law). Thus, either you act as the tribunal in your court or a jury acts as the tribunal in your court. Finally, the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal operating under Common Law is absolutely final (where either the plaintiff by counter-claim or a jury acts as the tribunal) and can NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or constitutional in the land.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior authority of a true “Court of Record”. Whether it be an appellate or supreme court - including the U.S. Supreme Court! -  NO court can overturn the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal.

“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

“We [the Supreme Court and all inferior courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.”  (Cohen vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); also see: U.S. vs Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, at pg. 406).

Territorial jurisdiction of the federal government is also very limited. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, and it possessed jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly after formation of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. Over time, the States have ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States. This conclusion was confirmed by the federal government itself. In June 1957, the United States government published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, and this report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

“The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdictionby State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17… Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place,” Id., at 41.

“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,” Id., at 45.

“The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,” Id., at 46.

“On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it hasno power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government,” Id., at 107.

Therefore, the United States government – which is actually a private municipal corporation – has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States (the so-called “Federal zone”). However, unless jurisdiction has been granted by treaty, the federal government has NO territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases. In fact, it is a well established principle of law that all federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;” see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding commission’s subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215, where the Supreme Court declared:

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894) at 215

In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating, “Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out.”

Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside “its jurisdiction,” it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside “its jurisdiction.”

Thus, the question arises: If the Federal government (with such limited territorial jurisdiction in the States), the various States and even cities have NO jurisdiction over a man as an individual sovereign under Common Law, HOW is it that so many people are prosecuted in U.S. courts? The answer is so simple that it mind-boggling. The courts simply makes the PRESUMPTION that it has jurisdiction.

If you walk into a courtroom and you do NOT explicitly object to the court’s jurisdiction regarding a particular federal or State or local statute, then under Common Law the court presumes as fact that you have given your consent to be under the jurisdiction of that court operating under statutes or equity. (A nisi prius” procedure is a procedure to which a person has failed to object and therefore it follows as fact that the person agrees to it.) In other words, by nisi prius procedure a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause.)

Further, the court affirms its presumption by your actions and behavior, such as: you enter the courtroom and do NOT claim “Common Law jurisdiction” (you pass through the railing or bar separating the judge and attorneys from the audience); you stand when the judge enters the courtroom and the court is called into session; you obey and do NOT object to instructions from the judge and other court officials; you enter a plea of either “guilty”, “not guilty” or “no contest” (nolo contendre) during the arraignment or actual court session; you do NOT state that you appear in court by “special appearance” only, rather than “general appearance”; you say the phrase “I understand” or answer YES to the question, “Do you understand?” (since “I understand.” in law means “I stand under the court, its authority an its jurisdictional presumptions.”); you answer to people addressing you by your FULL NAME or with a TITLE (such as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or “Ms.” or some other title conferred on people by the government); you state or infer that you are a “citizen” of the United States or of a State (a citizen of the U.S. or of a State is automatically a citizen of the city-town, since cities-towns are corporations created under the authority of the States; it is best to say that you are an “American” or an “American National”); you provide documents and other items issued by government (such as Social Security card, driver’s license, birth certificate, etc.); you accept ANY “benefits” or “privileges” from the federal or State or local governments (such as Food Stamps, unemployment benefit payments, Social Security payments, etc.); you hire or accept an attorney (thereby becoming a “client” which is defined as a “ward of the court” – an “infant” or “person of unsound mind”); never state that or admit that you are a “person”; and many additional actions and behaviors too numerous to list.

Instead of hiring an attorney, you must appear in court “in propria persona” (in one’s own proper person) to claim your right to trial in a true “court of record” operating under Common Law. And you must file a counter-claim challenging the court’s jurisdiction by which you become the plaintiff and the judge and court personnel become the “defendants”. The counter-claim should be filed with the court BEFORE your ever any court appearances. By this method you establish your own “court of record” in which you (or a jury, if requested) become the tribunal (decider of law and facts) and the judge becomes merely a procedural administrator in your court. Consequently, since ONLY the tribunal can issue rulings and orders, you as the plaintiff (or the jury) are the sole individual who can make any decisions regarding motions, writs and procedure; deciding verdicts of guilt or innocence, imposing sanctions (such as fines, detention, imprisonment); and imposing fines or detentions for contempt of  (YOUR) court.

The “United States” government is a corporation having jurisdiction ONLY with the “Federal zone” or outside the Federal zone ONLY if you explicitly or implicitly consent to its jurisdiction. Similarly, a State or city-town has NO jurisdiction unless you, as an individual sovereign, consent to that jurisdiction. In short, you MUST explicitly object to the court’s presumption of jurisdiction, clearly state (often repeatedly) that you claim your natural right to trial in a Court of Record operating under Common Law.  Finally, at every step you must challenge EVERY presumption and object to EVERY attempt - and there will be many! - by the judge and his court personnel to regain jurisdiction and re-establish his court. “A presumption not rebutted becomes fact in a court of law.” Which brings me to my final maxim from ancient Roman law: “He, who would be deceived, let him.” – meaning, "If you do not know your rights, your powers derived from those rights and the law, that's YOUR problem!"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTES:

1.) PERSON: In law a “person” is NOT equivalent of a living, breathing “man” [or woman or child]. Rather, a “person” usually refers to a man as a legal fiction or “strawman” or “artificial man” and may refer to corporations, as well as actors within corporations (officers and employees). Most importantly, as noted immediately above, a man as an individual sovereign is NOT a “person” – which means that if a man affirms that he is a “person”, he thereby waives his powers derived from the his rights as a sovereign and falls within the jurisdiction of the private, municipal corporation named the “United States”.  Even a State, town, city orcounty is a person in a legal sense,” Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not. In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 …. ; and Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300 In fact, in relation to the United States, a State is considered as BOTH a “person” and a “foreign country”, so that when a man enters a federal court, he is legally leaving his State and entering a foreign country.

2.) CITIZEN: The term the “citizen of the United States” is defined solely in the 14th Amendment ratified July 9, 1868 by the States after the Civil War. Section 1. states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and [citizens] of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section 5. “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Consequently, the terms “citizen” and “citizen of the United States” involve the definition of “person” AND the two (2) qualifications listed for “citizen of the United States”. A “person” may mean a man (as a “natural person”) OR it may mean a legal fiction or “artificial person”, such as a corporation or an actor within a corporation (officer or other employee) or even a foreign government. For the sake of argument, if we concede that the 14th Amendment refers to a “natural person” or man, that “person” is required to meet two (2) qualifications:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States AND (B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States].

The reader needs to be aware of the legal doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”, meaning that the “inclusion of some items means the exclusion of all alternative items” or that which follows the word “include” means ONLY those items and EXCLUDES all non-listed items. We have observed above that “United States” has at least four (4) different legal meanings. In this instance, does it mean the United States of America (#4 above) as States united by and under the Constitution OR the sovereign Nation (#1) OR the corporate TRUST (#2) established by the Constitution OR, retroactively, the private, foreign municipal corporation (#3) established by the Congress through the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871? Does it mean that one need only be born or naturalized in one of the geographic States of the United States of America? That would seem logical, BUT the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the District of Columbia is NOT a State within the United States; and neither are any of the federal enclaves within the States, or territories and insular possessions of the United States. If “United States” means the foreign municipal corporation whose jurisdiction includes ONLY the District of Columbia, the federal enclaves within the States, or territories and insular possessions of the United States, then under the legal doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”, then does that definition exclude the people born or naturalized in the various 50 States and exclude the various 50 States? The confusion is dizzying!

3.) COURT OF RECORD: To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:

A.  A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

The COURTS OF RECORD being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt.  Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. COURTS NOT OF RECORD are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded.  3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.
4.) EXCERPT from Letter “To: The American National People and The People Of The State Of Colorado, U.S.A.” from JOHN B. NELSON, Senator from Colorado to the Senate of the United States of America, February 21, 1992 (DECLARATION OF CAUSE AND NECESSITY TO ABOLISH; AND DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION): See also Note #5 below.

*************** START OF EXCERPT ***************
 I have enclosed Senate Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973), "Summary Of Emergency Power Statutes", consisting of 607 pages, which I believe you will find most interesting. The United States went "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933 (See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594), under the "Trading with The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 5, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a. On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank System, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon (See: Congressional Record, pp. 4055-4058). Congress confirmed the Bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the "Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933", (See: House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session). The several States of the Union pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such as the "Council Of State Governments", "Social Security Administration" etc., to purportedly deal with the economic "Emergency." These Organizations operated under the "Declaration of INTERdependence" of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in "The Book of the States." The 1937 edition of the Book of the States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal "Tenants" on their Land. (Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155.) This of course was compounded by such activities as price fixing wheat and grains 7 U.S.C.A. 1332, quota regulations 7 U.S.C.A. 1371, and livestock products 7 U.S.C.A. 1903, which have been consistently below the costs of production, interest on loans and inflation of the paper "Bills of Credit", leaving the food producers and others in a state of peonage and involuntary servitude, constituting the taking of private property, for the benefit and use of others, without just compensation.

NOTE: The “Council Of State governments“ has now been absorbed into such things as the “National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws”, whose Headquarters Office is located at 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and “all” being “members of the Bar”, and operating under a different “Constitution and By Laws,” far distant from the depositories of the public Records, has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported “Uniform” and “Model” Acts and pretended statutory provisions, to “help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable.” (See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, pg. 2). This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote “we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130). This association has been engaged in activities such as turning “Marriage” (licensed) into “International Private Law”, through its International Liaisons, which meet at such places as the Hague Conferences (See: Handbook Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, 1966 Ed., pg. 156-157).

On April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “common law,” in the Federal Government. (Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188 , 1938)

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS” [See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 1938, which overturned long-standing precedents in Common Law previously affirmed by Supreme Court decisions such as Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865]

The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties (See: Stephen, A Treaties On The Principles Of Pleading, Introduction, Pg. 23; Hemmingway, History Of Common Law Pleading As Evidence Of The Growth Of Individual Liberty And Power Of The Courts, 5 Alabama Law Journal 1; Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865; Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Amendments VII, IX and X.)

The members and association of the Bar [BAR = British Accredited Registry] thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws “to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives”, including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as “One Form Of Action.” (See: Constitution And By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, supra, see also, Colorado Methods of Practice, West Pub., Vol. 4, pgs. 2-3, Authors Comments.)

NOTE: The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgpodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland.

“This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE [in 1982] necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this 1938 change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY.” (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17, also see, Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.) “

*************** END OF EXCERPT ***************

5.) People’s Rights as Jurors and “Jury Nullification”

** An excellent reference book: “Jury Nullification: Evolution of a Doctrine” by Clay S. Conrad, Carolina Academic Press (Durham, North Carolina), 1998  (ISBN: 0-89089-702-6)

First Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay wrote, “The jury has the right to judge both the LAW as well as the FACT in controversy.” Thus if a juror, or the jury as a whole, believes a law is stupid, in violation of the juror’s interpretation of the Constitution, too intrusive, too vague, violates a person’s rights, or the law is being abused by the government, or ANY OTHER REASON, that juror(s) has the RIGHT, POWER and DUTY to find the defendant “not guilty”, EVEN IF the defendant clearly violated that law and despite whatever the court says or instructs. This is what is meant by “the jury being the judge of the LAW, as well as of the FACTS of the case”.

In 1805, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial by the U.S. Senate was accused of wrongly preventing an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should NOT be followed in a particular criminal case. He was saved from conviction on the impeachment charges by the Senate only after stating, “The jury has the right to determine both the LAW and the FACTS.” (Justice SAMUEL CHASE, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804)

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney’s request to let the jury know of their nullification power. The Court’s decision stated that people should ALREADY KNOW their rights as jurors and thus need not be told again in court.

However, the Supreme Court has since repeatedly upheld the doctrine of nullification. In 1952, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court found that “juries are NOT bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges.”  (Justice ROBERT H. JACKSON in Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 1952); Robert Jackson served at the Nuremburg trials following World War 2.)

And in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to DISREGARD instructions of the judge.” U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972)

Also in 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (considered the 2nd highest court in the U.S.) said that the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in DISREGARD of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..” (US v Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is CONTRARY TO THE LAW as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the LAW UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED, is UNJUST, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or FOR ANY REASON which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts MUST abide by that decision.” (US v Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Thomas Jefferson)

If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty, — For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.”  THEOPHILUS PARSONS (2 Elliot’s Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft’s History of the Constitution, p. 267): (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams’ nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts).

“The jury has a right to judge both the LAW as well as the FACT in controversy.” JOHN JAY (1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789)

“The jury has the right to determine both the LAW and the FACTS.” SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804)

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the LAW and FACT.” Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (Horning v. District of Columbia, 249 U.S. 596; 1920)

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

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969)

“The function of a jury is not, as many people think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.” Thomas Jefferson

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Quotes re: JUROR’s RIGHTS

A few samples (out of thousands):

“It’s not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the direction of the court [JUDGE].” JOHN ADAMS (1771)

“The jury has a right to judge both the LAW as well as the FACT in controversy.“ JUSTICE  JOHN JAY (1794): first Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court

“Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction….if exercising their judgement [sic] with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804)

“The jury has the right to determine both the LAW and the FACTS.“ JUSTICE SAMUEL CHASE (1804); (Samuel Chase wrote this statement following his near impeachment by Congress for holding the opposite view!)

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920)

“But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges.” Justice ROBERT H. JACKSON (Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246) (Robert Jackson served at the Nuremburg trials following World War 2.)

“…it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are within your [the JURORS] power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves [the JURORS] to judge of both, and to determine the LAW as well as the FACT in controversy.” U.S. SUPREME COURT (State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4)

“The JURY has the unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in DISREGARD OF THE INSTRUCTIONS on the law given by the trial judge.” U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972)

“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to DISREGARD instructions of the judge.” U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972)

“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty, — For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” THEOPHILUS PARSONS (2 Elliot’s Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft’s History of the Constitution, p. 267): (Parsons was first Chief Justice of Massachusetts).

“The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge.” Justice BYRON WHITE (Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975)

“The JURY has the unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in DISREGARD OF THE INSTRUCTIONS on the law given by the trial judge.” U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7.)  An excellent article on JURISDICTION:

A Radical Perspective on Jurisdiction
by Gregory Allan

Source: www.lawfulpath.com/ref/jurisdic.shtml

www.LawfulPath.com

*** See my  NOTE below

The subject of this report is “Jurisdiction,” and how it is commonly obtained by the various courts.

Although this author does not claim to have exhausted that question, it is my prayer that enough information is contained here to help the student to better understand the issue. The material found here is based on my study of law, and the Holy Scriptures, and is Christian in perspective. My main premise is that we have the duty and the right, to settle our own disputes, and to stay out of the courts of the ungodly.

Jurisdiction has been a subject of study and debate since long before I became involved in law reform, and seems to be most popular among those who are suspicious of establishment courts. Each year brings more numerous reports of judicial misconduct, fraud and theft, on a scale ranging from minor traffic offenses, to multi-million dollar inheritance settlements. Many students of law have seen jurisdiction (or the absence of same) as a possible answer to a seemingly impossible problem: how to avoid personal or financial ruin at the hands of judges and attorneys?

Let’s begin with an understanding of the term.

What is Jurisdiction?

Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition, defines jurisdiction as follows:

  • “A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the powers of courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgment. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. It exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court.”

This is expanded upon in Anderson‘s “A Dictionary of Law, A.D. 1893” as follows:

  • “Power to hear and determine a cause. Power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them. (Relates to the exercise of judicial powers.) Refers to the power of the court over the parties, the subject-matter, the res or property in contest, and the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree which it assumes to make. (By jurisdiction over the “subject-matter” is meant the nature of the cause of action or relief sought; and this is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in the general nature of its powers or in the authority specially conferred. Jurisdiction of the “person” is obtained by the service of process, or by the voluntary appearance of the party in the progress of the cause. Jurisdiction of the “res” is obtained by seizure under process of the court, whereby it is held to abide such order as the court may make concerning it. Hence want of jurisdiction may be shown as to the subject-matter, the person, or, in proceedings in rem, as to the thing.)

In a nutshell, these definitions tell us that jurisdiction is the power of a court to make binding decisions with regard to people, and peoples’ rights in property; that in order for the court to secure that power, it must have control (authority and/or power) over:

  1. The people, or parties to the controversy. This is called “in personam jurisdiction”; and
  2. The property in controversy. This is called “in rem” jurisdiction; and
  3. The specific kind of controversy. This is known as “subject-matter.” For instance, a traffic court cannot hear a divorce case. This is also known as the “nature” of a matter, as in the phrase “nature and cause” found in the Sixth Article of the “Bill of Rights.”

A very important aspect not mentioned in the dictionaries, is that jurisdiction never becomes a question for consideration until a dispute arises between people.

What is a Court?

We are led to understand that jurisdiction “presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court.” But there is no discussion of how a court becomes duly constituted. Black’s definition of court is lengthy, and leaves the reader more confused than when he started. Anderson’s has this to say about courts:

  • “1. According to Cowel, the house where the king remains with his retinue; also, the place where justice is administered. (These two meanings, in the beginning, were closely connected. For, in early history, when the king was actually the fountain and dispenser of justice, nothing could be more natural than that subjects who had complaints of ill-treatment to make should use the expression ‘the court,’ in speaking of the journey to the place where the king was domiciled, and the application to him preferred, usually in the court of the palace, for interference and redress. Anciently, then, the ‘court,’ for judicial purposes, was the king and his attendants; later, those who sojourned or traveled with him, to whom he delegated authority to determine controversies and to dispense justice.)
  • A tribunal established for the public administration of justice, and composed of one or more judges, who sit for that purpose at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers.
  • An organized body, with defined powers, meeting at certain times and places for the hearing and decision of causes and other matters brought before it, and aided in this by its officers, viz., attorneys and counsel to present and manage the business, clerks to record and attest its acts and decisions, and ministerial officers to execute its commands and secure order in its proceedings.”

Before we can understand the full scope of an issue, we must begin at its roots; ask the important questions. Why are things the way they are, and how did they get this way? Who did these things, and who said that they could? In other words, “by what authority;” or in more ancient terms, “quo warranto.”

Am I a Radical?

By consistently examining every issue through the looking-glass of quo warranto, I have found a razor, which can cut to the heart of almost any issue. Try it for yourself, but don’t be surprised if people begin to call you a radical. Did you know that “radical” is defined as:

  • “Fundamental; going to the roots of anything.” (Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, A.D. 1957)

So what’s so bad about being radical?

In going to the roots of jurisdiction, the first questions which come to my mind are, who is the “sovereign,” and what is a “retinue;” how does a “tribunal” become “established;” who “organized” the “body” of a given court, and by what authority; and how does a “judge” become “charged” with deciding anything?

I believe that the root definition of a lawful “court is as follows:

  • “A man, or group of men, lawfully delegated the authority to settle a dispute arising among two or more other men.”

Please note that the usage of the words “man” and “men” is inclusive of all people; men, women, and children.

Courts exist because people inevitably have disputes. “Jurisdiction,” in essence, is nothing more, or less, than the “lawfully delegated authority” to settle disputes. Therefore, the study of jurisdiction must begin with the question of who has the right to settle disputes, and then follow through to how that right can be lawfully exercised, and delegated to others.

Where do rights come from?

A lot of people claim to have Constitutional rights. Those people have obviously never read the Constitution. Read it yourself, and you will find that there is not a single article which grants rights to the people. Rather, the people are acknowledged to possess certain rights, which pre-date the Constitution, and to which officers of the Union are required to take an Oath to protect, and not to violate.

Any so-called right, which is dependent upon a Constitution, a contract, or any other piece of paper, is more accurately described as a “delegation of authority,” or “privilege.” If the paper is lost, destroyed, revoked, or amended, then the privilege which it created disappears. In contrast, the laws of our One True God cannot be lost or destroyed, and will never be revoked or amended. Those who tell you that the law changes constantly, have forsaken our One True God, and embraced the Beast. They would have you do the same.

In agreement with most of the founders of these united States of America, I believe that all rights originate from the Creator of all things, the One True God. (Genesis 1:1)

How do we know what rights God gave us?

This question stumps most people who claim God-given rights. When asked the question, “Do all people have the same rights?” most will answer “yes.” When asked, “how do you know which rights God gave you?” the most common answer is a blank stare.

The Holy Scriptures do not talk much of rights, with the exception on one: the right to choose, or free agency.

  • “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day; And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.” (Deuteronomy 11: 26-28)
  • “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

Free agency (the right to choose) is the one unalienable right given to us by the One True God. We all have it, to a greater or lesser degree. Even slaves have this right. It is our right to choose. The right to contract, or not to contract. Unalienable means that it cannot be taken away by anyone except God, and cannot even be permanently given away by its owner. This concept is even honored and upheld by modern statutes which allow anyone the right to revoke powers of attorney.

When people turn away from God’s laws, He makes them slaves, thereby taking away a large measure of their free agency. He does this because He loves us. Only the master is responsible for the acts of a slave. Thus are many slaves saved from the burden of their sins.

All other rights are inalienable, meaning that they can be contracted away. Any right, other than free agency, which could not be contracted away, would infringe our right to choose.

But which comes first, the rights, or the duties? Notice these other examples of the right to choose:

  • “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” (Exodus 19: 5-6)
  • “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: . . . But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; . . . I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.” (Leviticus 25: 3-16)

Clearly, the duty to follow God’s law precedes any blessings (rights) which He might bestow. Just as clearly, those who follow God’s laws will be given more blessings (rights) than those who do not.

If you obey the commandment to not murder (Deuteronomy 5:17), you are given the blessing of safety. If you violate that commandment, you are to be put to death (Leviticus 24:17). Many of these examples can be enumerated. If you steal another man’s property (Exodus 20:15), are you secure in the right to your own (Exodus 22:1)? If you judge other men unrighteously, what right do you have to righteous judgment (Matthew 7:2)? Stated another way, when we violate the law, we give up our rights to protection under the law.

What is law?

This was a big shocker for me. Who would think to look up the word “law,” even in a law dictionary? Black’s Sixth Edition devotes more than a whole page to the definition of law, but this part is the most striking:

  • In old English jurisprudence, law is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases “to wage one’s law,” “to lose one’s law.”

So, the “radical” definition of “law” is “oath.” Other words with a similar meaning as “oath” include “contract,” “agreement,” “covenant,” “treaty,” “pledge.” You get the idea. So in essence, “law” is nothing more than a man’s agreement to behave in a certain way. Even God’s law is rooted in His covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

[My Note: If a man “pledges” himself (by taking an “oath”) to a second man, the first man has contracted with the second man for the performance of specific tasks for the specified period of time. This contract applies only to the first man and the second man – NOT to anyone else, since a contract can NOT bind any man who is not a party to that contract. By entering into the contract, the first man has willingly and freely consented to waive some of his powers of action (his “inalienable rights”) – derived from his natural,  unalienable right to Free agency (the right to choose) regarding his own behavior and actions. Since each a man is a sovereign on the Earth – on the land – under God only, then ONLY that man among all of mankind  has a right to choose his OWN set of acceptable behaviors applicable to himself – that is, the sovereign man creates his OWN “law”. Just as a king is said to rule by “divine right” granted to him by God (so that the king’s wish becomes the “law” for his subjects or those men pledged to him), so too does a man as a sovereign possess the right to choose (“Free Agency”) his OWN “law” on Earth, subject only to God. Therefore, when a man contracts with a second man by “pledging” or “swearing” an “oath”, that man has agreed to restrict his own law in particular matters and to be subject to the second man’s laws regarding the matters specified in the contract. The first man can be said to have contracted away some of his own law, or “to wage one’s law,” “to lose one’s law.” And if a man contracts away some of his own law and agrees to abide by the “law” of the second man as specified in the contract, then the first man has agreed to under the JURISDICTION of the second man for these specific matters. Consequently, a man operates as a sovereign and makes his own “law” – subject ONLY to God – UNLESS that man has waived some of his own law and consented to be under the jurisdiction of the second man’s law.]

In the early days of this nation, most people followed God’s laws. As a result, each man was blessed with sovereignty over his own affairs; a large measure of free agency. Unlike slaves or subjects, we became responsible for our own judgments (Leviticus 18:4), and became obligated to stay out of the courts of the ungodly.

If each one of us is sovereign, then does not each of us have our own court? Don’t we all possess the inherent right to settle our own disputes? Of course. Which brings us back to the question: “How does someone else’s court gain jurisdiction over us, our property, and the operation of our affairs?”

Property Ownership

Just because you have control over something doesn’t mean you necessarily own it. Conversely, you may not necessarily have complete control over everything you “own,” unless you hold the highest title. For example, a man who sells a parcel of land by way of a “land contract” holds legal title to the land until it is paid for, at which time he must then pass the title to the buyer. But while the land is being purchased over time, the buyer has possession of the land, and in most ways uses it as his own. He has what is called an “equitable interest.” However, if the buyer doesn’t make his payments on schedule, then all rights in the land return to the seller, who has legal title, as well as a “reversionary” interest.

Do you own land? If you answered yes, here’s another question: Do you pay yearly property taxes on that land? What happens if you don’t pay the taxes? How can you claim to own something that you only have the right to use, as long as you pay a yearly rental?

We usually think of “property” in terms of land, money, or other tangible wealth, but property is always ultimately defined as “an aggregate of rights.” The One True God owns everything, but we have rights in some of those things. When we accept the duty of following God’s laws, and trust Him to help us protect our own rights, He asks us to pay a tithe (tenth) of our increase. Note that He never asks for a portion of anything from which we have already paid a tithe, and He warns us that any government which does this is not following His law; their authority is not legitimate, because it is “not of God.” (See Romans 13:1)

The power to tax is the power to destroy; to confiscate. This is what makes the so-called “property tax” one of the most evil ideas possible in a free society. The ultimate conclusion is obvious: Whoever has the power to tax property will eventually own all property (all rights). The governments in America today do not yet possess all of our rights, but in most ways they behave as though they do. And most people, agents of government and common folk alike, have come to believe the lie.

These governments now behave in the same way as the lords of old England. All the land and the fruits thereof are presumed to belong to the “king,” and at each level “down” toward the common folk (serfs) is a lord, or group of lords to administer the “fiefdom.” The serfs have a limited privilege of sale or inheritance in property, so long as they continue to pay tribute (tax) to the king.

He who holds the highest title to property has the final say as to what becomes of that property. This explains “in rem” jurisdiction.

Free agency (in settling disputes)

Personam jurisdiction, as far as I understand it myself, is limited to some very basic principles. Initially, it is determined as follows:

  1. Sovereigns, or freemen are those men who are not bound by oath to serve other men.
  2. Subjects are those men who have given an oath of service to another man, or group of men.
  3. Every freeman who follows God’s laws, is blessed with the right to settle his own disputes, i.e. he holds his own court at will.
  4. Freemen may bring suit against other freemen, though each has equal standing, and is not bound by any other man’s court unless by oath, or voluntary delegation.
  5. A freeman is generally empowered to settle disputes between his subjects. This is dependent upon the oath between the freeman and the subject.
  6. A freeman may bring suit against his own subjects.
  7. Subjects have no standing in any court, save that of their master. They may sue their master only at his pleasure, unless the oath between the master and subject specifically allows it, which is not common. No subject may directly sue another freeman, but must appeal to his master to sue for relief on his behalf.

Settling Disputes

In any dispute the parties have three choices:

  1. Forgiveness. This choice works well when the party who perceives himself as damaged has not suffered too great a loss, and especially where the cause of the dispute is not likely to re-occur. Sometimes if the other options are more costly than the expected relief, it is a choice which helps to preserve a man’s sanity. However, no man can bear unlimited trespass, and will eventually seek other options.
  2. Bloodshed. This is one of the oldest methods of settling disputes. It is forbidden in the Holy Scriptures, except under very specific circumstances. This method of dispute resolution almost always eventually destroys the man who uses it in any way contrary to God’s law, which is why it is forbidden.
  3. Lawful Process. This is the preferred method of dispute resolution, without which we would have no need of discussing jurisdiction. Lawful process can be divided into three sub-processes, which are listed in the Holy Scriptures, in the Book of Matthew, chapter eighteen, verses fifteen through sixteen.

It is important that we understand lawful process, because our only alternatives are forgiveness, or bloodshed. Between sovereigns, war is nearly always the result of an inability to resolve a recurring dispute using lawful process. Before lawful process can begin, the parties in dispute must be narrowed to include only parties of equal standing, as shown above. Then they can proceed as follows:

  1. Negotiation. In other words, a contract, or treaty.
    • “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

Negotiation is the most common form of settlement, which is an expression of our most basic right of free agency. All contracts are examples of negotiation. Most disputes which go beyond negotiation are a result of breach-of-contract. In other words, one or more parties to a contract either do something which they had agreed not to do, or else fail to perform an act they have promised. Even criminal acts come into courts as the result of a dispute. As an example, let’s say that a man has stolen a loaf of bread from you. First, you accuse him of the theft. He either admits, or denies. If he denies, you have a dispute. If he admits, then you demand restitution (replace the bread). If he agrees, and then follows through, then there is no dispute. If he does not agree, or if he agrees and then fails to follow through, then you have a dispute. This same principle applies to all criminal acts. Prosecutions for murder were originally civil disputes, prosecuted by the family of the victim. County prosecutors came into existence as a means to protect the poor, who did not have the resources to prosecute criminals who had damaged them.

  1. Mediation. An attempt to reach an agreement with the help of a third party.
    • “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”

We are to bring along one or two witnesses, preferably people known to all parties, to aid in the negotiation, and try to bring about a peaceful resolution. Mediation, like all negotiation, must result in a contract, or treaty between the parties. The mediator has no authority to compel the parties to agree, or to settle the dispute without agreement between the parties.

  1. Arbitration. This is the delegation of authority to a third party to settle the dispute.
    • “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: “

Arbitration, in its various forms, is what we commonly think of as a court. It is the heart of this discussion on jurisdiction. The church, a body of men learned in God’s law, was Jesus’ choice of arbitrator when all other attempts to settle a dispute had failed. “Church,” in this sense, meant “ecclesia,” or the body of lawful elders. In any arbitration, all parties in dispute choose to delegate the authority of their own court, the right to make their own judgment, to a third-party. This is, in itself, the beginning of a negotiated settlement, since all parties must agree to the third-party arbitrator in order for him to have the power, i.e. jurisdiction, to settle the dispute.

The verse ends with these words:

  • “but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

In other words, if a man will not settle a dispute any other way, ignore him as long as you can, and then do what you must. A man must always have a remedy. Within the boundaries of God’s law, of course.

We’ve learned that jurisdiction comes into play only in arbitration. As near as I can tell, the sources of jurisdiction to settle a dispute can be narrowed to two: contract, and escheat.

Jurisdiction by Contract

Contract includes voluntary participation, as well as any oath, agreement, or treaty which delegates the authority to settle disputes to another party. Walking into a court and giving your name is an example of voluntary participation. Acceptance of service of process, even from a court with whom you have no contract, can become voluntary participation if you fail to send timely notice to the court of its lack (known as “want”) of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional agreements often occur far in advance of a dispute. Contracts containing clauses such as “this contract is made pursuant to the laws of Delaware,” or which are acknowledged by a Notary Public, or other officer of a body with an organized court, delegate jurisdiction as a part of the contract.

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

Many contracts contain clauses which specifically delegate jurisdiction to an arbitration council.

  • If any dispute shall arise between the parties to this contract with regard to the covenants contained herein, then jurisdiction over the settlement of said dispute shall be limited to the XYZ Resolution Council, located at 321 Abicromby Place, Anywhere, U.S.A, and the judgments and awards of said Council shall be binding upon the parties hereto.

Jurisdiction by Escheat

Escheat is a different matter, and is widely misunderstood. Black’s Sixth Edition defines it as:

  • A reversion of property to the state in consequence of a want of any individual competent to inherit.

Remember that “property” is not land, money, or other wealth; it is an “aggregate of rights.” Is the “right to settle disputes” a property right? Of course it is. All rights are property. When we neglect to delegate to a specific party the right to settle disputes arising from our contracts, there is no one who is competent to inherit that right if a dispute does arise. This makes our “property” easy pickings for any “sovereign” with an organized court to step in and claim that right for his own. The burden of proof is then shifted to the parties, to prove that someone else has that right. If no competent party can come forward and claim that property right, then the parties are “escheated” out of it.

Escheat is also significant on a broader scale. By allowing a Godless body of men to organize together and monopolize our courts, Christians have abandoned the right to settle their own disputes, and barred themselves from righteous judgment. So long as no one is willing or able to fill that capacity, we will continue to be “escheated” over and over again. Our only solution is to reaffirm our Christian Duties, rediscover our Rights, and exercise our God-given Authority.

Common law courts, ecclesiastical courts, and other types of peoples’ courts are currently springing up all over the country. Although the mainstream media usually maligns these courts, their formation is a symptom of peoples’ deep-seated impulse to return to God’s law. Unfortunately, too many of these groups are not educated in the due-process procedures required of a lawful court. Careful study is needed in the operation of any court, for if due process is not afforded the parties in dispute, the rights of the court will be taken through escheat.

It is my prayer that this report will aid all people in achieving peace in their lives, which is the aim of any lawful court. I pray that all courts, and all people with disputes, will better understand the limited authority with which a court operates. May the One True God give us the Strength and Wisdom to follow a True Course.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8.)  Here is Congressman James Traficant’s speech regarding the BANKRUPTCY of the government known as United States corporation, as reported at www.fourwinds10.com

 United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303.

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.”

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money.” The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good & valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

“Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

9.)  FULL TEXT of Letter “To: The American National People and The People Of The State Of Colorado, U.S.A.” from JOHN B. NELSON, Senator from Colorado to the Senate of the United States of America, February 21, 1992 (DECLARATION OF CAUSE AND NECESSITY TO ABOLISH; AND DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION):

*************************

JOHN B. NELSON

TO: The American National People,
    The People Of The State Of Colorado, U.S.A.

February 21, 1992

DECLARATION OF CAUSE AND NECESSITY TO ABOLISH

AND

DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION

I have enclosed Senate Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973), “Summary Of Emergency Power Statutes”, consisting of 607 pages, which I believe you will find most interesting. The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933 (See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594), under the “Trading with The Enemy Act” (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 5, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a. On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank System, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon (See: Congressional Record, pp. 4055-4058). Congress confirmed the Bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the “Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933”, (See: House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session). The several States of the Union pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such as the “Council Of State Governments”, “Social Security Administration” etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency.” These Organizations operated under the “Declaration of INTERdependence” of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in “The Book of the States.” The 1937 edition of the Book of the States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal “Tenants” on their Land. Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155. This of course was compounded by such activities as price fixing wheat and grains 7 U.S.C.A. 1332, quota regulations 7 U.S.C.A. 1371, and livestock products 7 U.S.C.A. 1903, which have been consistently below the costs of production, interest on loans and inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit”, leaving the food producers and others in a state of peonage and involuntary servitude, constituting the taking of private property, for the benefit and use of others, without just compensation.

NOTE: The Council Of State governmentshas now been absorbed into such things as the “National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws“, whose Headquarters Office is located at 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and “all” being “members of the Bar”, and operating under a different Constitution and By Laws,” far distant from the depositories of the public Records, has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported “Uniform” and “Model” Acts and pretended statutory provisions, to “help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable.” (See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, pg. 2). This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote “we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130). This association has been engaged in activities such as turning “Marriage” (licensed) into “International Private Law”, through its International Liaisons, which meet at such places as the Hague Conferences (See: Handbook Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, 1966 Ed., pg. 156-157).

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “common law,” in the Federal Government. Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS”(See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 1938 which overturned long-standing precedents in Common Law previously affirmed by Supreme Court decisions such as Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865).

The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties (See: Stephen, A Treaties On The Principles Of Pleading, Introduction, Pg. 23; Hemmingway, History Of Common Law Pleading As Evidence Of The Growth Of Individual Liberty And Power Of The Courts, 5 Alabama Law Journal 1; Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865; Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Amendments VII, IX and X.)

The members and association of the Bar [BAR = British Accredited Registry] thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws “to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives”, including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as “One Form Of Action.” (See: Constitution And By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, supra, see also, Colorado Methods of Practice, West Pub., Vol. 4, pgs. 2-3, Authors Comments.)

NOTE: The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgpodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland.

“This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE [in 1982] necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this [in 1982] change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY.” (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17, also see, Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.)

The United States thereafter entered the Second World War during which time the “League of Nations” was reinstituted under pretense of the “United Nations” (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287 et. seq.), and the “Bank For International Settlements” reinstituted under pretense of the “Bretton Woods Agreement” (See: 60 Stat. 1401, 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. seq.) as the “International Monetary Fund” (The Fund or IMF) and the International Bank For Reconstruction And Development” (The Bank or IBRD).

The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial) came out of World War II in worse economic shape than when it entered, and in 1950 declared Bankruptcy and “Reorganization.” The Reorganization is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The “Explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The “Secretary of Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967). The United States went down the road and periodically filed for further Reorganization. Things and situations worsened, having done what they were Commanded NOT to do, (See: Madison’s Notes , Constitutional Convention, August 16, 1787, Federalist Papers No. 44) and in 1965 passed the “Coinage Act of 1965” completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold & silver i.e. Dollar). (See: 18 U.S.C.A. 331 & 332, U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L.Ed. 257). At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, then President Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his Press Release that:

“When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States….”

“Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.”

It is important to take cognizance of the fact that NO Constitutional Amendment was ever obtained to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE, amend, abridge or abolish the Constitutional mandates, provisions or prohibitions, but due to internal and external diversions surrounding the Viet Nam War etc., the usurpation and breach went basically unchallenged and unnoticed by the general public at large, who became “a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or cheap source of SLAVE LABOR.” (See: “Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars,” TM-SW7905.1, pgs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 & 56). Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to regulate and maintain the true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, under a corresponding duty and obligation to maintain said gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at and within the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures” clause (See also: Bible, Dueteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 thru 16, Proverbs, Chapter 16, verse 11, Public Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211).

Those exercising the Offices of the several States, in equal measure, knew such “De Facto Transitions” were unlawful and unauthorized, but sanctioned, implemented and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting “governmental, social, industrial economic change” in the “De Jure” States and in United State of America (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5936, 5945, 31 U.S.C.A. 314, 31 U.S.C.A 321, 31 U.S.C.A. 5112, C.R.S. 11-61-101 C.R.S. 39-22-103.5 and C.R.S. 18-11-203), and were and are now under the delusion that they can do both directly and indirectly what they were absolutely prohibited from doing (See: also, Federalist Papers No. 44, Craig vs. Missouri , 4 Peters 903).

In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the “Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966”, by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. “Essential Engine” (See: Federalist Papers No. 31) was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). (See: Public Law 89-719 , Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see; C.R.S. 5-1-106 ). The Uniform Commercial Code was of course promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with American Law Institute for the “banking and business interests.” (See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws. (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 &153). The United States being engaged in numerous United Nation conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam Conflicts, which were under direction of the United Nations (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287d), and agreeing to foot the bill (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j), and not being able to honor their obligations and rehypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their “Notes” and “Obligations” (12 U.S.C.A. 411 ) i.e. “Federal Reserve Notes” Through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50 (1968) to wit:

 “Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking ‘and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes’.”

Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, then President Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an “emergency” because the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government(?) for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit.” (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 596). Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under the control of the “Department of Defense.” (See: Department Of the Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 (1969 ed.)).  [Martial Law declared]

“The System had been faltering for a decade, but the bench mark date of the collapse is put at August 15, 1971. On this day, then President Nixon reversed U.S. International Monetary Policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the “U.S. dollar” (the Federal Reserve Note (FRN)) into gold.” (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5937 & Senate Report No. 93-549, Foreword, pg. III, Proclamation No. 4074, pg. 597, 31 U.S.C.A. 314 & 31 U.S.C.A. 5112). On September 21, 1973, Congress passed Public Law 93-110, amending the Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, 82 Stat. 116, 31 U.S.C.A. 449, and reiterated the “Emergency”, 12 U.S.C.A 95a, and Section 8 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C.A 286f ), and which included “reports on foreign currency transactions.” (Also See: Executive Order No. 10033). This act further declared in Section 2 (b) that:

“No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.” Public Law 93-110 of 1973

On January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt noted for the record, a second “Declaration Of INTERdependence” and clearly identified the U.N. as a “Communist” organization, and that they were seeking both production and monetary control over the Union and People through International Organization promoting the “One World Order.” (See: Congressional Record, January 19, 1976, Extension of remarks; also see, 8 U.S.C.A. 1101 (40) , 50 U.S.C.A. 781 & 783).

The socio/economic situation worsened as noted in the Complaint/Petition, filed in the U.S. Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76, on February 11, 1976, by 44 Federal Judges, Atkins et al. vs. U.S.. Atkins et al. complained that “As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges has been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs…the real value of the “dollar” (FRN’s) decreased by approximately 34.5 percent from March 15, 1969 to October 1, 1975….  As a result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings”, and in the prayer for relief claimed “damages for the constitutional violations enumerated above, measured as the diminution of his earnings for the entire period since March 9, 1969.” It is quite apparent that the persons holding and enjoying Offices of Public Trust, Honor and/or Profit knew of the emergency emergent problem and sought protection for themselves, to the damage and injury of the People and Children, who were classified as “a club that has many other members” who “have no remedy.” And knowing that “heinous” acts had been committed, stated that they [judges/lawyers] would not apply the Law, nor would any substantive remedy be applied (“checked more or less, but never stopped”) “until all of us [judges] are dead.” Such persons Fraudulently swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and several Republican States of the Union, and breached the Duty to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy encroachment. (See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting of America, supra, pgs. 155-159 also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69-71, C.R.S. 24-75-101). This is verified in Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5944, which states:

“Moving to a floating exchange rate for international commerce means private enterprise and not central governments bear the risk of currency fluctuations.” Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5944

Numerous serious debates were held in Congress, including but not limited to, Tuesday, July 27, 1976
(See: Congressional Record – House, July 27, 1976), concerning the International Financial Institutions and its operations. Representative, Ron Paul, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, made numerous references to the true practices of the “International” financial institutions, including but not limited to, the conversion of 27,000,000 (27 million) in gold, contributed by the United States as part of its “quota obligations”, which the International Monetary Fund (Governor-Secretary of Treasury) sold (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5945 & 5946), under some very questionable terms and concessions. (Also see: The Ron Paul Money Book, (1991), by Ron Paul, Plantation Publishing, 837 W. Plantation, Clute, Texas 77531).

On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction and control of the corporate “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5942, United States Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-481). The Act further declared that:

“(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 822a(b)) is amended by striking out the phrase ‘stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar’…”  Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 (of Oct 28, 1977)   and

(c) The joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States’, approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.”

The International Organizations, Corporations and Associations, had refused to pay their debts and could not pay their debts, and determined that they could pass the loss of their non-redeemable, non-current notes, bonds and evidences of debt off on others, and thereby crown their fraud with success. (See: Letter, October 26, 1989 from Department of Treasury, Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel (International Affairs), as recorded in the Office of Clerk and Recorder, Baca County, Colorado, at Book, 540 Page 364). The de facto United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286e, et seq.) and “state” (C.R.S. 24-36-104, C.R.S. 24-60-1301, Article IV(h) ) had declared “Insolvency.” (See: 26 I.R.C. 165 (g)(1), U.C.C 1-201 (23), C.R.S. 39-22-103.5, Westfall vs. Braley. 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W.2d 911 Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall 447).

In 1980 Congress passed, among other things, Public Law 96-221, providing for the furtherance and expansion of the profligate rehypothecated debt pyramid scheme, and reduced the reserve requirements on “transaction accounts” to a minimum of 3% per centum to a maximum of 14 per centum (See: Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980, Section 103(b(E)(2)).

“In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits [in a bank] are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount….”

Compare this with the United States Constitution, which says: “No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt…” and which also says: “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof…” (Italics added for emphasis; this paragraph added to the original John B. Nelson document of February 21, 1992 on July 18, 1999 to reiterate what was stated previously in this document and to demonstrate, first hand, yet another way the Constitution is being usurped, in fact and in intent).

“In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered several centuries ago. At one time, bankers were merely middlemen. They made profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending them to borrowers. But they soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

Then bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promises to pay (bank notes). In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

Transaction deposits [making book entries] are the modern counter-part of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could “spend” by writing checks, thereby “printing their own money.” (See: Modern Money Mechanics, a workbook on deposits currency and bank reserves., 1982 Rev. Ed., Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, P.O. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois 60690, pgs. 3 & 4).

Fifty nine (59) years is NOT “temporary.” It’s a permanent state of “Emergency”, and was clearly instituted, formed and erected within the Union through gross usurpations, abridgments, malfeasance and breach of legal duties, and the continual contrivance, misrepresentation, conversion, fluctuations, fraud and avarice of the International Financial Institutions, Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their “fiscal and depository agent” 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. This profligate practice has led to such “Emergency” legislation as the “Public Debt Limit-Balance Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,” Public Law 99-177, etc.

The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A 286e ) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242). The real party in interest is not the dejure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” (IBS) and “The Fund.” (IMF) (22 U.S.C.A 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103). The acts committed under fraud , force and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” i.e. “recapture.” (See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323). Such principles as “Fraud and Justice NEVER dwell togetherWingate’s Maxims 680, and “A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.Broom’s Maxims 297, 729; Cowper’s Reports 343; 5 Scott’s New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800, are too high of a thought concept, as is “Due Process”, “Just Compensation” and Justice itself. Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses, nor will the color of the cloth one wears cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceits. When Black is fraudulently declared to be White, not all will live in darkness. As astutely observed by Will Rogers, “there are men running governments who shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches,” and is as applicable today as Jesus’ statements about Lawyers.

The contrived “emergency” has created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgments of delegated Powers and Authority. As stated in Senate Report 93-549:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal Law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process.”

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.” (See: Foreword, pg. III of Senate Report 93-549:).

The “Introduction”, on page 1, begins with a phenomenal declaration, to wit:

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency…”

According to the research done in 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, no “emergency” justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, “Supremacy Clause” and “Separation of Powers”, it is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has occurred. The statements heard in the federal and state Tribunals, on numerous occasions, that Constitutional arguments are “immaterial”, “frivolous” etc., is based upon the concealment, furtherance and compounding of the Frauds and “Emergency” created and sustained by the “Expatriated,” ALIENS of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations, and Associations. (See: Letter , Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, U.N. Staff Union, New York) 8 U.S.C.A. 1481 is one of the controlling statutes on expatriation, as is 22 U.S.C.A. 611, 612 & 613 and 50 U.S.C.A. 781.

The Internal Revenue Service entered into a “service agreement” with the U.S. Treasury Department (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International Development is an International paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7) (c)(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284), and includes such activities as “Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area.” (See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)) also see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the “Agreement” regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record – Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.

The International Organizational intents, purposes and activities include complete control of “Public Finance” i.e. “control, supervision, and audit of indigenous fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation, expenditures of public funds, currency issues, and banking agencies and affiliates.” (See: FM 41-10, pgs.2-30 thru 2-31, Section 251. Public Finance). This of course complies with “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars” Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people (See: pg. 3 & 7), monetary control by the Internationalist, through information etc. solicited and collected by the Internal Revenue Service ( See: TM-SW7905.1 , pg. 48, also see, 22 U.S.C.A 286f & Executive order No. 10033, 26 U.S.C.A 6103 (k)(4)) and who is operating and enforcing the seditious International program. (See: TM-SW7905.1, pg. 52). The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 further describes the International “Civil Affairs” operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the A.I.D. is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at page 3-8 that the operation is “paramilitary.” The International Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement, and enforce a “DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.” (See: Senate Report
No. 93-549
, pg. 186).

It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service Agents. etc., are “Agents of a Foreign Principal” within the meaning and intent of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” They are directed and controlled by the corporate “Governor” of “The Fund” a/k/a “Secretary of Treasury” (See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A 7701 (a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), and the corporate “Governor” of “The Bank” 22 U.S.C.A 286 & 286a, acting as “information-service employees” 22 U.S.C.A. 611 (c)(ii), and have been and do now “solicit, collect, disburse or dispense” contribution [Tax-pecuniary contribution, Blacks Law Dic. 5th ed.], loans, money or other things of value for or in interest of such foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91 i.e. the “Agency For International Development.” (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 611 (c)(2) ). The Internal Revenue Service is also an agency of the International Criminal Police Organization, and solicits and collects information for 150 Foreign Powers. (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 263a, The United States Government Manual, [1990/91], pg. 385, see also, The Ron Paul Money Book, pg. 250 – 251). It should be further noted that Congress has appropriated, transferred, and converted vast sums to Foreign Powers (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 262c(b)), and has entered into numerous foreign Taxing Treaties (conventions) (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 285g, 22 U.S.C.A. 287j) and other Agreements, which are solicited and collected pursuant to 26 I.R.C. 6103(k)(4). Along with the other documentary evidence submitted herewith, this should absolve any further doubt as to the true character of the party. Such restrictions as “For the general welfare and common defense of the United States” (See: Constitution (1787), Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) apparently aren’t applicable, and the fraudulent rehypothecated debt credit will be merely added to the insolvent nature of the continual “emergency,” and the reciprocal socio/economic repercussions laid upon present and future generations.

Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. (See: Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100-70, Military Law Review, Vol. 70). The United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 7, further prohibits the U.N. from “intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…” Korea, Viet Nam, Ethiopia, Angola, Kuwait, etc., etc., are evidence enough of the “BAD FAITH” of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations, not to mention the seizing of two day care centers in the State of Minnesota by their agents, and holding the children as collateral/hostages for payment/ransom of their fraudulent, dishonored, rehypothecated debt credit, worthless securities. Such is the “Rule Of Law” “as envisioned by the Founders” of the United Nations. Such is Communist terrorism, despotism and tyranny. ALL WERE AND ARE OUTLAWED HERE.

I hope this communication finds you well and mentally strong for the occasion. It is quite apparent that the “Treasonous” and “Seditious” are brewing up a storm of untold magnitude. Bush’s public address of September 11, 1991 (See: Weekly Compilation Of Presidential Documents), should further qualify what is being said here. He admitted “Interdependence” (See also: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5950), “One World Order” (See: also: Extension Of Remarks, January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt, 8 U.S.C.A. 1101(40)), affiliation and collusion with the Soviet Union Oligarchy (50 U.S.C.A. 781), direction by the U.N., 22 U.S.C.A. 611, etc. You might also find it interesting that Treasury Delegation Order No. 92 (enclosed) states that the I.R.S. is trained under direction of the Division of “Human Resources” (U.N.) and the Commissioner (INTERNATIONAL), by the “Office Of Personnel Management.” In the 1979 Edition of 22 U.S.C.A. 287, The United Nations, at pg. 248, you will find Executive Order No. 10422. The Office of Personnel Management is under direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations. And as stated previously, the I.R.S. is also a member in a one hundred fifty (150) nation pact called the “International Criminal Police Organization,” found at 22 U.S.C.A. 263a. The “Memorandum & Agreement” between the Secretary of Treasury/Corporate Governor of “The Fund” and “The Bank” and the Office of the U.S. Attorney General would indicate that the Attorney General and his associates are soliciting and collecting information for Foreign Principals. (See: also, The United States Government Manual 1990/91, pg. 385, also see, The Ron Paul Money Book, supra, pg. 250, 251, 26 I.R.C. 7401).

It is worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a “Foreign Agents Registration Statement” pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(1)(iv) & 612, if representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 613, Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951).

On January 17, 1980, the President and Senate confirmed another “Constitution”, namely, the “Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization,” found at Senate, Treaty Document No. 97-19, 97th Congress, 1st Session. A perusal of this Foreign Constitution should more than qualify the internationalist intents. The “Preamble”, Article 1, “Objectives” and Article 2, “Functions”, clearly evidences their intent to direct, control, finance and subsidize all “natural and human resources” and “agro-related as well as basic industries”, through “dynamic social and economic changes” “with a view to assisting in the establishment of a new international economic order.” The high flown rhetoric is obviously of “Communist” origin and intents. An unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable oligarchy of expatriates and aliens, who fraudulently claim in the Preamble that they intend to establish “rational and equitable international economic relations,” yet openly declared that they no longer “stabilize the value of the dollar” nor “assure the value of the coin and currency of the United States” is purely misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. (See: Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227, at pg. 1229). This was augmented by Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195, which discloses massive appropriations of rehypothecated debt credit for the general welfare and common defense of other Foreign Powers, including “Communist ” countries of satellites, International control of natural and human resources, etc., etc. A “Resource” is a claim of “property” and when related to people constitutes slavery.

It is now necessary to ask which Constitution they are operating under. The “Constitution For The Newstates Of The United States”, which was located at Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, was the subject matter of the book entitled “The Emerging Constitution” by Rexford G. Tugwell, which was accomplished under the auspices of the Rockefeller tax-exempt foundation called the “Center For The Study of Democratic Institutions.” The People and Citizens of this Nation were forewarned against formation of “Democracies.” “Democracies have ever been the spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (See: Federalist Papers No. 10, also see, The Law, Fredrick Bastiat, Code Of Professional Responsibility, Preamble). This Alien Constitution, however, has nothing to do with democracy in reality. It is the basis of and for a despotic, tyrannical oligarchy.

Article I, “Rights and Responsibilities”, Sections 1 and 15 evidence their knowledge of the “emergency.” The Rights of expression, communication, movement, assembly, petition and Habeas Corpus are all excepted from being exercised under and in a “declared emergency.” The Constitution for the Newstates of America, openly declares, among other seditious things and delusions that “Until each indicated change in the government shall have been completed the provisions of the existing Constitution and the organs of government shall be in effect” (See: Article XII, Section 3), “All operations of the national government shall cease as they are replaced by those authorized under this Constitution.” (See: Article XII, Section 4). This is apparently what Burger was promoting in 1976, after he resigned as Supreme Court Justice and took up the promotion of a “Constitutional Convention.” No trial by jury is mentioned, “JUST” compensation has been removed, along with being informed of the “Nature & Cause of the Accusation”. etc., etc., and every one will of course participate in the “democracy.” This Constitution is but a reiteration of the Communist Doctrines, intents and purposes, and clearly establishes a “Police Power” State, under direction and control of a self appointed oligarchy.

Apparently the present operation of the “de facto” government is under Foreign/Alien Constitutions, Laws, Rules and Regulations. The overthrow of the “essential engine” declared in and by the ordained and established Constitution for the United States of America (1787), and by and under the “Bill of Rights” (1791) is obvious. The covert procedure used to implement and enforce these Foreign Constitutions, Laws, Procedures, Rules, Regulations, etc., has not, to my knowledge, been collected and assimilated nor presented as evidence to establish seditious collusion and conspiracy.

Fortunately and Unfortunately in my Land it is necessary to seek, obtain and present EVIDENCE to sustain a conviction and/or judgment. Our patience and tolerance for those who pervert the very necessary and basic foundations of society has been pushed to insufferable levels. They have “fundamentally” changed the form and substance of the de jure Republican form of Government, exhibited a willful and wanton disregard for the Rights, Safety and Property of others, evinced a despotic design to reduce my people to slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude, under a fraudulent, tyrannical, seditious foreign oligarchy, with intent and purpose to institute, erect and form a “Dictatorship” over the Citizens and our Posterity. They have completely debauched the de jure monetary system, destroyed the Livelihood and Lives of thousands, aided and abetted our enemies, declared War upon us and our Posterity, destroyed untold families and made homeless over 750,000 children in the middle of winter, afflicted widows and orphans, turned Sodomites loose amongst our young, implemented foreign laws, rules, regulations and procedures within the body of the country, incited insurrection, rebellion, sedition and anarchy within the de jure society, illegally entered our Land, taken false Oaths, entered into Seditious Foreign Constitutions, Agreements, Pactions, Confederations, and Alliances, and under pretense of “emergency”, which they themselves created, promoted and furthered, formed a multitude of offices and retained those of alien allegiance to perpetuate their frauds and to eat out the substance of the good and productive people of our Land, and have arbitrarily dismissed and held mock trials for those who trespassed upon our Lives, Liberties, Properties, and Families and endangered our Peace, Safety, Welfare, and Dignity. The damage, injury and costs have been higher than mere money can repay. They have done what they were COMMANDED NOT TO DO. The time for just correction is NOW!

Sincere consideration of “Presentment” to a Grand Jury under the ordained and established Constitution for the United States of America (1787), Amendment V is in order. Numerous High Crimes and Misdemeanors have been committed under the Constitution for the United States of America, and Laws made in pursuance thereof, and under the Constitution for the State of Colorado, and the Laws made in Pursuance thereof, and against the Peace and Dignity of the People, including but not limited to, C.R.S. 18-11-203 which defines and prescribes punishment for “Seditious Associations” which is applicable to the other constitutions, and the intents and professed purposes of their Organizations, Corporations and Associations. If the Presentment should be obstructed by the members of the Bar, ARREST THEM.

I could go on but the story is long! I hope this information and research is of assistance to you. Much remains to be uncovered and disclosed, as it is necessary and imperative to secure the Lives, Liberties, Property, Peace and Dignity of the people and our Posterity. Good Hunting and the Good Lord be with you in all your endeavors.

 
                                          God Bless!

                                          ______________________________
                                          John Nelson, Jure Soli,
                                          Jure Sanguinis, Jure Coronea
                                          c/o 14675 Co. Rd. 35.6
                                          Mancos, Colorado, U.S.A.
                                          Teste Meipso

P.S. In addition, I am yet expecting a copy of the “Service Agreement”, (T.D.O. 91). It was located in the Department of Treasury, office of the Assistant General Counsel, (International Affairs), Russell L. Munk, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. Efforts are being made to obtain a copy, but so far have been obstructed by the Bar. If anyone knows where and how a copy can be obtained please do so immediately, the documents are necessary and imperative. It ought to be most informative! By the way it’s against the law for an insolvent to make a loan or to try to fraudulently collect thereon, (See: Neal et al. vs. Clark, 251 P.2d 903). It should be further noted that an “Alien” or “Denizen” cannot sit on a Jury (See: 3 Am. Jur. 2d ¶ 40), nor hold a Public Office. (Also see: 50 U.S.C.A. 781 (9) & 842), and any who have “Expatriated” (See: 8 U.S.C.A, 1481) are required to make application for “naturalization.”

The “out of court”, “ex parte”, summary determinations upon matters in issue is purely “Administrative” procedure. (See: 1 Am. Jur. 2d ¶ 78). The jury, if any, is reduced to an “advisory jury” position, and is more than likely arrayed as a “homage” jury.

5 U.S.C.A 701-703 should be of interest concerning “Judicial Review” of Agency actions. It can be found in most States under such headings and Acts as the “Administrative Procedures Act” or the “Administrative Reorganization Act.” (See: C.R.S. 24-4-106).

The de facto Federal/International chartered “Institutions”, their Officers, Employees, Servants, Agents and Representatives are subject to and should be turned over to a Court of Law for prosecution, trial, and judgment according to Law. (See: Pope Mfg. Co. vs. Gormully, 144 U.S. 414, at pg. 419, also see, 22 U.S.C.A. 286g).

“FRAUD vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65.

I believe that the statement made in Cohen vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) is more than worthy of note:

“We [Courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, that to usurp that which is not given. THE ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION.” (Cohen vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); also see: U.S. vs Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, at pg. 406).

*******

DECLARATION

OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS…WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE…WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS, PURSUING INVARIABLY THE SAME OBJECT, EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY…” Declaration of Independence, Enabling Act, Section 4.

“No political truth is of greater intrinsic value…The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist Papers No. 47

“IF a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberties and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.” (The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh Ed., vol. 14 pg. 384).

One cannot make agreements with Sodomites, Babylonians and/or satanics. Their words, oaths or signatures are of no meaning or value; their intent and purpose is to deceive, cheat, steal, lie, defraud and destroy. The seditious covert conspiracy and collusion of certain Organizations, Corporations and Associations to damage, injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate and enforce their fraudulent, foreign, socialist, Communist, “Democracy” and foist their delusions upon the Citizens and children of this Land, and to corrupt the de jure Public Offices established to accomplish the purposes set forth in the “Preamble” to the ordained and established Constitution is cause and necessity enough.

Once again finding our safety, happiness and liberties to be in imminent danger, it has become necessary and imperative to our Rights, Duties, Privileges, Immunities, Lives, Liberties and Property and that of our posterity, to declare our separate and equal station, and exercise our Right and Duty to throw off and abolish the form and operation of the de facto, fraudulent, seditious “state.” (See: Constitution For The State Of Colorado, Article II, Section 2, Declaration of Independence (1776), Constitution For The United States Of America, Amendments IX and X, C.R.S. 24-60-1301, Article IV(h)).

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government – proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter or abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

– IT IS HEREBY DEEMED NECESSARY-

JURE CORONEA – TESTE MEIPSO

*************************

  ++++++++++++++++ END OF ESSAY ++++++++++++++++

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. John, the people are neither citizens nor the governed.
    The citizens are those who willingly, knowingly, and intentionally waived their unalienable God given birthright for the filthy lucre, position, and “power” of a “position” at the feet of the head of the table–the people. To serve them, protect them, by pledging their lives and posterity, for the privilege of being one of the many who govern the political machinery that protects the rights of the people and the national affairs of the fifty nations combined globally against enemies foreign and domestic. That means enemies from other nations outside the fifty nations and those that have either infiltrated or arisen from within, not to exclude enemies within the United States of America, Washington, D.C. enemies, internal traitors.
    The people never were and never will be citizens, united States citizens, or citizens of any state because citizens by contract are subjects of the government by will and choice, who have willingly given up their birthrights for ” a bowl of red bean porridge” for the opportunity of exercise “power” disguised as “service to their master– the people. The government is the entity where the people who have contracted “oath of office” have converted themselves into corporate fictions and are stuck between a sword and a blade–they are the governors and the governed by their own rules for they are still under the Common Law, God’s Law, for no man on earth or space can ever delude himself with immunity from God’s Law because he has waived his birthright. All the six million plus statutes, public laws, rules, regulations, policies, ordinances, the govern devise are secondary to God’s Commandments and His moral law. So the government of the governed, the “public” (government, out in the “open”) believe wholeheartedly that they have gained the world and traded their souls. The reality and God’s Truth is the souls of the dead and the living belong to the Creator and no one can sell or trade what is not his property (in God’s law one can’t). So all they proudly joyfully relinquished for an opportunity to “Act” as if “God” by exercising power, control, and decisions over others is but a delusion. Citizens are the governed by the Constitution, the contract the people decided for them in return for a Republican form of national and global defense representing the people of the fifty nations–the united States as The United States of America. Thus, should we give up so much to gain what? Those that thirst for power or dominance or greed are meant to lose it all for they have given up all for that greed. Greed, because it was once and honor to God and country to serve the people as one nation under God. But now, they have fallen slave to serve the evil one and God will show mercy still as he watches them destroy themselves in mind and body until God destroys their souls in the end. Amen

    1. Mac, 11/3/2014

      Thank you for your comment on my essay, “The PEOPLE are supreme over government…”
      I hope you will read my other essays (even tough some are VERY long) on the subject of Law in America.

      After obtaining my M.D. degree and then working in clinical medical research, I obtained a Ph.D. degree in History with a specialization in the “Evolution of British and American Law and Politics from the Colonial Period Until Post-American Civil War”.

      Political Science and History have always been my favorite fields from high school through university, but I saw no money in those fields – especially in academia. Thus, I went to medical school: mostly due to “family expectations”, but also for the money. What a HUGE mistake!

      Despite the Ph.D., it still take a LOT of research to write these essays, since I have forgotten MUCH of what I learned those many years ago – just as I have forgotten much about clinical medicine. (Since the late 1980’s until I took early-retirement in late 2009 my work has been primarily medical research design and database programming, as well as other types of programming, network setup and administration, and so on.)

      But I always remained a “history buff” and since I lived in Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.) for many years, my hobby was Civil War battlefield tactics – especially the Battle of Antietam and Battle of South Mountain (both part of Lee’s 1862 Maryland Campaign), Battle of Ball’s Bluff (in Leesburg, VA),
      and to a much LESSER extent the Battle of Gettysburg.

      Again, I thank you very much for your comment and for reading my essay.

      Best wishes!

      John-Henry

%d bloggers like this: