PRESUMPTION and JURISDICTION: How the Courts Destroyed the American Judicial System
by John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.
August 17, 2015
1.) Technically, all legislated acts (statutes and the regulations based on those statutes) are NOT law. In fact, in America the ONLY law is the COMMON LAW. ALL legislated acts (statutes, etc) at any level of government are, by definition, NOT law; they assume the “force of law” ONLY by each man or woman’s individual CONSENT which is what was originally meant by the term “consent of the governed”.
Instead, legislated acts (statutes, etc.) are “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which each individual man is free to accept or reject under international commercial law. If an individual man accepts (consents to) a particular statute (by word, action or silence – that is, by NOT objecting), then he falls under its JURISDICTION and can be punished for violating that particular statute. If he OBJECTS (does not consent) to a particular statute, then he does NOT fall under its JURISDICTION and thus he may not lawfully be arrested or punished for violating that statute. This concept was well understood by most Americans until the early 1930’s; and people successfully used it very often in court to defend themselves against government prosecution at the local, state and federal levels. The two keys concepts are: JURISDICTION and PRESUMPTION.
2.) Under the U.S. Constitution, only three types of laws are allowed:
The COMMON LAW (based on the local customs of the people; NOT statutes) SUPERSEDES ALL legislated acts (statutes) at all levels of government. In America, following the issuance of the “Declaration of Independence”, each individual man or woman became a “sovereign, but a sovereign without subjects”. No other man or body of men (such as a legislature) could order him to do or not do something, as long as he did NOT violate the unalienable rights of any other man or woman under the Common Law.
“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves…..” [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign [the King of England], are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” [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. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.
“…., while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370
Under the Common Law in Britain and America, the ONLY offenses for which one can be arrested and tried are “injury to another man’s property”, where the physical, living man, his personal possessions AND his “unalienable rights” were ALL considered his property. Before the “accused” can be punished, he must have a “trial by jury” of 12 local people in a true COURT-OF-RECORD, which by definition is solely a court operating under the COMMON LAW. The jury, as the TRIBUNAL has the right to judge both the FACTS of the case and the LAW under which the man is being prosecuted. For example, if the jury finds that he committed the action in question, but believes the law is unreasonable or unjust, the jury can find the man “innocent”. The judge may instruct the jury otherwise, but the jury can ignore the judge’s “instruction” have no force in law. The jury has the “right and duty to issue a verdict conforming to their consciences in the pursuance of justice”. Further, NO COURT can question or over-turn the verdict of a true COURT-OF-RECORD (a Common Law court). The U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1973 wrote that NO statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or the U.S Supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record.
“The judgment of a court of record [operating under the Common Law] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme 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.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
“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. (As a footnote, in law the keeping of a trial TRANSCRIPT is NOT considered an “enrollment or record of the court’s proceedings”. Instead, a trial transcript is in law considered merely the personal written notes (often just a summary) of the court clerk, which may or may not be made available for convicted defendant’s future use, usually to an appeals court.) “Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the Common Law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
Definition: COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
- 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. [The keeping of “minutes” or a “transcript” of court proceedings does NOT constitute a court of record. Such “minutes” and “transcripts” are considered merely the personal notes of the court clerk.] [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]
In short, in a true Court of Record, the government-appointed judge is a magistrate and is NOT the tribunal, that is, he only directs the proceedings but can issue NO rulings or decisions. The tribunal is either the sovereign himself (the accused as the plaintiff via a counter-claim against his accuser), or (if requested by the accused/defendant)a fully empowered jury (not paid by the government). The court operates solely under the Common Law, with NO statutes (or regulations therefrom) allowed. In a court of record, a judge (as magistrate) has NO discretion. Discretion is reserved to the independent tribunal. Further, NO attorney may speak, unless he is the plaintiff, the accused or a witness with direct, personal first-hand knowledge of the issues in dispute. A Court of Record proceeds according to the Common Law only. It is not a criminal court and it is not a civil court; those two courts are statutory courts, NOT Common Law courts.
Obviously, today’s courts in America are NOT true “courts-of-record” (which b definition must operate under the Common Law). Instead, beginning in the early 1900’s all U.S. courts have evolved in Equity Law courts (for major offenses, such as murder) and Maritime-Admiralty Law courts (for most non-lethal offenses). Indeed, if the accused even mentions the term “Common Law” in a court room or to an attorney, he will be laughed at by the attorney or screamed at by a judge. Except for federal appellate courts and U.S. Supreme Court, the Common Law is UNKNOWN to all district court judges – and even unknown by most superior court judges and almost all attorneys, since it is NO longer taught in any American law school.
Do you want PROOF that almost ALL American courts are now Maritime-Admiralty Law courts? Courts operating under the Common Law and Equity Law MUST allow the accused to have a “trial by jury” of 12 local people (his “peers”). And the jury’s verdict of “not guilty” is final and may NOT be altered by ANY court. And a “guilty” verdict by a jury in an Equity Law court can be appealed to a higher court OR even to another equity court (on the same level as the original Equity Law court). The judges in Common Law and Equity Law courts can NOT issue “SUMMARY JUDGMENTS” – meaning that the judge alone can NOT issue a verdict. However, in American courts today almost all verdicts by judges are “summary judgments”; which is why you can be found “guilty” SOLELY by a judge for “violating” everything from local ordinances to state and federal legislated acts (statutes), related regulations and even town ordinances and by-laws; and fined and/or imprisoned rather huge amounts of money. (A judge today is equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea: what he says, you MUST do! See below under item c.) Maritime-Admiralty Law). And if a judge happens to grant you at “jury trial” (which is NOT the same entity as a “trial by jury”), he does so at his discretion with a jury consisting of usually six (6) or fewer jurors. Further, the verdict of such a jury is NOT binding upon the court; its “verdict” is considered only an “advisory opinion” to the judge, which he may accept or reject on a whim. Indeed, even if that jury issues a verdict of “not guilty”, the judge may ignore that verdict (“advisory opinion”) and issue a verdict of “guilty”. And this actually happens occasionally – and would occur much more frequently were it not for the bad publicity generated by such decisions by a judge; which is why most judges do not grant “jury trials”. Finally, go to court as an observer and watch some defendant mention the Constitution, its Bill of Rights or the Common Law. The judge will most likely state (or “scream”) to the defendant to “Shut up!” or even (in many cases) say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do NOT apply in his court room! And the judge is CORRECT, since a court operating Maritime-Admiralty Law is NOT bound by the Constitution or its Bill of Rights!
b.) EQUITY LAW (now often called “STATUTORY LAW”, in the form of legislated acts such as statutes, codes, ordinances, by-laws and the regulations) MUST conform to the Common Law, but was meant to “soften” the often severe penalties imposed for violating the Common Law. (For example, under the Common Law, the penalty upon conviction for theft was “death”. Equity Law softened these penalties, so that the penalties for theft vary depending on what the person stole, whether force was used, etc.) The accused ALWAYS has the option to choose either Common Law jurisdiction or Equity Law jurisdiction. And for most minor offenses, Equity Law is the more preferable jurisdiction. After all, who wants to be put to death for stealing a candy bar from your local supermarket? However, the accused must CONTRACT with the Equity Court, waiving some of his unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, before he falls under the jurisdiction of an Equity Court, which is actually a type of “commercial court”.
c.) MARITIME-ADMIRALTY LAW (a subset of “international commercial law”; “martial law”), which USED to apply ONLY to ships at sea. Its aim was to facilitate commerce between nations. (A ship anchored in an American or British harbor fell under either the Common Law or Equity Law JURISDICTION.) However, while a ship is at sea, the CAPTAIN has absolute power. He can penalize a crew member for an infraction of the rules WITHOUT a hearing or trial of any kind. (If a crew member is NOT executed for his infraction, once on land he can appeal the captain’s decision to a Maritime-Admiralty court, but the PRESUMPTION is always with the captain – the crew member must PROVE that the captain issued an unlawful order.) Unfortunately for the American people, beginning in the mid-1930’s Admiralty-Maritime Law “moved” onto land, due to the failure of the courts (especially the U.S. Supreme Court) to stop it; and the 1993 declaration of bankruptcy by the government of the United States. Under international commercial law, a debtor is at the total mercy of his creditors – and in 1993 the creditors of the U.S. government’s debt (mostly large foreign banks, plus several large U.S. banks – all of whom own shares in the PRIVATE banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System created in 1913) made demands that adversely changed the American judicial system forever.
I am NOT a “citizen of the United States”; I am an “American citizen”
NEVER say or sign anything that state that you are a “U.S. citizen”, “citizen of the United States” or any variation therefore – whether on your tax-return to the IRS, your application for a passport, ANY other document or merely taking an “oath” in court. Doing so makes you an “agent” (“employee”) of the U.S. government, makes your official residence “Washington, District of Columbia” and places you under the complete and absolute jurisdiction of Congress and its statutes, while totally waiving ALL of your inherent unalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights! Why? Because, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the term “United States” has at least 3 definitions, one of which is a PRIVATE CORPORATION or “private municipal corporation” (created by a British company based in Scotland in 1868).
There was NO such legal entity of a “citizen of the United States” until the ratification of the 14-th Amendment in 1868. Prior to that time, each man and woman was considered a sovereign; and each state was considered a “sovereign and independent country with respect to the other states and with respect to the United States”, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled.
Section 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the 14-th Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The law is very precise and the word “AND” means that BOTH conditions must be met in order to be true, Consequently, even if you were born within the United States, UNLESS you CONSENT be to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (the United States), you are NOT a “citizen of the United States. And if you are NOT a “U.S. citizen”, then the U.S. government has NO jurisdiction over you and you are NOT subject to its legislated acts (statutes) and regulations.
Section 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the 14-th Amendment states:
“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.”
What the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” clause means is that a U.S. citizen has ONLY PRIVELEGES and IMMUNITIES granted by Congress; AND that, in exchange for these PRIVELEGES and IMMUNITIES, everyone PRESUMED by the government to be OR personally claiming to be a U.S. citizen has WAIVED all of his inherent, unalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Thus, so-called “civil rights” created by legislated acts (statutes) are NOT true rights; they are merely PRIVILEGES and IMMUNITIES granted by Congress, which Congress can just as quickly take away.
The original (organic) Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: “The Constitution for the united states of America.” [Note that neither the words ‘united’ nor ‘states’ began with capital letters] But the current “CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is a corporate constitution (corporate rules or “POLICIES” applicable ONLY to that corporation’s employees). Consequently, the current “CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is.
Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, NOT a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. The United States as the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government — your government which now operates OUTSIDE the original Constitution.
This creation of a private corporation called the “United States” was affirmed by Congress by its passing the Act of 1871 (often called “The District of Columbia Act of 1871” and the “The Incorporation Act for the District of Columbia Act of 1871”) and subsequent acts passed by Congress, was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government SOLELY for the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. Among these new acts was a revision of the original (organic) Constitution. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the foreign-owned corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.
The “United States” (again, according to various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court) is either solely the “District of Columbia” OR the “District of Columbia”, the various U.S. Territories and “insular possessions”, and federal installations within the various states (such as Army bases) forever ceded to the U.S. government by the legislatures of those states. And remember, the “District of Columbia”, the various U.S. Territories and “insular possessions” are NOT states under the Constitution. That is why the District of Columbia, Guam, etc. have NO representatives in either the U.S. Senate of U.S. House of Representatives. Further, because they are NOT states under the Constitution, their residents have NO unalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In fact, they are governed by MARITIME-ADMIRALTY LAW (“martial law”), just as the Northwest Territories were in 1789 and all other U.S. Territories to the present day.
In fact, except for the U.S. Supreme Court and major offenses (such as murder) tried in lower courts, the entire judicial system now operates under Maritime-Admiralty Law jurisdiction, in which ALL of your inherent, natural, unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are VOID. And the worst part is that you VOLUNTARILY (but unknowingly) WAIVED your unalienable rights and CONSENTED to fall under this Maritime-Admiralty Law jurisdiction now operating in the courts. How? By CONTRACT with mutual consent with the government (local, state and federal) and you. Did your parents apply for a government-issued “Birth Certificate”, which did NOT exist until 1913 (the same year Congress passed the acts creating the Federal Reserve and establishing an income tax on corporate business profits)? Have you filled out an application for a U.S. passport, but NOT stated to the issuing official that you do NOT wish to labeled as a “U.S. citizen”? (This option is available on all applications for a U.S. passport.) Have you applied for a Social Security Card? Or applied for Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment payments, Social Security retirement or disability benefits, or any of the numerous federal benefits program? Have you written your signature on an IRS “tax return” (Form 1040), thereby VOLUNTARILY converting it into a sworn affidavit and a legal contract? If the answer is “Yes” to any of these, then the U.S. government makes the PRESUMPTION that you knowingly and voluntarily, by contract with full consent, have proclaimed yourself to be a “citizen of the United States”, which since 1871 has been a private, foreign-owned corporation.
How Did This Happen?
I stated above that the two key concepts in law are JURISDICTION and PRESUMPTION, which will now be discussed in more detail, especially how they were and are still abused by American courts.
The definition of a jurisdiction in law covers many pages in two of the most respected and widely used law dictionaries in America, so I will present only brief definitions from each. Presenting an example is perhaps the easiest way to explain jurisdiction. Let us suppose that you received a “speeding ticket” from a police officer employed by Town A while you were driving your car within the town limits of Town B, perhaps close to the border between the two towns. Even if you write your signature on the “speeding ticket” (thereby creating a mutually agreed upon CONTRACT to appear in court), that “speeding ticket” was unlawfully issued. Why? Because the police officer from Town A has jurisdiction ONLY within the boundaries of Town A; and no where else. However, there is a “catch”! When you appear in court, the judge will make the PRESUMPTION that you CONSENTED to accept the “speeding ticket” and thus consented to the jurisdiction of the police officer from Town A. How can the judge make such a presumption? Several relevant ancient Maxims of Law (which means they are accepted as absolute, unquestionable international law) apply here, “If you fail to object, you have consented.” and “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” for that particular case currently before any court. Even if the judge realizes that the police officer was out of his jurisdiction and thereby made a mistake in issuing you the “speeding ticket”, the judge probably will still make the presumption that you consented and find you “guilty” based of several Maxims of Law: “Consent removes or obviates a mistake.” (thus allowing the police officer’s mistake to stand as a valid charge); “Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.”; and “Agreement [contract by mutual consent] takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties SUPERSEDES such understanding as the law would imply.”
The same applies to “speeding tickets”, etc. issued to out-of-state drivers. I never signed any contract with another state regarding its traffic statutes or anything else. Indeed, I do not possess a “driver’s license” from any other state other than that in which I live. As a result, I have NEVER paid a “speeding ticket” fine issued by police officers in any state other than that in which I live. (If you read the transportation statutes of most states, looking up the definition of EVERY word of that statute in a well-recognized law dictionary, you will discover that a signed application for a “driver’s license” and the “driver’s license” itself are contracts with your state, BUT apply solely to people who are paid to drive a truck or automobile; and this contract is valid only when they are engaged in driving for pay at the time of the supposed violation) from any other state other than that in which I live. As a result, I have NEVER paid a “speeding ticket” fine issued by an out-of-state police officer – and there was NOTHING that state could do about it. I pay “speeding tickets”, etc. issued by state police officers within my state and town police officers within my town solely as a matter of CONVENIENCE to me. It is much easier to pay, rather than argue the facts of law with any police officer or district court judge, neither of whom knows anything about the Common Law or International Commercial Law.
There are numerous other applicable Maxims of Law that apply to this example, a few of which are:
“He, who does not deny, admits.”
”Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.”
“To him consenting no injury is done. “
“He who consents cannot receive an injury.”
“He who mistakes is not considered as consenting.”
“Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.”
“The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.”
“The contract makes the law.”
The point of this example is that, in order to win in court, you must OBJECT to the police officer’s and the judge’s presumptions. This is best done by filing a COUNTER-CLAIM against the police officer and the judge (in their PRIVATE capacities as men and women; NOT in their official roles as police officer and judge) in which you CHALLENGE and OBJECT to their JURISDICTION at least one week or longer before you are scheduled to appear in court, which you must file with the Court Clerk. And most importantly, with your counter-claim you should include an “AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH” (signed, sworn and notarized) stating the facts of the incident and containing the phrase that you “assume complete and unlimited commercial liability” for everything you state in your affidavit. In your affidavit, you should also state that you give them each seven (7) business days to rebut your affidavit via each of them issuing his/her own sworn, notarized “Affidavit of Truth”
Why? Under the ancient Maxim of Law, “Claims made without accountability are void.” In order to have any credibility, the claimant must put himself at risk by assuming full and unlimited commercial liability for any of his claims proved to be false. In fact, in the Common Law and Commercial Law (as opposed to statutory law as legislated acts), the more one places himself at risk in any claim, the greater the presumption that his claim is truthful. In other words, should the police officer and judge be able to refute your claims (each by his own sworn affidavit in which he/she states that he/she assumes full and unlimited commercial liability, backed up by affidavits from other witnesses and hard evidence, you would be financially “screwed” for life. If they fail to do so in the 7 days allotted, then they have AGREED that everything in your affidavit was the Truth. “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.” and “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” They have lost by default. In law they have agreed with everything in your affidavit, including your claim that the have NO jurisdiction over you. The case MUST be “dismissed with prejudice” (meaning the charges can never be re-filed against you). Further, the case NOT be taken by them to a higher court, since (by agreeing with you by default), there is NO controversy. And NO court in the world has jurisdiction when there is NO controversy!!!
Other applicable MAXIMS of Law are:
“A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.”
“A matter must be expressed to be resolved.”
“Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.”
This is the reason that, under the Common Law in America and our natural, unalienable rights guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, NO arrest or search warrant can be issued unless a law enforcement official issues a signed affidavit sworn as the truth under oath (a contract), along with some objective evidence of a crime (“probable cause”) is submitted to a court; after which a judge, also acting under oath, may issue the warrant with his signature (also a contact by the judge). As agents of the government, both the police officer and the judge are protected from civil suits by “limited commercial immunity” granted by statutes and thereby relieved of “full and unlimited commercial liability” by the commercial bonds purchased on their behalf by the government entity which employs them. However, this limited immunity is valid only as long as they do NOT exceed the powers of office lawfully granted to them.
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Again, “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.” and “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” and ”Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.”
Above all, NEVER PHYSICALLY ENTER A COURT ROOM. By simply physically entering a court room, you have just consented to the judge’s jurisdiction over you! Likewise, if you enter a “plea” or obey ANY of the judge’s instructions or FAIL TO OBJECT to every ruling or order he issues to you (even to such mundane orders as “remove your hat”, “sit at this table” or “what is your name” or whatever), then you have just consented to that judge’s jurisdiction. Even remaining silent means that you consent to the judge’s jurisdiction. Your “Counter-Claim” and “Affidavit of Truth”, once filed with the Court Clerk and also delivered to the judge and police officer serve as your “appearance in court”. (If a court clerk refuses to file your “Counter-Claim” and “Affidavit of Truth”, simply write on both documents “FILE ON DEMAND”. As any experienced court clerk knows, failure to file a “Counter-Claim” and “Affidavit of Truth” with the phrase “File on Demand” written on them is an extremely serious criminal offense. Further, they open themselves to a civil suit (for a violation of your rights) against them by you – and because they violated their sworn duty (a contract with the government) as officers of the court, they lose the “limited commercial liability” conferred on them by their office. Consequently, that court clerk becomes personally responsible for any monetary damages awarded to you.
In addition, instead of filing a civil suit with the court against the court clerk, under International Commercial Law, you could issue a sworn, notarized “Affidavit of Truth” and “claim of right” against that court clerk, which you can easily convert into a “commercial lien” which “FREEZES” ALL current and future assets of that person for 99 years. And if you place the commercial lien into a TRUST, the lien lasts forever. You do not need a lawyer or need ever enter a court, since this “commercial lien process” (CAP) is extra-judicial. For those who know the process, it is all simple “paper-work” and should require 10 hours at most to write. It may cost $200- $400, but that money is used primarily to place announcements of the existence of commercial lien in media available to the public, with a small amount of money for Notary Publics – getting your documents “notarized” making them sworn oaths . It is done under International Commercial Law – and was often used by merchants and others to seek “remedy” for violations of their rights (whether contractual rights, property rights, or inherent, unalienable rights, such as those guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights). Maxim of Law: “A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.”
Indeed, the “commercial lien process” (CAP) was used so often by ordinary people in America (and other nations, such as Britain and its former colonies) that it was termed “the common man’s path to justice”. You can even register that commercial lien with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), thereby converting that lien into a “negotiable instrument” (that is, money similar to a bond or note; and since 1913, a U.S. dollar is actually a “Federal Reserve Note” as is printed on every dollar bill). One your lien becomes a “negotiable instrument”, it becomes a form of money, which you can then sell to a major bank, investment company or anyone else for CASH – which is NOT taxable, since it is an “award for damages” in order to “make you whole”. And, since a “commercial lien” is an extra-judicial process, NO court can alter, void or nullify the commercial lien. The ONLY ways to get rid of the lien are: (1) for the lien debtor to pay it off in full; OR (2) for the lien creditor (person owning the lien) to voluntarily dismiss the lien. Once a commercial lien is created, NO court in the world call question it, alter it or void it, since it is extra-judicial (outside the jurisdiction of ALL courts world-wide)
Paying off a commercial lien in full is nearly impossible for most lien debtor(s), since in a typical commercial lien for the violation of a man’s right to free speech, false arrest, etc. the man establishing the commercial lien at the current time usually seeks and receives a “remedy” of $50 million to $75 million U.S. dollars per violation per violator. And if anyone, including any judge or government official, interferes in any way with your creation of a commercial lien and/or its effects (“freezing” of ALL current and future assets), you can add those people to your completed commercial lien, adding another 50-75 million dollars per violation per violation. Consequently, commercial liens created by common people (who fully understand the process) often total hundreds of million dollars, at a minimum. (See the third paragraphs below)
But do NOT expect to receive “face value” if you sell your commercial lien. Banks and large investment companies will probably offer you between 2-4 percent of its face value; which they will re-sell at a slight profit; with this process repeating itself again and again. Or the might sell shares of the lien (“derivatives”), much like they sell stocks or bonds. Or they could use it as collateral for loans from the Federal Reserve, which they could then use to buy stocks, bonds, gold, silver or whatever. And with interest rates from the Federal Reserve at near-zero percent, they would be guaranteed to make a profit simply by using that loan to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds. But let’s do some calculations. Suppose you successfully created “commercial liens” against anyone, in this example against the judge, the prosecutor, court clerk, police officer(s), and added anyone (especially any judge or other government agent who attempted to interfere or void your commercial. Such a commercial lien’s “face value” will typically would total a minimum of $250 million or more. Two (2) percent of $250 million means you will receive $50 million in cash when you sell it. Four (4) percent of $250 million means that you will receive $100 million in cash. And remember that you owe NO taxes on this money, since it is an award for injuries to “make you whole” under International Commercial Law. Not too shabby for about 10-15 hours of paperwork and about $200-$300, primarily for “advertising” your lien (or more correctly stated, making your commercial lien public knowledge as a warning to other people about the status of your lien debtor) done through repeated announcements in newspapers local to your lien debtor and people who presumably might have con
A second option would be to use the commercial lien as collateral for a loan from a bank or investment company. Typically, a bank would grant you such a loan (knowing that they could re-sell the lien at a substantial profit) equal to about four (4) percent to six (6) percent or more of the liens $250 million “face value”. You could then simply NOT re-pay the loan from the bank, thus defaulting on our loan. In return, the bank would exercise its right under International Commercial Law to keep our collateral (the commercial lien). Would they complain? Perhaps a little, but not too much –since as stated above, any bank knows that it can easily re-sell the lien resulting in a considerable profit for the bank.
Finally, if you REALLY wanted to “screw” the lien debtors for their entire lives, you could donate the lien to either the Vatican Bank or the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). The Vatican Bank and the IRS are perhaps the most notoriously aggressive entities for collecting on debts, simply by seizing (“levying”) ALL current and future assets of debtors. In the case of the IRS, is has no other choice, since by statute it is not allowed to use a lien for investment purposes. The IRS must, by law, attempt to collect from its debtors – something at which is highly successful!
Why do we, the people, never learn about these facts?
It’s simple: the judges, attorney and governments do NOT want us to know. The courts today are “cash cows” for local, state and federal governments. Besides, neither the judge nor any other government agent is required to inform you of your rights – you are supposed to know your right and these facts from your own reading and experience, just as the Founders and people of that era did! “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Instead, after you have issued your “Counter-Claim” and “Affidavit of Truth” against the judge, police officer(s) and even the prosecutor, court clerk, you should request a PRE-TRIAL hearing (or other informal meeting) with the judge and perhaps the prosecutor (which is really an informal “question-and-answer” session) in some room other than an actual court room, But do NOT answer ANY of their questions. Rather, simply state something like, “That matter is fully discussed in my affidavit and counter-claim; so I have nothing to add.” Many older American may recall the TV ads for the “Yellow Pages” telephone directory for businesses, whose slogan was, “Let your fingers do the walking.” In our case, your motto should be “Let your documents do the talking.” Anything you verbally may not just weaken your case; it may actually grant jurisdiction to the judge. Even verbally answering a question OR remaining silent may give him jurisdiction. I cannot stress this enough: to every statement or question asked of you by the judge (and/or prosecutor, if present), you should simply reply with something like, “That matter is fully discussed in my affidavit and counter-claim; so I have nothing to add.”
ALL lower court (usually district courts) judges and ALL attorneys will have NO idea what is happening. Instead, they most certainly will resort to all kinds of “tricks” and severe threats (probably involving SCREAMING at you) to get you to give the judge jurisdiction over you. But do not be intimidated or bullied, since all his threats are pure “bluffs”!
However, if the judge is smart, he will consult with a superior court or appellate court judge, who will inform the lower court judge that he is now dealing with International Commercial Law. In other words, the judge is in “unknown waters” dealing with laws of which he has NO knowledge, with the potential to ruin his life forever. (For more information on this subject, I suggest you read about “commercial liens”, especially “COMMERCIAL LIENS: A MOST POTENT WEAPON” by Alfred Adask et al.,1995, which can easily be found on the internet and on this blog.) The end result will be that the judge will “DISMISS with prejudice” your case, meaning that the charges can NOT be re-filed again at some future date.
Whether or not they reply (rebut) your affidavit in the time you allotted with their individual affidavits issued by them in their PRIVATE capacity (not as a government agent or official) – which they NEVER do (since by doing so, they risk ALL OF THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE ASSETS by including the compulsory statement in which he/she “assumes complete and unlimited commercial liability”; and waive the “limited commercial liability” that comes with their office.) If you were judge, would you risk your job and all of your current and future assets over a “speeding ticket” with a $300 fine? Not likely!
Indeed, when the Common Law was being used by all American courts, every American knew his rights and what was lawful or unlawful, simply because under the Common Law in America, the ONLY offenses for which one can be arrested and tried are “injury to another man’s property”, where the physical, living man, his personal possessions AND his “unalienable rights” were ALL considered his property. That was simple enough for any man/woman to understand.
However, today most American mistakenly believe that all legislated acts (statutes) must be obeyed; and that they must physically appear in court. Three Maxims of Law apply here: “He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.”; “Let him, who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.” and the ancient Roman Maxim of Law: “He, who would be deceived, let him.”
The origin of the word “jurisdiction” is from Latin and translated into English; and meant “Oath Spoken” in which a spoken oath was a CONTRACT, mutually agreed to (“mutual consent”) by both parties without force or coercion AND disclosing all facts of that contract (“full disclosure”), by which the person speaking the oath (usually a tenant farmer) gave away certain rights and a percentage of his crops (as rent) in exchange for something of tangible value – most often being the right to live in a small dwelling and the right to farm on land owned by a lord (landlord) and to retain a specified percentage of his crops. An applicable Maxim of Law (which means it is accepted as absolute under international law) states, “An oath is a contract in law.”
In fact, even today in law when someone “swears an oath” (whether in court, on an IRS tax-return via his signature, an application for ANY type of government-issued license, etc.), that man has just voluntarily agreed to CONTRACT with the other party – and thereby places himself under the jurisdiction of the entity to whom he swore an oath, per international commercial law. “In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation.” But I do not remember ever signing any such contracts with the government, so how can they put me under their Maritime-Admiralty Law jurisdiction? Unknown to most people, the government (local, state, federal) makes the PRESUMPTION that you have entered into contracts with these governments – and PRESUMPTION is the most powerful and deceptive tool used in law, especially by governments.
Most importantly, these presumed CONTRACTS displace and SUPERSEDE all other law and your inherent, unalienable rights, such as those guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Further, under International Commercial Law, these presumed contracts with governments grant those government jurisdiction over you, thus requiring to obey their statutes and regulations.
JURISDICTION: The authority, capacity, power or right to act; the power of him who has the right of judging;
the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. The three types of jurisdiction are: of subject matter, of the person, and to render the particular judgment which was given. Jurisdiction is often determined by where the alleged offense took place, called “territorial jurisdiction”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (revised)
JURISDICTION A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac.Ab. Pleas, E 2. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
“Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other Court. But, if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)
“A court has NO jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record [a Common Law court is the ONLY true Court-of-Record] of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
“While the issue of jurisdiction remains in dispute, the court may not proceed.”
State of Rhode Island v. Com. of Massachusetts 37 U.S. 657 (1838)
“No officer [judge, prosecutor, police officer or any agent of government] can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.” Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.
“Court must prove on the record [in a Court-of-Record operating under the Common Law], all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp
“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the question is, whether on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extra-judicial; with or without the authority of law, to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction; what shall be adjudged or decreed between the parties, and with which is the right of the case, is judicial action, by hearing and determining it.” 6 Peters, 709; 4 Russell, 415; 3 Peters, 203-7″ Cited by STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838)
“But where the question upon which the jurisdiction depends is one of law purely the jurisdiction over the subject matter is always open to collateral inquiry …” Grannis v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. 245 [79 P. 891, 106 Am.St.Rep. 23]
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio [from the beginning].” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
“There is no discretion [for judges, prosecutors, police officers or any agent of government] to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
“A court has NO jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
“The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
Readers should refer to US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine ,both voided because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court decided correctly, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme Court before it was decided correctly, in both cases, VOID. Every man or woman arrested and charged with an offense should challenge jurisdiction immediately, and issue a motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the Supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64
The definition of a presumption in law also covers many pages in two of the most respected and widely used law dictionaries in America, so I will present only brief definitions from each.
PRESUMPTION “An inference as to the existence of one fact, from the existence of some other
fact, founded on a previous experience of their connexion.” 3 Stark. Ev. 1234; 1 Phil. Ev. 116; Gilb. Ev. 142; Poth. Tr. des. Ob. part. 4, c. 3, s. 2, n. 840. “Or it, is an opinion, which circumstances, give rise to, relative to a matter of fact, which they are supposed to attend.” Menthuel sur les Conventions, liv. 1, tit. 5. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
PRESUMPTION An inference affirmative or disaffirmative of the truth or falsehood of any proposition or fact drawn by a process of probable reasoning in the absence of actual certainty of its truth or falsehood, or until such certainty can be ascertained.
There are two types of presumptions:
Presumptions of Fact are not the subject of fixed rules, but are merely natural presumptions, such as appear, from common experience, to arise from the particular circumstances of any case. Some of these are “founded upon a knowledge of the human character, and of the motives, passions, and feelings by which the mind is usually influenced.” 1 Stark. Ev. 27. They may be said to be the conclusions drawn by the mind from the natural connection of the circumstances disclosed in each case, or, In other words, from circumstantial evidence.
Presumption of Law are a rule of law that courts and judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular
fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. Steph. Ev. 4; Lane v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 4, 33 S.W. 645. A rule which, in certain cases, either forbids or dispenses with any ulterior inquiry. 1 Greenl. § 14. A consequence which the law or the judge draws from a known fact to a fact unknown. In re Cowdry’s Will, 77 Vt. 359, 60 A. 141, 142. A rule of law laid down by the judge and attaching to evidentiary facts certain procedural consequences as to the duty of production of other evidence by the opponent. If the opponent does offer evidence to the contrary, the presumption disappears, and the case stands upon the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Kramer v. Nichols-Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co., 103 Okl. 208, 229 P. 767, 768. A conclusion, which, in the absence of evidence upon the exact question, the law draws from other proof made or from facts judicially noticed or both, the burden of proof cast by it being satisfied by the presentation of evidence sufficient to convince the jury that the probabilities of truth are against the party whom the presumption relieves of the burden of proof. State ex rel. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ellison, 268 Mo. 239, 187 S.W. 23, 26. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
Summary: The Current Problem with America’s Judicial System
The topics of JURISDICTION and PRESUMPTION have filled volumes too numerous to count; and the topics are far too complex to discuss in any detail here. Suffice it to say that there are two relevant ancient Maxims of Law (which means they are accepted as absolute, unquestionable truths under international law), “If you fail to object, you have consented.” and “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” for that particular case before any court. It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a “court of record” (a court operating under the Common Law; NO statutes allowed), 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 mutual agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than the Common Law.
But if the only way the courts and other agencies of government can do that is to obtain the prior mutual agreement from the parties, how did they obtain your CONSENT? For the courts, 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 with a sworn, notarized “Affidavit of Truth” challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the “accused” (called the “defendant” by the administrative-statutory court) becomes the “plaintiff” with the judge and court personnel becoming the “defendants” or “accused”. 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 only other option open to the “accused” (the judge) is for the judge (against whom you issued our counter-claim) to request, a “trial by jury” of 12 local people (“peers”) in a true Court-of-Record (which by definition means a Common Law court; NO statutes allowed; NO attorneys allowed to “represent” – that is, re-present a man as a “legal fiction” called the “defendant”). Instead, each party must “present” himself (NOT re-present himself) as a private man before the court.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, order, verdicts, punishment or sanctions, YOU as the tribunal (or the jury of 12 people) can simply issue written judicial orders (called “writs”) to invalidate the judge’s actions. As noted above, 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 [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme 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)]
As an aside, soon after the surrender of the British Army at Yorktown, Virginia on October 19, 1781, which ended the American Revolutionary War, the British commanding general Lord Charles Cornwallis wrote and published a newspaper article in which he stated that (and I am paraphrasing his statement) “the Americans may have won a military victory, but within 75 years Britain will once again rule America – not through force of arms, but through finance.”
General Lord Charles Cornwallis was a brilliant man and a true intellectual; and I personally have no doubt that he was familiar with the statements of Amschel Moses Rothschild (the founder of the Rothschild family’s banking and financial dynasty), especially his most famous statement, “The few who understand the system [of money], will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” . . . “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” – Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild, 1744-1812
According to legend, when General Cornwallis and his British troops marched out of Yorktown, Cornwallis ordered the army’s band to play a tune called “The World Turned Upside Down.” The question thus arises, was this tune played in recognition of the British Army’s surrender; OR was it played in anticipation of Cornwallis’ prediction regarding Britain’s future conquest of America through finance?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End of Essay ++++++++++++++++++++++++++