• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,186
Likes
5,488
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
For one who thinks that being arrested is not like being pregnant as you either are or you are not and you are either pregnant or not you sure cast a slim shadow of pall in your dispersions. I mean I think you posterd that charters are over come by statute. s4t you are one f'ed up struggling malfeasant. You have been given the basics and you totally miss it in your head long dive to beat your brain against an anvil, but then you like it that way I suppose?
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
Pro Tip: Legal Reading and Interpretation According to Law - Legal Definitions.
.
.
It is imperative to understand that a particular court's definition of a term or phrase, such as “driving,” “operating,” “operator,” “driver,” “commercial/ motor/ vehicle,” or “transportation,” is completely irrelevant. Every judge is REQUIRED as a matter of law to apply the legislatively defined and codified rules of statutory construction and interpretation of the law to that law wherever and whenever such application cannot be deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers.

In Texas, the statutory requirements dictate that the interpretation of the laws is to be done in the following order of priority;

1) by applying the definition specifically supplied within the statutes, beginning with the local and specific definition unless a local provision declares that a particular general definition is controlling,​
2) by applying the definition supplied by ‘other law’ if the statute contains no definition of its own, or,​
3) when it comes to the use of terms/words of art, by applying the definition that is used by experts in the profession, occupation, or art to which the term applies.​

Thus, there is no question of law that the judge of the court is not free to simply create a new definition or use his/her own opinion to redefine a term or phrase as the judge sees fit. These requirements are codified law within Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code.

Therefore, for the court to do otherwise is an abuse of judicial discretion, and constitutes the forbidden act of legislating from the bench, as well as being a direct violation of statutory law on the subject of proper reading and interpretation of the law. This violation of law then subjects the judge to the criminal charges of official misconduct, abuse of official capacity, and official oppression, and possible others depending upon subsequent actions and circumstances, under the Texas Penal Code. Even more importantly, the judge then loses all immunity and becomes civilly liable to the individual(s) harmed by the judge's acts under color of law.

I suggest that you file those charges ASAP whenever a judge oversteps their lawful authority and chooses to abuse their official capacity in a way that violates not only the statutes, but also your right to due process and a fair and impartial trial. After all, there is nothing fair and impartial about a trial where the judge can rewrite the law any time s/he desires to prop up and sustain the state’s otherwise unprovable case because the elements of the offense do not and cannot legally exist without the judge’s unlawful interference in this manner.

Case closed.

=====================================

Brady Byrum with the assist:

Ed. C. Lasater et. al. V Alonzo Lopez et. al., 110 T. 179, (217 S.W. 373), on page 187 of the first cite, states, “Courts have nothing to do with the making or repealing of statutes, and violate their true powers and endanger their own authority when they undertake the legislative role by constructing an act to abrogate an important public power of long existence and continued legislative sanction, whose lawful exercise will afford a public benefit.”

Weaver v Robison, 114 T. 272, 268 S.W. 133, states, “When Legislature has spoken in plain language, there is no room for construction, and courts are not concerned with policy or effect of enactment.”

Rudasill v Rudasill, 219 S.W. 843, Smith v State, 100 Cr. R. 234, 272 S.W. 793, Robertson v Robertson, 217 S.W. 2d 132, and Ex Parte Davis, 412 SW 2d 46, state, “Where statute is clear and unambiguous, the legislature must be understood to mean what it expressed, and it is not for the courts to add or subtract from such a statute.” Neither can the Executive branch expand it through regulations beyond the confines of the intent of the legislature.

Aetna v Otis Elevator, 204 SW 376, states, “Courts may not extend the scope and application of a statute merely because there is apparently no reason why the rights given in the case named therein should not have been given in other cases.” The separation of powers prevents courts from doing so.

Tippins v State, 86 Cr. R. 205, 217 S.W. 380, states, “Whether or not a statute is a proper one and should be changed is a legislative, and not a judicial question, and while a statute stands unchanged, the courts must enforce it as it finds it. Interpreting laws outside their legislative intent is unjust.

Bryan v Texas Life Ins. Co. 248 S.W. 163, states, “That a court may be of the opinion that to construe a law as plainly written by the Legislature would convict that body of enacting an unwise law, affords no justification for the court to read into the law, an exception which the Legislature has failed to place therein.”

Pierson v Pierson 128 S.W. 2d 108 states, “Courts must interpret the law as it is written and cannot modify or expand it by judicial interpretation.”

Ex Parte Halsted, 147 Cr. R. 453, 182 S.W. 2d 479, states, “The courts must NOT enter field of legislation under guise of construction of statute and in determining validity of statute, courts are powerless to add anything thereto or to rewrite or change statute.” To do so is a denial of justice.
City of Fort Worth, v Westchester House, 274 S.W. 2d 732 states, “It is not the duty of courts to supply omissions in the law.” If the Legislature chooses to exclude words in laws, no one else can alter their acts.

Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss 576, 64 So 2d 697, states “When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdictional requisites, he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.”

Pursuant to Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62, 93 S. Ct. 80, 83, 34 L. Ed. 2d 267 (1972) and Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 520, 47 S. Ct. 437, 440, 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927), “It is a fundamental right of a party to have a neutral & detached judge preside over the judicial proceedings.”

Pursuant to Dean v. Kochendorfer, 237 NY 384, 143 NE 229, “If a magistrate instigates a prosecution before himself without probable cause and deliberately uses the process issue by him therein, not for the legitimate purpose of hearing the case, but to show his authority & to gratify his personal feelings of importance, the act savors of oppression & constitutes an illegal abuse of power.”

In the assertion of federal rights governed by federal law, it is this Court's duty to make certain that they are fully protected. Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co., 353 U.S. 360 (1957). This Court cannot make interpretations that nullify their effectiveness, for "… the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 at page 24.

Further, the case of Scott v Henslee, Civ. No. 2382, U.S.D.C. Eastern District, Ark. (March 24, 1952) found at 104 Fed. Supp. 218, states on page 219, at holding No. 2, that “It is not to be presumed that state courts will be derelict in their duty to give full effect to federal constitutional rights.”
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
That this has to even be considered is testament to the fake laws SnoopDog posts as 'Real Law'.

Justifying piracy because you have the guns and the law on your side and because you also write the laws and use 'representative government' as a shield to commit theft of rights and property.


Judicial Watch Joins Allied Educational Foundation in Supreme Court Civil Asset Forfeiture Amicus Brief
NOVEMBER 30, 2018

‘Freedom from unlawful conversion of property is an inherent individual liberty right which the Constitution must secure for all citizens’

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it joined with Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting petitioner Tyson Timbs against the State of Indiana, which Judicial Watch contends abused its power in a civil asset forfeiture case (Tyson Timbs, et. al. v. State of Indiana (No. 17-1091)) The case was heard by the Supreme Court this week.

In May of 2013, Tyson Timbs was arrested and pled guilty to a charge of drug dealing and conspiracy. He received a six-year sentence (with five years suspended) and a $1,200 fine.

Earlier in the year, Timbs had received a $70,000 life-insurance payment after his father passed away. He used $42,000 of it to purchase a Land Rover car. Timbs used the Land Rover to deliver $225 worth of drugs, the report said. The state seized the car under a state policy which allows private lawyers to sue for a forfeiture in order to receive a cut.

The car was worth four times the amount of the maximum possible fine ($10,000) in the Timbs case. Lower courts in Indiana ruled the penalty was grossly disproportional under the Eighth Amendment. The Indiana State Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ ruling.

In their brief, Judicial Watch and AEF express concern that “the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, will allow state and local government abuses of forfeiture laws to continue,” adding that “freedom from unlawful conversion of property is an inherent individual liberty right which the Constitution must secure for all citizens.”

Judicial Watch and AEF also noted that “The Eighth Amendment ‘excessive fines’ clause must serve as a check against state forfeiture laws. Many state and local governments abuse their powers to seize citizens’ property on the barest of pretense to raise revenue without having to raise taxes. When the amount the government can take is limited only by the size of a citizen’s bank account, the Courts must apply special scrutiny to prevent corrupt practices. The Eighth Amendment was designed to limit these kinds of easily-abused punitive laws, and it applies to the states via the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

National Review reported an abundance of “abusive seizures justified under civil forfeiture. One family had its home taken because the son was caught with $40 of drugs. In Texas, a family that drove for too long in the left lane of the highway was told by a county district attorney that their children would be put in foster care, the parents would be put in jail, and their car would be seized unless they handed over all of their cash, in which case they would be free to go. The town where that occurred, Tenaha, prides itself on this tactic, which ensures a steady flow of cash and goods from out-of-town drivers.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has long spoken out on the practice of civil forfeiture. In a case last year, Leonard v. Texas, which the Supreme Court refused to hear, Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion: “This system – where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use – has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses…. These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.”

As Judicial Watch and AEF contend “Occasionally, the abuse takes the form of governments using forfeiture laws to fill their coffers instead of raising taxes.”

Judicial Watch and AEF pointed to the December 9, 2014, testimony by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton before the New York State Assembly:

The New York Police Department has broad authority to seize currency and property whenever an arrest is made. Because seized assets are used to fund the NYPD’s pension fund and other law enforcement purposes, the system creates a perverse incentive. According to a recent analysis, in 85 percent of NYPD forfeiture cases, the owner of the seized property is never charged with a crime.

They also cited Lee v. Minner (2006): “The inherent right of U.S. citizens to be free from excessive financial penalties is not one held exclusively against the federal government. It is therefore proper that the Eighth Amendment be applied to state and local governments, because the ability to live free or unjust government financial penalties both ‘plays an important role in furthering a vital national economy’ as well as ‘vindicates individual and societal rights.’”

“The Supreme Court should stop an egregious abuse of civil forfeiture laws in which state and local governments fill their coffers by seizing the property of citizens,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
28 U.S. Code § 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
US Code

(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,186
Likes
5,488
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Me thinks S4T has left the building... Truth, Justice, and the American way wins yet again!
He ran out of lip stick.....get ready cuz he is manufacturing his discovery as we speak/write.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
17,963
Likes
22,338
Location
Qmerica

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,027
Likes
5,401
Location
right here right now
Understanding Administrative Law

By: Ron Branson, Author/Founder J.A.I.L.

What you are about to read is very provocative and likely to shock, but educate, many of you. Some of you will likely be inspired to do likewise, but just as you see those disclaimers which say, "Experts - do not try this at home," so I say, "Do not try mimicking this at home. Remember, when reality and common sense run up against politics and money, the former two will not register in the courts."

We have all heard the term "Administrative Law." Administrative Law is everywhere in society, and affects everyone of us. But despite our familiarity, how many people really know what "Administrative Law" is? Most people see the word "Law" and automatically think it is some kind of a special law passed by either Congress, our state legislators, or our city councils, etc. No matter where we are in our experience and knowledge of Administrative Law, we all tend to feel deep down inside, "I just do not like it." It is that same sort of feeling when we drive down the highway and pass a police car with its lights flashing, having pulled over a car. You don't naturally think, "Boy, I'm pleased to see that police officer out here on the highway performing us a public service." Rather, you are more likely to think, "Boy, I'm glad it's him he pulled over, and not me." Just as hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, "public service" is probably the last thing that enters your mind.

Administrative Law demands things of us that intrude into our personal lives, our homes, our businesses. It makes us comply with certain codes, inspects us, demands arbitrary taxes and payment in advance of establishing liability, calls us into account before boards composed of political appointees having conflicts of interests, all without the benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.

Administrative Law governs us, to name only a few, in our relation to our children through CPS, our right to contract through the State Contractor's License Board, our businesses through Business Licenses and Worker's Compensation Boards which provide a feeding frenzy for lawyers, and even our pleasurable moments through Fishing and Gaming Licenses, our travel through DMV, etc., etc, and so on without end. In fact, all of our lives in every area is governed by administrative agencies and their "laws," and there is near nothing that is not regulated and licensed by some agency. It would almost seem that life's existence itself is but a special privilege of government that is revocable upon whim. Whatever happened to "... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

As some of may you already know, none of the protections set forth in the U.S. Constitution has any application whatsoever upon the enforcement and carrying out of "Administrative Law." So we shout with outrage at the government, "You're violating my Constitutional rights," and you ask, "What gives? Is Administrative Law superior to, and above, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme Law of this Land?"

I am now going to pull the veil off the mystery of "Administrative Law," and let you in on a secret that no government wants you to know. Some of you are going to laugh at the simplicity of the matter, once I tell you. "Administrative Law" is not some esoteric law passed by some legislative body. "Administrative Law" simply means "Contract Agreement." But if government called it what it really was, everyone would know what is going on. But by the government calling it "Administrative Law," few understand it, and think, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to go to jail because I violated Administrative Law." What you must implicitly remember is that Administrative Law and Police Powers are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot co-exist in the same context. Like oil and water, they can never mix. But governments do not want you to know that. If there were any form of police power exerted to enforce "Administrative Law," it would clearly fly in the face of the Constitution. So all governments exercise fraud when they take "Administrative Law" beyond "the consent of the governed," Declaration of Independence.

Every time you hear the term "Administrative Law," you must correctly think "Contract Agreement." If everyone thought that way, people would automatically ask themselves the logical question, "Where's the contract?" But government does not want you to think in terms of "Contracts," nor the fact that there can ever be police powers involved in the enforcement of a contract. If you fail to show up for work, can your boss call up the police and send them out to arrest you? No! This is true even if your boss happens to be the city, or the chief of police. Police powers are limited only to criminal acts, never contract disputes. These are totally separate and exclusive jurisdictions.

The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids all fifty states of this country from passing any law that interferes with any individual's right of contract, or, if the persons so chooses, the right not to contract. "No state shall...make any...law impairing the obligation of contracts." Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1. The right to contract necessarily establishes the right not to contract. Just like the First Amendment to Congress, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so in Article I, Sec. 10, no state shall make any law that impairs the free exercise of the right to contract or not to contract. Now how does this Constitutional prohibition to states apply to such state administrative agencies as the "State Contractor's License Board?" Ah, yes, and note, we are not here even challenging this as an Administrative Law, but rather the very authority of the State itself to even "make" such an administrative agency that presumes to govern the right to contract. In other words, the Legislature was acting unconstitutionally when they even considered "making" such a law, whether the law passed by a majority vote or not. In other words, it was null and void the very moment it was "passed." One could just imagine the untold hundreds of billions of dollars that would invigorate the entire economy of this country if states could not interfere with, or tax our constitutional right to contract, or not to contract, with whosoever we pleased.

Contracts are very much a necessary part of all of our lives, and we all understand the meaning of agreements and keeping our word. Contracts always must contain a consideration, and are made voluntarily for the mutual benefit of each of the parties entering them.

I am going to explain the legitimate uses of contracts, and then proceed to what they have transmuted into by the State. In a legitimate contract, for instance, and I speak to those married, remember the days when you went out on dates with that special person that made your heart throb? You fell in love and the two of you decided, for the mutual benefit of both of you, to get married. You voluntarily appeared before a minister who asked you the question, "Do you, Sharon, take Steven to be your lawfully wedded husband?" In which you replied, "I do!" You were under no obligation to agree. Remember, wherever one may say "Yes" or "I do" they equally have the right to say, "No," or "I don't," to wit, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your lawfully wedded wife?" which could equally be responded to by, "No, I do not!" Of course, what a way to shock everyone and ruin a marriage ceremony. Without both parties agreeing equally to the full terms and conditions, there can be no "Administrative Law," oops, I mean, "Contract Agreement."

(For the benefit of those of you reading this who are ministers, I would like to take a sidebar. What are those commonly heard words that come from your lips, "...lawfully wedded wife?" I ask you, is there an "unlawfully wedded wife," or an "unlawfully wedded husband?" How did those words get in the marriage vow? Why not just ask, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your wife?" Ah, it is the State trying to stick their foot in the door and become a third party to the marriage "Contract Agreement." I ask you, is it a crime to get married? Must couples have government's permission to get married? The government thinks so. But does the government have constitutional authority to do so? Absolutely not.

Consider the marriage license. A license is a special grant of permission from the government to do that which is otherwise illegal. People are now being convicted of "practicing law without a license," so I ask you, are couples who refuse marriage licenses guilty of practicing marriage without a license? We are instructed in the Bible, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD." Prov. 18:22. Yes, and remember that famous quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, Matt. 22:21, and "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:6. Would it not be just as appropriate if God were to say, "What therefore God has 'licensed,' let not man license?" Of course! Are you not therefore rendering to Caesar that which is God's? And are you not doing it "By the power vested in you by the State of [fill in state], I now pronounce you man and wife." And what about this so-called doctrine beaten into our heads by the courts of "Separation of Church and State?" End of sidebar.)

Let's next turn to the "Contract Agreement" of Civil Service Employment. You open the newspaper and see an ad placed by the City of Ten Buck Two, saying "Now hiring." You go and apply for the job and you are hired. Whether it be secretary, street cleaner, or police officer, you enter a Civil Service Contract, and receive a mutual benefit, i.e, a paycheck. If you were to receive no consideration from the city, you would be merely a slave. Neither the city nor you were under duress, you both receive a consideration, and established a legitimate "Contract Agreement." The city wishes to call it "Administrative Law." After being hired, if there arises a dispute, you cannot shout, "My Constitutional Rights were violated," for you are now under Civil Service protection, and are not entitled to a jury trial nor any of the protections of the Constitution, for now it is Administrative Law that controls, and the Constitution has no application whatsoever.

Now let's take this a step further, and talk about a ticket. I once was mailed a ticket through the mail offering me an "Administrative Review." I wrote back to this administrative agency by certified mail with return receipt, and with a sworn declaration attached stating that I had never entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and that such contract did not exist. I further demanded that they respond with a counter-declaration stating that I had indeed entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and thus bring the question into issue. (An uncontested declaration stands as the truth. No counter-declaration, no dispute.) I also demanded that they attach of copy of the contract we had between us as evidence to support their contention.

This administrative agency just did not know what to do, so they just declared my "request for an Administrative Review" untimely, despite the certified mail proving otherwise. They then stated that I now owed them more than twice the amount they originally demanded of me. However, as you note, I did not ask for an "Administrative Review." Rather my only issue was the appropriateness and legitimacy of the agency "offering" me the administrative review. If you received a letter from Moscow, Russia accusing you of failing to possess a license from the Moscow Aviation Flight Board, and offering you an administrative review, would you ask for an administrative review?

Further, in my communication to this administrative body, which further baffled them, I asked, "When you say you are offering me an "Administrative Review," it implies I am now on appeal. Was there a trial in which I have already been found guilty, and that I now should appeal that decision? I never received a notice of such trial. When was the trial? Who sat in judgment? What was the basis of his or her findings? What is the particular clause in the "Contract Agreement" I have been found guilty of violating?

You see, my questions were entirely logical and practical, but they just did not know how to deal with me. So they just forged ahead with enforcement as if I said nothing. This resulted in my lawsuit against them which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, once through the state courts, and then all the way through the federal, the issue in federal court being deprivation of due process of law. There was not one court, neither state, nor federal, that would address a single issue I presented in my lawsuit. This suit resulted in five long years of litigation, and the agency admittedly spent over $100,000.00 defending itself, and demanded of me that I should pay them for their time from what started out to be $55.

This case resulted in my filing a criminal complaint against the defendants with the U.S. Attorney, and petitioning Congress to open impeachment proceedings against five federal judges for conspiracy to commit extortion, accompanied with a copy of the proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, with my instant case as an example of why Congress should pass J.A.I.L. into law. Everything grew very quiet. No one would say anything.

All this over the implied assumption that I had entered into a "Contract Agreement" that did not exist, and never did exist.

Here in Los Angeles, the city dispenses bureaucrats throughout the city to your search your home. However, the city likes to refer to it as "inspection." Although the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure 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" [Fourth Amendment], these bureaucrats come to you "for your good," as a "public service." They charge you money for their services, and exercise police power, having neither oath or affirmation, warrant, or probable cause, mandating you "volunteer" to accept their searches. If you refuse to volunteer, they turn you over to the city prosecutor who will prosecute you for failure to comply with the program. If you think these bureaucrats are bribe-free, you have a shock coming. Many hint at and suggest that they can arrange special treatment for you, or that they can make things very bad for you.

We have now come to the point in this country where the public's common acceptance that we are administrative subjects, that a mere suggestion by a government bureaucrat has now become law, and one is guilty by the simple allegation of whatever charge these bureaucrats wish to lay upon them without appeal to the Constitution.

Approximately seven years ago I was stopped by a police officer. He "offered" to engage me into a contract with him. The problem with his contract offer was that it was imposed upon me by the threat of my going immediately to jail, and that of having my car stolen. Under criminal constitutional standards he was required to take me before a magistrate at least within 48 hours of his conducting my arrest. He did not wish to do that however, so for his convenience, not mine, he asked me to enter into a contract with him. But what was my consideration in this contract? Was it that I didn't have to go to jail immediately? Nay, for that is like placing a gun to one's head and asking them to voluntarily write a check, which is called "Robbery" in the criminal codes.

This nice policeman told me that by signing his ticket, I was not waiving any of my rights. I read it, and all it said was that I promised to appear before the clerk of the court authorized to receive bail by a certain date. I went ahead and took the comfortable route, and signed his contract under duress, "agreeing" to appear before the court clerk as opposed to going to jail. I then went to the clerk of the court by the date specified and asked if she was the clerk of the court authorized to accept bail. She said "Yes." I then told her who I was, and that since she was the authorized person before whom I had promised to appear, I needed her signature showing I had fulfilled my promise. She refused. Gee, what's wrong with these people? They demand my signature to show up before them under threat of going to jail. I show up as they ask and request their signature to show that I have complied, and they refuse. They do not respect you for keeping your promise to them. It seems they are not satisfied, and they want something more from you than they made you promise. Hmmm, it seems to me that not all the terms of the contract were revealed when the officer said all I had to do was appear in front of the clerk. I must have been defrauded.

What they really wanted, and now demanded, was that I appear before a commissioner, not a judge, when originally I was entitled under the Constitution to appear before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause of my arrest by the kind police officer. The officer must have lied to me when I was clearly told that I would not be waiving any of my rights. But a waiver of my rights under the Constitution requires my voluntary and knowledgeable consent with a consideration in the pie for me. But I never got the pie. This "Contract Agreement" does not seem to be like saying "I do" at the altar and getting a wife, or "I agree" at the Civil Service interview, and getting a paycheck.

This commissioner bullied me, trying to induce me by force to enter into his offered contract agreement, when in no way was he qualified to act or perform pursuant to the Fourth Amendment requirements of a magistrate.

When he failed to convince me that it was in my best interest that I should voluntarily agree to his contract, he proceeded to unilaterally enter me into his contract whether I agreed to it or not. And of course, it was done with "my best interest at heart." He's an educated man, and has graduated from law school. So why didn't he know that a contract requires my voluntary consent? Having waived my rights for me (which is an impossibility), he now tells me that I am going to appear for trial on the date he chose for me, and that I am going to sign a promise to appear. I told him, "NO! I am not going to sign such a contract agreement!" He became very wroth, and I was immediately arrested, chained to thieves, con artists, and extortionists and thrown into jail for not agreeing to sign.

At least one of the sheriff's deputies handling me expressed disbelief at what she was hearing that I was arrested for not agreeing to sign on to the commissioner's offer. Here they were digging through my pockets and relieving me of all my possessions, and my crime is failing to accept an offer. This could only be a civil charge at best, but refusing to contract is not a violation of a contract. I had not even agreed to the deprivation of a magistrate to appear before this commissioner.

No sooner had they illegally processed me into the Los Angeles County jail system, that they wanted to get rid of me. Under California statute, no person can be jailed on an alleged infraction, but here I was in jail. The fact is, neither the courts nor the administrative boards know how to deal with the rare individual who sensibly raises questions about the existence of a contract, so they just bully forward with police power enforcement, and address nothing.

The deputies told me they were putting me out of jail, but that I must come back to court on the date specified by the commissioner. I told them "No! I did not agree to appear." They told me that if I did not appear, I would be arrested. I said that I was already under arrest, so just keep me in jail until you are finished with me. They said, we can't do that, we don't have the money to keep you here. I said, "I'm not here to save you money. If you want me, just keep me here. If you don't want me, put me out." So they threw me out of jail to get rid of me, and I never showed up later. In the meantime, I commenced suit against the commissioner for kid napping, holding me hostage and demanding ransom for my release. (His ransom was my signature, for he said when I gave him my signature, I would be free to go. Of course, that was why I was in jail because I did not agree to that.)

In my civil suit against the commissioner, I had him totally defenseless, and the trial judge hearing the case knew it. There was absolutely no way the commissioner could lawfully wiggle off, but since when do judges do things lawfully? The trial judge knew the commissioner was naked, and had no jurisdiction whatsoever for what he did to me. He slammed his hands down on the bench and said, "Mr. Branson, in all my twenty years' career on the bench, I have never met a person like you." He then quoted the words found in my complaint, "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me."

This judge could see the potential chaotic conditions if every person which was stopped by the cops stated "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me." I was supposed to fear losing my job, my reputation and companionship and capitulate. He knew that if everybody did what I was doing, the entire system would fall apart. I was suddenly costing government mocho money to the tune of thousands upon thousands of dollars when the whole idea was to make some money from me. This lawsuit continued for years all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet not one judge would address the issues of my contract case.

I now refer to a humorous situation that sounds like make-believe. An acquaintance of mine was called into court by one of the ABC "public service" administrative agencies to be cross-examined to discover information from him to be used against him. He was asked to take the witness stand. They asked him to raise his right hand after which the clerk of the court said, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" He responded, "No, I do not!" Everyone in the court gasped. (Remember, the right to say "Yes" also includes the right to say "No!") The judge instructed the clerk to re-read the swearing-in again, supposing that he just did not understand the question. He responded the second time, "I heard you the first time, and my answer is, No, I do not!" You can imagine the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation into which this placed the judge. He asked why he would not swear to tell the truth, and he said, "The Bible says, 'Let God be true, but every man a liar,' " (referring to Rom. 3:4), and "I am a man, and a liar."

The judge came unglued and threatened him with jail if he did not swear to tell the truth. He responded, "Judge, you asked me a straight-forward question requiring either a yes, or a no answer. I gave you a straight-forward answer to your question, and that was No, I do not. You can't say I did not answer your question, for I did answer it, but you just don't like my answer. If you didn't want to hear my answer, then don't ask me the question. And judge, on what basis do you threatened me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully? Or is it because you wanted me to lie, and I didn't do it? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The judge threw him in jail for three days, after which he brought him forth to swear him in again. He said, "Judge, my answer to you is still the same as three days ago. I am still a man, and still a liar, and no amount of jail time can change that. The judge again threaten him with jail, to which he responded, "On what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully, and you want me to lie? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The system just does not know how to handle people who question the actions of government when all the government is only trying to get your approval to what they do to you. If you don't agree to the Contract Agreement, then they do you the favor of "agreeing" for you even if it is against your will, without consideration. As I say, this is not quite like you saying "I do" at the alter, but the judge spake and it was so.

Other examples are, when you are called to jury duty, the judge makes you raise your right hand and agree to follow the law as interpreted to you by the judge. But wait, it is not the judge or the jurors who are entitled to a jury trial, but the defendant who is constitutionally entitled to a fully informed and unencumbered jury which must judge on both the law and the facts. Here we have a judge seeking to induce the defendant's jurors to conspire with him against the defendant. How can the judge, in conspiracy with the jurors, agree to waive the rights of the defendant? They can't. It is the defendant that is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... an impartial jury." Jurors who have been induced to conspire with the judge cannot possible be "an impartial jury." Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Then there are the various taxing agencies who want you to enter into a "Contract Agreement" with them. They kindly provide you with a pre-printed line on their forms to agree with their offer of a "Contract Agreement." But if you choose not to accept their offer, can one go to jail? Not constitutionally. However, they somehow want you to believe that if you do not accept their offer, then you are obligated to comply with their "Imposed Criminal Administrative Law," for after all, you don't want to go to jail because you violated the law.

Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. A contract must entail being fully cognizant of all its terms, agreeing to all those terms, having equal right to say yes or no, offering you a consideration to which you would rather have than retaining your constitutional rights and saying no, being totally done without duress in any way. Anything otherwise fails the test of a contract.

The Solution:

The solution is quite simple, J.A.I.L. I know there will be many naysayers who will seek to convince me that it is for the above reasons that J.A.I.L. will not work because everyone has waived their rights to the Constitution, and thus, we are all slaves of the government. To those, in an effort to cut these Naysayers off, I say, "Please re-read the last two sentences in the above paragraph defining contracts."

Here is how J.A.I.L. will solve the problem. Under J.A.I.L. cases will be brought before judges arguing fraud, deception, and undo influence, by government agents. The judge will be required to apply the proper laws governing these grievances, to which he will have no escape or evasion. If the judge does evade the issue, the party will call the judge on it, and give him his last chance to comply with the law as addressed to the issue presented. (This will satisfy the willful acts requirement of J.A.I.L.)

From there, it is purely a matter of exhausting appeals afforded within the state, keeping the fraud issue alive, and filing a complaint with the Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. The judge will then be served by the Special Grand Jury and told to answer it. The complainant can then reply to the judge's opposition.

They judge may wish to argue that the complainant has no rights of protection by the Constitution because he waived them all. The complainant may reply that the so-called "waivers" to which the judge refers in his defense is but a part of the conspiracy alleged to which the judge was a necessary actor in the conspiracy. Of course, when these Special Grand Jurors hear the judge's argument, it will doubtless occur to them that they too have become the dupes of the same giant judicial fraud and conspiracy to which the complainant, and all other complainants are arguing about.

J.A.I.L. works like quicksand. It increases the judges liability the more he says in an attempt to justify himself. He has now implicated himself in a potential criminal indictment, and may face prison in addition to being civilly liable to the complainant, it which he cannot allege he is covered by judicial immunity. Further, the blabbing of one judge in his defense is more than likely going to indict the entire judicial system and all the judges in one giant sweep, for they are all tied together in the same conspiracy.

In nearly every instance in which I can think, under J.A.I.L. the judge's best defense is to say nothing, for anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, either civilly or criminally. Judges generally will be best suited to accept the lesser evil of not countering the complaint unless they know they have been totally honest and forthright, and can support their position by the Constitution and the law, which will be very hard to do in these days when most everything is based upon fraud and deception.

The eventual positive impact that J.A.I.L. will make upon this nation on behalf of restoring government back to the people is inestimable involving such a boon to the American economy that it is beyond comprehension. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. CIC)

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,027
Likes
5,401
Location
right here right now
The public policy democracy overlaid over the constitutional republic is the whole current system in use. That whole public policy system needs scrapped, but the huge vested interest incumbent in the system will attempt to circumvent that occurring.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
It's too bad S4T has left the arena...

Understanding Administrative Law
This is my understanding of 'the law'... it is Administrative (contractual) law forced upon you without your consent.

It's the difference between Legal and Lawful. S4T is steeped in legalese, when lawful will do.

I learned nothing from S4T except he vomits legalese on a regular basis. Why? Probably because it benefits his union BAR card.

The abuse by the administration folks is ignored because they really do not know the law. "Jus doin ma job maam" is all they know. If they truly understood the law, they'd be out of business tomorrow.

It's a shame it costs so much to get them to follow the rules. A sham really.
A money generating fraud perpetrated upon the people.
Fostered by a government run public education indoctrination system.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
13,813
Likes
23,357
Location
ORYGUN
A friend put this on.
Something to consider.


“Exercising Your Right to a Remedy”
Eugene Water & Electric Board Community Training Room
500 East 4th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon
October 30, 2010 - 10 AM to 4 PM
Refreshments served - Information packet at the door
“Limited to first 90 people who register”

ORS 801.305 “Highway”. “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and
place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open,
used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles and vehicular traffic as a matter of
right..” Reference: HB 3445 (2007)
“Officers duty at a traffic stop, is to issue a citation and leave. Assuming that officer had
reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence and that investigatory stop
of defendant’s vehicle was valid, subsequent seizure of weapons found in vehicle was illegal,
where defendant was detained longer than was reasonable and scope of investigation exceeded
reason for stop:....” State of Oregon v. Carl Wayne Johnson, CR 89-0008; CA A62045; 106
Or.App. at 371.
Learn what, why and how to exercise your right to a remedy in a “traffic citation” matter.
The Fourth Amendment “prohibits” unreasonable detention of private citizens without
probable cause that the individual detained has or is about to commit a “crime”. You cannot be
compelled to produce identification in a “non criminal” setting. Kolander v. Lawson, 461 US
352(1983)
A “traffic stop” is an administrative stop if not based upon a “crime”. If your automobile does
not display a “DOT Number” indicating that it is “for hire” you cannot be stopped for any
“non-criminal” infraction. See generally: United States v. Herrera, No. 05-3057 (10th Cir.
April 19, 2006) D C No 04-CR-20023-02-JWL).
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
178
Likes
9
It's too bad S4T has left the arena...



This is my understanding of 'the law'... it is Administrative (contractual) law forced upon you without your consent.

It's the difference between Legal and Lawful. S4T is steeped in legalese, when lawful will do.

I learned nothing from S4T except he vomits legalese on a regular basis. Why? Probably because it benefits his union BAR card.

The abuse by the administration folks is ignored because they really do not know the law. "Jus doin ma job maam" is all they know. If they truly understood the law, they'd be out of business tomorrow.

It's a shame it costs so much to get them to follow the rules. A sham really.
A money generating fraud perpetrated upon the people.
Fostered by a government run public education indoctrination system.
Goldhedge,

You will not understand the following information if you do not click on the blue links below.

"Administrative law" has nothing to do with "contracts" and is only "forced" on the "administrative agency" involved in the "administrative proceeding" in the "administrative tribunal". Administrative law governs the internal operations of ADMINISTRATIVE agencies and ensures that they do not abuse their power. The main goal of administrative law is to protect the interests of the public as it interacts with government, such as when a person applies for Social Security or food stamps. It serves the purpose to ensure a treatment in accordance with the rule of law by the public authority. Furthermore, it contains the regulations for mass processes and expands the legal protection against the authorities.

There are three branches of government, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. Ordinary courts are part of the judicial branch and use judicial law (case law, called the "common law"). Ordinary courts also use legislation from the legislative branch (called "statues"). But, "administrative law" is something else entirely and is used in an entirely different tribunal in an entirely different branch of government.

"Administrative law" IS USED BY THE "ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS" OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT under which "administrative agencies" serve. These "administrative tribunals" have extremely limited jurisdiction and ONLY ADDRESS WHETHER THE "ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES" OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THEIR OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. CLICK HERE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law. CLICK HERE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_court. These policies and procedures must, at least, be consistent the constitution, case law of the judicial branch and the statutes of the legislative branch.

Example: All state "law enforcement" is conducted under the "executive branch" of government (the governor) through "administrative agencies". Some states have an "administrative agency" which inspects "commercial vehicles" as defined by a particular state statute. Some of these states authorize these "administrative agencies" to conduct random inspections of "commercial vehicles" while they are using the roadways of the state. If such an "administrative agency" VIOLATES the EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROCESS OF SUCH A RANDOM INSPECTION, THE VICTIM CAN SUE THE "ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY" USING "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW" IN AN "ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL".

The "administrative tribunal" hearing such a matter uses "administrative law" to address the "administrative agency's" alleged violation of the executive branch's own policies and procedures (under which that "administrative agency" serves). But, an "administrative tribunal" has very limited jurisdiction and only uses "administrative law". So, if the "administrative tribunal" determines an "administrative agency" has violated the executive branch's own policies and procedures, the "administrative tribunal" can issue orders directing the law enforcement officer involved and the "administrative agency" involved to discontinue the violative practice. If the victim obtains an unsatisfactory result, he/she may then "appeal" to a real judicial court (in the judicial branch of government) which has much more power and much more authority than an "administrative tribunal".

Note that because "administrative tribunals" are not actual "judicial courts" (under the judicial branch of government), they are often called "administrative tribunals", "offices of administrative hearings" or "administrative commissions" (rather than "administrative courts"), the decision maker who presides over such matter is often called a "hearing officer" (rather than an "administrative judge") and a hearing is often called a "hearing" (rather than a "trial") and so forth.

TRANSLATION: All of the amateur legal theorists above are actually trashing, badmouthing, maligning and disparaging the very administrative law and the very administrative tribunals that were specifically set up to protect them from the very abuses of power of state law enforcement agencies about which they complain. You guys are your own worst enemies. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. This is what happens to you when you mindlessly parrot other amateur legal theorists. It is the blind leading the blind.

Snoop
 

Attachments

Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,186
Likes
5,488
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
s4t you have dupped yourself. I hate to have to be the one to tell you this but the title of the municipal court judge is "Administrative." I should know as I have seen enough of the title plaques in front of them bass-turds in my younger years, so fhooowieee on you, you misinformation queen.

you know it would be different if you were just misguided but as you say you have 30 some years of legal bs so that makes you about just as old as me and you should have seen this in your younger years BUT NOPE, you continue to spread the shit of your miss identifications.

So s4t you just shot yourself in the foot. Now hop around and see if any one helps you because I sure ain't. One thing I cannot stand is a liar and you have just proven yourself to be one. I do not care how you try to cover your ass because a liar always does try to cover things up. But the thing of it is most people learn to lie about the age of 3 or 4 and they never get any better and you s4t are proof of that.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
We should make S4T the judge who swore an oath.

Then present our case to "the judge" and see if he violates his oath and surrenders his bond, or dismisses the charge.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,186
Likes
5,488
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
And,here is another thing for you s4t: A lawyer a bankr
We should make S4T the judge who swore an oath.

I got one for ya though it deserves its own thread. I got a letter today from a lawyer a bankruptcy lawyer and I poop you not in this letter he indicates that if you are being garnished that when he files the bankruptcy ye can stop the garnishment and get your money returned oh and he also indicates he can keep the funds of the garnishment in lue of retainer fees.

crazy right?
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
10,859
Likes
14,734
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

the_shootist

Molon Labe! Deplorable Dreg!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
25,930
Likes
30,073
1544239665526.png


License? I don't need no stickin' license!!
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
13,813
Likes
23,357
Location
ORYGUN
I have given out 100's of this little book.
It is very inexpensive and it is worth $100's in information about JURY NULLIFICATION, BILL OF RIGHTS & THE CONSTITUTION.

Citizens Rule Book & Jury Handbook (61 page, 3 x 6" booklet)



We are promoting The Citizens Rule Book in memory of my father-in-law, the late Charles R. Olsen, a World War II Marine veteran and printer from Boston. As owner of Whitten Printers (the Olsen family business), “Charlie” printed and distributed this pocket- sized booklet to inform American citizens of their rights. Family-owned and operated Whitten Printers of Phoenix continues to print and distribute this booklet. Three million copies have been sold!

The Citizens Rule Book is a useful tool for educating children about the values upon which our country was founded. In addition, it contains essential information for jurors. Contents include:

  • The complete text of The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
  • Quotes by our Founding Fathers - John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and others.
  • A summary of the Ten Commandments as compared to the Communist Manifesto.
  • A Handbook for Jurors, covering important topics about jury duty and juror's rights.
    All of the above in a handy pocket size, for only $1.00 each! At this low price, everyone in the family can have their own copy. Or buy in quantity and hand them out to friends, relatives, schools, co-workers, group members, etc. Highly recommended! The Citizens Rule Book is endorsed by Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler of Mantle Ministries, Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, Dr. Lance Hurley of Founding Fathers Ministry, and of course many others!
http://www.knowledgehouse.info/whitten.html
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,027
Likes
5,401
Location
right here right now
This is why you should never hire an Attorney: Because when you do, You are considered a WARD of the STATE!

Submitted by The South on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 01:04

Here it is, right in the Corpus Juris Secundum: Volume 7, Section 4:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Law...uDontWantAnAtty/WhyYouDon'tWantAnAttorney.htm

You are about to learn why an Attorney cannot and will not help you the way you've always been led to believe; they cannot do that, and here is why:

NOTE:I made a public attempt to ask either Michael Nystrom or the Moderators where I could post this information so that it would not be swept away in the dreaded pits of nowhere called Off Topic, so that it would always show up in the Active Forum Topics to the right side of this page so it would be very visible to anyone who visited this site, but never heard anything or any instructions or advice from anyone in a position of authority, so I posted it here in the Liberty Forum in hopes it would stay in the Liberty Forum.

If it does not belong in the Liberty Forum, would a Moderator please move this post to another forum that will show up in the Active Forum Topics to the right side of this page and not to Off Topic so it is hidden from the general public; and stays visible as long as the discussion continues, in the Active Forum Topics?

I can only presume that Michael and the Moderators are busy with other things right now, but I did make the attempt.

Here was my call for help, guidance, or advice:

http://www.dailypaul.com/241979/need-help-and-guidance-from-...

Here we go:

When You Hire an Attorney, You Are Considered A Ward of the STATE ... An Imbecile, An Incompetent

The reason you are considered a Ward of the STATE is because your Mother signed your Record of Live Birth as the "Informant", ultimately acting as the Trustee of the Executors (Fathers) Estate. In doing so, she unknowingly signed away the property (the Child) of the Executor (the Father) to the STATE. If married, she's acting as the co-Executor of the Estate, or in the capacity of a Trustee; one with authority to sign over property.

Your Mother Abandoned You At Birth. Have you noticed the Mother's address is already pre-typed in one of the boxes? Have you noticed there is no address for the Father on the COLB? Have you noticed, it's the address of the Mother's "MAIDEN" name in that box? And have you noticed they had the Mother sign as the Informant, and not the Father?

Look here what I found: The STATE of OKLAHOMA'S very own Instructions on Completing the Birth Certificate:

"Signature of Parent

Have parent review the Certificate of Live Birth for accuracy, read the statement contained in this section and sign this section certifying the accuracy of the certificate.We suggest that you ask only the mother to sign the birth certificate. Never have a parent sign a blank or incomplete certificate."

Now why would the Dept. of Health and Vital Statistics teach Doctors, Nurses, and Hospital Administrators to 'coerce' the Mother into signing the "Certificate of Live Birth" instead of the Father, who is the Executor of the Estate? ..... Because the Executor is the Highest Office of the Estate, and the STATE does not care to deal with Him; they would rather go after the Informant/Trustee instead.

Attempting to Administrate an Estate without written-authorized consent of the Executor is very costly; people go to prison, but if they can 'coerce' the Mother/Informant/Trustee to sign over the property, then they have a legal leg to stand on.

Here's David Clarence explaining the Executors Office and what they are doing to you via the Certificate of Live Birth:


Here's some transcript/text explaining it on paper:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56060108/Understanding-Executor-Of...

Here's a few videos of interest:



NOTE: An Estate must come before a Trust. The STATE issued the Child a "Certificate of Death" which created a new Estate; the legal-fiction, corporate YOU, in which They, were the creator of.

1. The Womb-man is her own Estate in which she's the Executrix if she has reached legal age. If not, her Father is the Executor of her Estate until that time.

2. The Man is his own Estate in which he's the Executor once he comes of legal age, or marries. Until then, his father is the Executor of his Estate.

3. When they get married, it forms a Trust.

4. The Womb-mans Estate now becomes property of the Man.

5. The Two of them come together and have a Child.

6. Women cannot own offspring, only the Man, therefor the Child is property of the Executor's Estate until he/she reaches legal age.

7. The Father is never made aware of this fact.

8. The STATE coerces the Mother into signing the Record of Live Birth as the "Informant", acting as the Trustee.

9. By doing this, she is acting as the Trustee of the Executors Estate (the Father) and giving the Child to the STATE, ultimately abandoning the Child.

10.The STATE runs an add in the local paper announcing the birth and abandonment of the Child (they leave out the abandonment wording).

***** That Was Public Notice and Due Process of Law *****

11.The Executor (Father) never shows up to claim his abandoned property, so the STATE takes ownership; they fulfilled due process by way of public notice in the newspaper.

12.The Doctor sends the Record of Live Birth to the STATE Health Dept. and Vital Statistics.

13.Now the Child is an Orphan; a Ward of the STATE; abandoned by it's Mother, via the birth announcement she signed as the Informant.

14.The STATE sends the Record of Live Birth to the Registrar's Office, where a New Estate is created and now placed in Probate.

13.The STATE takes the Record of Live Birth and hides it away in the vaults, never to be seen again; now to be used a Security Instrument to back the Nations Debt; The future labor of the Child, which is now One Stock Share in the foreign corporation: UNITED STATES.

13.They split the title and create what's known as the "Certificate of Live Birth", and send that newly created Office (The COLB) to the Child in the mail; it's his/her new identity, and when the Child reaches legal age, he can now become the Occupant of the Executors Office of that newly created Estate, but is never made aware of this.

NOTE: The STATE cannot do business with, or enter into contracts with a living-breathing human being. This is why they created the "Certificate of Live Birth" aka "Certificate of Death", which is the Office of a newly created "corporate" You; the fictitious entity and presumption in law You. They had to turn you into a corporation so they could control you by way of contracts using Trust-Estate, and Probate Law.

NOTE: The CESTUI QUE VIA Act of 1666 made us all dead at birth; cast beyond the sea; lost at sea; dead to the world, and if one day we were ever to return from sea and announce that we are alive, we can take our lawful throne as Executors of our own Estates.

Here it is on the UK's Government website, with complete instructions on how to announce you are now alive; occupy the Executors Office.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

14.Now the Child grows up and remains an incompetent Ward of the STATE because he/she never steps up and assumes their proper roles as the Executor/Executrix of their own Estate once they reach legal age.

15.The now adult uses this COLB as their sole source of identity, even though the STATE advised not to use it as identity (can you say incompetent?)... Just as they say not to use the SS Card as identity.

16.The now 'incompetent adult' aka 'Ward of the STATE', uses the COLB to get a drivers license, social security card, checking account, etc.

17.Now the adult-incompetent is masquerading around town, using this Certificate of Live Birth as identity to get into other adhesion contracts, and basically acting as an agent of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES and is now obligated to pay an income tax; and excise tax; a property tax, and ultimately be subject to the STATE. Now you are obligated to abide by their statutes, rules and regulations.

NOTE: There is a catch to this #17: They are 'presuming' you're an employee of their corporation, but if you are not receiving a paycheck, and there was no employment contract, and they cannot provide proof of pay, then what do they have? Do you work for free? Can they compel you to work for free? That estate is an Office; you are the Occupant of that Office (the corporate-fiction you), and as the Occupant of that Office, shouldn't you be paid for your services?

18.You have lost your Inherent Rights and have been "granted" rights and privileges instead ... 14th Amendment US citizen!

I wrote more on this here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/240980/are-you-tired-of-being-a-14t...

Daddy never showed up to claim his property, and the STATE took it upon themselves to 'adopt' the Child; take it in as their own. The Child is now considered a Ward of the STATE; an incompetent bastard Child with no Father, and the Mother abandoned him/her.

The "Certificate of Live Birth" has a STATE Seal and Registrars Signature, which is certifiable proof the Estate is in or has been in Probate. The Registrar is the court of Probate and Probate deals with Estates of the DEAD, hence the legal fiction name (NAME or Name) on the "Certificate of Live Birth" ... the presumption of law, the other You.

To the courts we are dead; legal fictitious entities; wards of the STATE; bastard Children; Orphans, and they do not wish to deal with us directly. This is why they want you to speak to them (the judge) through one of their own (BAR Attorneys).

The BAR Attorney has a Superseding Oath to the BAR aka British Accreditation Registry; their first loyalty is to the court. They are there to lead the sheep to their slaughterer, the Undertaker in the Black Robe. The judge is Administering the Estate of the incompetent, and his main objective is to make revenue for the STATE, which is acting as the Beneficiary of the Estate, and You and I are being put into the Trustee position of our own Estates.

Now you understand why the Lord said "Woe unto Ye Lawyers".

BAR Attorney's first allegiance is to the Crown, not you. They are there to make you believe someone is fighting for you, but the truth of the matter is: They are there to help the presumed Administrator of your Estate (the BAR attorney wearing the Black Robe-Undertaker)make as much money as possible for the court, him/herself, and the STATE.

Read it again at the top of this post, right out of the Corupus Juris Secundum ... You are a WARD OF THE STATE, an IMBECILE, A MENACE TO SOCIETY, and INCOMPETENT, and that's the truth, take it as you will.

NOTE: I am not saying all attorneys are scumbags that are intentionally trying to harm you. Some of them know what they are doing, and some of them probably truly believe they are doing the best they can to help their clients. But, it's all about the Estate; it's all about the money, and it's all about your slavery and unjustly enriching the STATE in the end.

It is a Constructive Fraud upon you from birth, and that's my heartfelt opinion; take it as you will.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, do your own due diligence and study the law and make your own determinations as to the validity of this post. This is my opinion from what I've learned from others, and am sharing it with you so we can have a discussion on the topic at hand, and that is not legal 'advice'.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
35,611
Likes
50,211
Location
Rocky Mountains
Kind of looks as if Snoopdog has quit the forum... Too bad. He had a lot of legal posts.



The United States Supreme Court said:

“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”. - Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. “There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." - Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. We the People consent to legislated law only as we defined it in the Constitution for the United States of America. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “we bound government down by the chains of the Constitution”. We the People defined that Law in the Constitution Article VI as: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Simply put We the People are bound and judged under the Common Law and statures where we have given our consent and government is bound and judged under the Constitution that We the People ordained.

We the People vested congress with the following eighteen powers under Article 1 Section 8: (1) Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare; (2) To borrow money; (3) To regulate commerce; (4) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and bankruptcies (5) To coin money; (6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting; (7) To establish post offices and post roads; (8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts; (9) To constitute tribunals (10) To define and punish piracies; (11) To declare war; (12) To raise and support armies; (13) To provide and maintain a navy; (14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (15) To provide for calling forth the militia; (16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia; (17) To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such Washington DC and (18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.

So, the questions that need answering is: How is it that congress has written so many statutes beyond their authority? How is it that judges uphold legislation that legislators had no authority to write? How is it that lawyers counsel all government agencies and law enforcement to obey and enforce unconstitutional statutes? How is it that, Sheriffs and other Law enforcement Officers enforce unconstitutional statutes? How can an Oath-taker be an Oath-keeper if (s)he does not know the Law? How is it that People obey unconstitutional statutes to their own peril, namely loss of Liberty? We were to be a nation of Laws under God, how have we become a nation of statutes under men? The answer is simply “we lost our way” because we are ignorant of the Law, and thereby lost the lamp upon our path, while government does what it does best, taking more and more power as our liberties continue to be nibbled away, until we find ourselves enslaved under corporatism. As Thomas Jefferson said;

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."​

The United States Supreme Court gave us half of the solution to our problem when they said: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it...

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby,
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).

The other half of the solution is to empower yourself through education.If you are like most People, you may think you lack the education to understand the law. Then we say unto you if you have understood what you have read on this page already then you can understand the law. As Thomas Jefferson said: (concerning Law -vs- statutes)...

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."​

Only the Sheriff can stop these encroachments but in order to stand upon the first half of the solution the Sheriff must first find his backbone in the second, education in The Law!

Sheriffs are responsible for the actions of his Deputies, in that they too need a proper education.

We the People need Constitutional Sheriffs who will protect our Liberties in our courts and our streets.