Monday, September 30, 2013

Eddie Craig. Difference between DRIVING and TRAVELING.


Watch live streaming video from superbigbadman at livestream.com

Treatise And Memorandum Of Law

 
11. THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);
WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “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)
THAT Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining that "the word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings." ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530); "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825); "Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute, representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by government and not by God]." (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600 (1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers 330 US 258 (1947); "unless the context indicates otherwise" - 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage." (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)) '"...the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
THUS The term 'Person,' as employed in statutory language generally, may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and creatures of statute, those artificial entities created by government, but does Not include, extend, or apply to the natural 'person,' or citizen, while any law or presumed obligation that in any manner affects a right by converting the same into a privilege, or deprives a citizen of a right without consent, or by deception, is unconstitutional, the duty of the citizen being to ignore (16 Am Jur, 2nd) such regulation or constraint intended for creatures of statute, and corporate fictions, which are entities of form without substance, a commercial second class. THAT should any judicial officer or attorney, presumed to know the law and barred from claiming good faith ignorance of the same, knowingly and intentionally, ministerially or administratively, privately or officially, undertake placing an erroneous classification or designation upon a living man woman or child created not by government, as though he or she was not living and created by government, a creature of statute, entirely circumventing the natural rights of the same, by the same act does this one abrogate and violate those same rights. He who denies all rights by implication violates all. Article I Section 1 Section 9 provides, No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law' [rules of procedure and statutory construction] shall be employed to usurp one's rights and remedies that were once allowed and for all time secured to the people. In other words, codes, rules, regulations, etc., and the lack there of, written after the constitution, only apply to government authorities, their officers and agents. No sane person, and yet only the deceived, would consent, to being treated as a corpse or slave devoid of natural liberty rights, or an unconscionable contract lacking valuable consideration, and only a criminal would treat a living person standing before them as if dead to rights in law.
THAT "The misnomer of the defendant may be pleaded in abatement." (Com. Dig. Abatement, F 18 ; Lutw. 36; 1 Chit. PI. 440; Arch. Civ. PI. 312. See form of a plea in abatement for a misnomer of the defendant in 3 Saund. 209, b., and see further, 1Show. 394; Carth. 307 ; Comb. 188 ; 1 Lutw. 10 ; 5 T. R. 487), when designated or misnamed as a creature of statute pursuant to any state or federal action, yet State statutes and rules of civil procedure (which apply only to fabricated and engineered creatures of statute) make no specific provision for such relief when natural persons are mistakenly or intentionally named as corporate fictions and creatures of statute, and despite the fact that all rights, and property in common law remedies, not explicitly granted or conferred to government are reserved to the people, the clever deprivation of these and remedy is achieved by judges claiming that these rights in action and procedure in law are somehow legislated away for the natural citizen in the states act of legislation and creation of rules for creatures of statute, which do not specifically provide for such remedies in the construction of civil or commercial rules of procedure (intended for creatures of statute only), a false argument, these being forever reserved to the people, a logical falacy, a sophatic deception of legal reasoning, to warrant the entrapment, by deception, to deprive remedy to litigants who appear before them , to circumvent the natural rights of these, under threat of default or arrest if they do not appear as a sacrifical lamb for barratry and legal plunder by means of extortion with intent to defraud, to further deprive them from accessing any remedy or means of escape or of relieving themselves of an erroneous corporate designation devoid of natural rights, protections and immunity from any and all such action.

ADMINISTRATORS ENFORCING STATUTES MASQUERADING AS JUDGES ENFORCING LAW

THAT "When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially. But, merely administerially." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. l54 SE 583, 7l ALR 604 ( )). “ [J]udges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes, act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” (K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 CTP. West’s (1965)) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction” as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” (K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, CTP, 6 Ed. West’s (1977); (FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428)); whereas "Judges do not enforce statutes and codes... Executive Administrators [in their private person with no Immunity for their non judicial ministerial or administrative functions] enforce statutes and codes [erroneously, and intentionally often on private citizens for the purpose of economic exploitation through the circumvention of their natural rights, protections and Immunities]. (FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464; Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138-178);
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." (30 Cal 596; San Christina, etc. Co. v. San Francisco 167 Cal. 762, 141 (1914)). Review of administrative proceedings by a court does not change an administrative proceeding to a civil proceeding. (Porter v. Michigan State Bd. of State Examiners in Optometry 199 N.W.2d 666, 41 Mich. App. 150 (1972)) "A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency." (AISI v US, 568 F2d 284 ()). "It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agency's enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him." (Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501 ()); Al1 jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear an the record of the court." (Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22 ( )).
In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty inherently involve judicial determination and must come before an Article III court.” Only Article III courts are invested with judicial power.“Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln... our fathers... For this, and other equally weighty reasons... secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb.” (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866))
THAT Negative laws, such as generally found in statutory constructions, policy statutes, codes, regulations and rules as stated above, are created and written by and for the regulation of corporate persons devoid of natural rights and representatives of government for the regulation of government offices and the functions of their officers who administratively and ministerially commonly miss apply this same designation, classification and related rules and regulations intended for 'corporate persons' upon 'natural persons,' erroniously, knowingly and intentionally with the intent to circumvent, abrogate and deprive those same natural persons of natural rights, for the purposes of criminal economic exploitation and profit.

Not only do Judges, or executive administrators, bound to know the law, in their private capacity, knowingly, intentionally and wilfully evidence a pattern of action consistant with a conspiracy to deprive natural born native american citizens of constitutionaly protected natural liberty rights by the intentional incorrect and erronious imposition of a corperate status designation upon natural persons, but the State legislature colludes in this activity, such crimes being predicated upon mail and wire fraud and abuse of office in the intentional misapplication of designations, classifications, and applications, attatching taxes, obligations, fines and liens, with menace to forethought in the regulation of natural persons and sovereign citizens as corperate citizens and creatures of statute devoid of natural rights, for the purpose of state sanctioned economic exploitation, profit and the aquisition of ill gotten gain through deceptive practices, legal plunder and barretry imposed in commerce upon those entitled to honest services and full disclosure of all terms and conditions regarding contracts and the nature and cause regarding civil and criminal charges or indictments, that when they respond to most common complaints, suites and summons, they are presumed by the state and judicial officer to be dead to natural rights in commerce.
The Judiciary; is "an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821; ME 15:331 ); “The great object of my fear is the... Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821 ME 15:326) "The judiciary is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'" (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297) “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)

Key word being "drive".

 Click on the pic for larger image.
 
It's a legal term describing an act of commerce, and one of seven 'legal' words you should never use or allow a cop to assume your doing when pulled over on the side of the road.

California Vehicle Code Sec. 17460

By: Bill Thornton

"The California Vehicle Code is not law. It is a contract. By accepting a driver's license, you give permission to the state to sue you (give you traffic tickets). If it actually were law, they would not need your consent to prosecute you"

CVC 17460
The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state.
(Amended Ch. 720. Stats. 1967. Effective November 8, 1967.)
(Amended Ch. 622, Stats. 1971. Operative May 3, 1972.)
(Amended Ch. 618, Stats. 1972. Effective March 7, 1973.)
CVC 17459
The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.
(Amended Ch. 622. Stats. 1971. Operative May 3, 1972.)

 https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/index.html

ALWAYS REBUT THE PRESUMPTION

A MODERN DAY PARABLE


One morning, the husband returns the boat to their lakeside
cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap.
Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat
out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up,
and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude are magnificent.
Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside
the woman and says, 'Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?'

'Reading a book,' she replies, (thinking, 'Isn't that obvious?')

'You're in a Restricted Fishing Area,' he informs her.

'I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading.'
'Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could
start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up.'

'If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault,' says the woman.

'But I haven't even touched you,' says the Game Warden.

'That's true, but you have all the equipment..
For all I know you could start at any moment.'

'Have a nice day ma'am,' and he left.

If you are a federal franchise, presumptions are made about you by government.
Did you notice how things changed when the same method of presumption was made about government?

Word Masturbation Of The Criminally Insane


By: Stefen Randall  
"Claiming that man created rules, code, and regulation is law, is word masturbation of the criminally insane.

Law is that which is objectively binding upon human action that can not be avoided, example: every cause has and effect.

The idea that man can create law is constructive fraud created by the mind of the criminally insane with delusions of grandeur."

Payoffs for Judges, Prosecutors Is Legal by Statute

Payoffs for Judges, Prosecutors Is Legal by Statute
By Pat Shannan

Payoffs for Judges

Anyone who has ever attended an Internal Revenue Service court case
likely noticed the biased attitude of the presiding judge in favor
of the prosecution. Perhaps, though, only those of us who have sat
in courtrooms, in every section of the country, can attest to this
unwavering pattern of unfairness. Whatever happened to the judge's
impartial role of "referee"?

Federal statutes show how and why U.S. law encourages prosecutorial
and judicial conflicts of interest, non-neutrality, non-impartiality
and corruption of justice in the federal courts. (See page 13 for
portions of 5 USC 4502 through 4504 from the United States Code.)

How can the federal judiciary be independent and impartial when
the law permits the federal government to secretly award judges up
to $25,000 in undisclosed secret "cash awards," and to privately,
secretly and "erroneously" overpay them up to $10,000, and "waive"
these erroneous overpayments?

How can any defendant be found innocent or "guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt" when such statutory "cash award" provisions on
their face create an irrefutable, behind-the-scenes incentive for
the prosecution? These questions and others must be answered by the
U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon following a lawsuit naming
multiple defendants in the Department of Justice including Judge
Anna J. Brown, who presided over a trial of "conspiracy to impede
the IRS" last November.

Defendant Roy Bendshadler's attorney Nancy Bergeson had complained
of suspected "jury tampering" and was found strangled to death in
her Portland home the next day. Her cause of death was at first
passed off as "natural causes" until a second medical examiner
changed it to homicide. The murder is unsolved.

The 94-page action was filed by Michael Sean Mungovan, one of five
convicted in the above 2009 case. Mungovan was sentenced to four
years in prison on July 28. This was an hour after he had served
Judge Brown with a copy of the suit, which should have legally
restricted her from any sentencing action over him until it was
resolved, according to Mungovan.

None of this is new to the IRS. Its manual on pages 1,229 to 1,291
(Delegation Orders of January 17, 1983) outlines the IRS system
of monetary awards "of up to and including $5,000, for any one
individual employee or group of employees, in his/her immediate
office, including field employees, engaged in National Office
projects; and contributions of employees of other government agencies
and armed forces members. "This would include U.S. District Court
judges and U.S. attorneys.

The Mungovan suit, composed by Utah lawyer Dr. Dale Livingston,
explains, "These awards include secret cash awards. They are not
limited as to the number of awards that may be awarded to any one
person or group. There is no limitation placed upon any award. Any
person or group of persons can be awarded this money, including:
U.S. attorneys, federal judges, the president of the United States
or anyone else for that matter."

Livingston added: "The awards may be given to the same person or
group, each minute, each hour, every day, every week, every month,
every year or not at all. In other words, the U.S. government and the
alleged Internal Revenue Service . . . have a perfectly legal (not
lawful) system of bribery. The bribery works against the American
people . . . when they expect impartial justice, and there is no
proof on the record to the contrary."

The murder of attorney Bergeson, who only threatened to initiate an
investigation into what she believed to have been a stacked jury,
sends the warning that Mungovan, by forcing the issue, may have
placed a much larger target on his back.

Lack of space here prevents this writer's attempt to list all the
negative ramifications of such a surreptitious program posing as
"justice for all," but let us consider for a moment a few of the
many dubious convictions from the recent decades reported in AFP
and The Spotlight over the years.

How much money did Judge Paul Benson receive for railroading Yori
Kahl and Scott Faul in 1983? There was no evidence these young
men ever fired a shot in the melee in Medina, North Dakota, where
Yori's father, Gordon, admitted shooting U.S. Marshal Ken Muir in
self-defense. Later it was learned this was the same judge that
had sent away Leonard Peltier of Wounded Knee fame for life, with
no evidence he had killed the two FBI agents found dead after the
1973 shootout. Are judges paid more for high-profile cases?

How about Judge Walter Smith of Waco, Texas? We cannot imagine how
many bucks he may have received after sending away 11 Branch Davidian
Church members, who had been acquitted by a jury of capital crimes in
1994, not long after the Waco massacre of men, women and children by
federal agents and troops. These 11 churchgoers received a total of
240 years. These outrageous maximum sentences for merely carrying a
firearm were applied against people who had not even fired a shot in
self-defense at the onrushing U.S. marshals, U.S. military Special
Forces soldiers and other federal gunmen.

Then there were the Montana Freemen, who were labeled as "separatist
outlaws." In 1996 they were working to expose the banking fraud of
the Federal Reserve System. Many of these men are still in federal
prison, yet they never harmed anyone.

Cash incentives paid for convictions help us understand not only
what has happened in the past, but also what we can expect to see
in the future.

Passports: An abuse of human rights and common decency



* Passports: An abuse of human rights and common decency,
 
-------------------------------------------------------
 
Where Are Your Papers?
by Wendy McElroy
 
“Your papers!” In old movies, the demand is barked at trembling 
travelers by a Nazi with a guttural accent. If the demand is made in 
the opening scene, then the audience knows immediately that they 
watching a totalitarian state in which travelers are in danger.
 
“Your papers!” now rings out at every American airport and border 
crossing. The accent is different but travelers need to recognize 
with equal immediacy that a totalitarian state is playing out in 
front of their eyes, and they must be careful.
 
A passport is where the security theater begins. Indeed, without a 
passport those who wish to fly or cross a border are not “allowed” 
to be scanned, searched, interrogated, or undergo a plethora of 
other indignities imposed by uniformed thugs. The hoops through 
which passport carriers jump are all prelude to “permitting” them to 
exercise a right belonging to every freeborn person: the right to 
travel.
 
Things were not always this way. It is important to remember that 
there once was a world in which people traveled freely across 
borders without paperwork to visit families, pursue education, 
conduct business, and mingle. Freedom worked once. It enriched the 
world economically, culturally, and psychologically.
 
European nations pioneered many if not most aspects of the modern 
passport. The passport as an official permission or protection, and 
not merely as identification, arose because of armed conflicts. In 
the 17th century, sea voyaging was key to trade, travel, and the 
maintenance of empire. With some frequency, war interrupted that 
flow. Therefore, neutral vessels were granted passports or “sea 
letters” from a port of departure, which permitted them to journey 
in safety.
 
By the mid-19th century, mandatory passports had largely disappeared 
from Europe and Asia, with Czarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire 
being prominent exceptions. The change was largely due to three 
factors. First, governments were pressured to open up borders so 
that goods and services could flow across an increasingly 
industrialized Europe. Second, the period between the last 
Napoleonic War (1815) and World War I was unusually peaceful. Third, 
railroads now dominated travel. Their speed and the sheer number of 
travelers made traditional methods of checking documents 
impractical. 
 
Thus, with trade and peace, mandatory passports declined. 
 
War brought them back to life. With World War I, European nations 
once more imposed requirements not only to identify “enemies of the 
state” (e.g., spies or the citizens of belligerents) but also to 
control the outward flow of skilled labor in order to maintain their 
own workforces. In short, passports once again became social 
controls and, like the United States, many European nations 
maintained their requirements after the War. 
 
World War II made passports mandatory on a virtually worldwide 
basis. Although passport requirements loosened once more after the 
WWII, the war on terror in the wake of 9/11 has raised those 
requirements to unprecedented levels. The ebb and flow of passports 
is that of war itself.
 
The American passport was also rooted in war, specifically the 
American Revolution (1775-1783). The first one was issued in 1783; 
based on the French “passport,” it was designed and printed by 
Benjamin Franklin. It was a single page with a description of the 
bearer(s) and his or their signature(s). For example, when John 
Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay acted as ministers 
plenipotentiary in traveling to Great Britain to seal the terms of 
peace, all three names were on one passport. It was addressed “TO 
ALL Captains or Commanders of ships of war, privateers, or armed 
Vessels...”
 
During the Articles of Confederation period (1783-1789), passports 
were issued but not required. When the US Constitution was ratified, 
creating a new government, passports continued to be issued but not 
required. Many American states and cities also issued their own 
“voluntary” passports until 1856 when the Department of State 
exerted a federal monopoly, ostensibly to eliminate confusion.
 
Nevertheless, passports were not mandatory except for a period 
during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and during World War I 
(1914-1918). The latter can be seen as the beginning of the current 
American passport. On December 15, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson 
issued Executive Order No. 2285, “[r]equiring American citizens 
traveling abroad to procure passports.” 
 
This was followed in 1918 by an act of Congress granting the 
president authority to require passports during time of war. 
Passports remained mandatory until early 1921.
 
Thereafter, the United States continued its “no-passport-required” 
travel policy until another war: World War II (1939-1945). In 1941, 
passports became mandatory for travel abroad and remain so to this 
day. (Travel to Canada used to be an exception; until recently, 
proof of citizenship was all that was required to cross the border.)
 
Passports clearly function as an essential and effective means 
through which a state can control the person and property of its 
residents. Consider the United States. No one can legally leave 
without one.
 
And yet passports can be denied for a myriad of reasons that have 
nothing to do with being “an enemy of the state” but rest strictly 
on statutory grounds. Common reasons for denial include owing money 
to the IRS, a federal arrest, a state-criminal court order existing, 
a drug arrest, being on parole or probation. Law-enforcement 
databases are routinely checked against both passports and 
applications to weed out those who have committed such offenses as 
being more than $2,500 behind on child-support payments. Passports 
can also be revoked for several reasons, although revocation is far 
less common.
 
Those who meet the legal requirements for a passport move on to the 
next stage of social control. After handing over documents, a 
traveler is questioned about the reasons for travel, how much money 
he carries, his occupation, and virtually any other question a 
border agent wishes to ask. The traveler’s person and property are 
“searched” in various ways, including a strip search at the agent’s 
discretion. If the traveler questions or evinces disapproval, then 
he could be denied the “right” to board a plane, thus wasting an 
expensive ticket. Or he may be pulled aside for special treatment, 
including fines or interrogation by the police.
 
Requiring a passport as the key to freedom of movement is akin to 
gagging someone while maintaining that he retains freedom of speech.
 
The passport has grown into what is arguably the single most 
powerful tool of totalitarian America, second only to law 
enforcement itself. It no longer pretends to protect individuals; 
not a single terrorist has been apprehended as a result of passport 
checks. But it does cement the totalitarian state. The mandatory 
passport should be reviled and rejected as an abuse of human rights 
and common decency. A nation that requires one cannot be free.
 
Regards,
 
Wendy McElroy ,
for The Daily Reckoning
 
Ed. Note: Wendy McElroy is a Canadian born individualist anarchist 
and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl 
Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982. Her articles 
are widely published on libertarian websites. A version of this 
column originally appeared on mises.org on September 7, 2011. 

Robert Arthur Menard - Freeman-on-the-Land Q&A


They are the “unconsenting and ungoverned.” They avoid paying income taxes, don’t carry documents such as a health card or driver’s license and “embrace the law” to fight the law.
They are the members of the loosely knit Freemen on the Land movement, which hit the headlines last week after Calgary tenant Andreas Pirelli allegedly declared a pensioner’s property his sovereign “embassy.”
Freemen insist online, however, the movement is not about doing harm to others. It’s “spiritual libertarianism,” the belief that everybody is equal in the eyes of God.
Robert Menard, 50, has been called a “guru” and “poster boy” for the Freemen. A former standup comic and construction worker, he served four years in the Royal Canadian Regiment because he “loves” Canada. This is an edited version of a lengthy email exchange: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/29/talking_with_the_guru_of_the_freemen_on_the_land.html


Understood?


That's a fact. Unfortunately we are not that far off from burning people at the steak for such things.

Just whom may take advantage of constitutionally protected rights in their own defense?

 
 Notice how it reads 'We the People' and NOT We the US citizens.
There are laws, and then there are rules. I see people complaining about statutory rules all the time that are not laws, and need not comply with the constitutional restrictions on government. The constitution ONLY limits the government from enacting unconstitutional laws against the People. It does NOT limit governments ability to enact rules for their subjects that they themselves MUST obey.  Until you realize this, you can read all the law books, statutes, acts, etc until your eyes bleed, but it won't do you much good.
If your just now waking up to what allows government to get away with doing what they have been doing, then let me point out one simple truth to you. If you are a US citizen, then you ARE considered an employee of government. A trustee. A dependent. As such, you are not governed by law, but rather by rules. Once you realize the different statuses between the People, and UNITED STATES citizens, everything suddenly becomes a lot clearer. 
The US government is a corporation, and as such has rules their employees must follow. Just like at Walmart. If your an employee, you most follow their rules when at work. These rules are NOT laws, as customers to the store are not required to follow them. Think of it this way, US citizens = Walmart employees, and the People = the customers. US citizens have acts and statutes to govern them as children of mother and father big brother gov. As US citizens, you do not have rights. You ONLY have privileges handed down to you by your mother and father gov. You are considered to be a child dependent on gov. Incapable of handling your own affairs, or providing for yourself. The People on the other hand, are considered adults, capable of handling their own affairs and providing for themselves.  The People take no benefits from their creation, gov. They are the ones who lay out the rules for government. 
There are also international laws which regulate government. These laws deal in commerce. Remember, gov is a corporation and must obey the rules of commerce. The Law Of Nations comprises most of these international laws, and it is written into the Declaration Of Independence. It is no more than a footnote, but having been written into the compact, becomes a whole part to that compact. 
Below, lists the law set up to regulate government by the People to protect themselves from a potentially overreaching government. It does NOT apply to US citizens. US citizens are NOT a party to it! 
Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)
"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."
[5.] The Constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the makers of it at the time when they made it.
[6.] This sense is expressed by the four following propositions:

  1. That the Constitution delegated to the General Government, or any department thereof, no power by implication, but only delegated such powers as it expressly enumerated.
  2. That it delegated no exclusive power, unless the delegation was said to be exclusive.
  3. That it laid no prohibition upon the States, except such as it specified.
  4. That the words used in it, if susceptible of more meanings than one, were used in the meaning which was least favorable to the delegation of power, and most favorable to its retention.
Get this fact threw your head, and the entire mess begins to unravel before your very eyes.
 

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
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 unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never
been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, 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 valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
 

Practicing Law (Updated)

 
New Version

1. THAT "The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right." (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)); "Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away." (Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)); "The State cannot diminish the rights of the people." (Hurtado v California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)); See 9th Ammendment
2. THAT No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution." (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 at 113 (1943)). Requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. (Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)); “The [inferior] court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” (Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)); being the only legitamate purpose of government instituted by men.
3. THAT The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, 239 (1957)); "Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases." (Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272; Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528; Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)). "The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." (Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60 (); Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 ()). "Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisios of either, it is so far void." ( Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840))
4. THAT Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)) " No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law... Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby... An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one." (Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)); Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, null and void, bears no obligation to obey, and is without effect in law. (Marburry vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803));
5. "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." ~ Justice William J. Brennan; "The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights [common law and commercial remedies] which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." (Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, NY (1829)); "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" (Ecclesiastes 8:4); "The power to "legislate generally upon life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, is "repugnant" to the Constitution." ( United States v Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 Id., at 15 (1876); United States v, Harpris, 106 U.S. 629,639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903)). THAT "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them." (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 at 491, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966))
6. THAT "[O]ne who relies on prior decisions of the Supreme Court [Shepardized and not overturned or superceeded by inferior subsequent legislation] has a perfect defense for 'willfulness.'" (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), as “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (1956); "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)); "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." (Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449; Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Elmore v. Mcammon 640 (1966); Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449)). “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” (16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70) "... the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states" Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, extending the privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants.
Foot Note : Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George Washington, called the U.S. Constitution a “Confederacy,” because they knew that the nature and character of the compact of the U.S. Constitution DID NOT change from the Articles of Confederation. At that time, the term “Confederacy” was synonymous with “The United States of America.” “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’.” - The Articles of Confederation, Art. I.; “[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the supreme law of the land, to the observance of which, all officers… in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [States], will be incorporated into the operation of the national government as far as its just and constitutional authority extends.” - Federalist, no. 27, 174--75, Alexander Hamilton, 25 Dec. 1787
7. THAT “A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence." California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal Constitution... Thus, it may not extract a license tax for the privilege of carrying on commerce." (Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)). “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority", or "is introduced by its permission.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)); "The power to "legislate generally upon life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, is "repugnant" to the Constitution." ( United States v Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 Id., at 15 (1876); United States v, Harpris, 106 U.S. 629,639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903)); Government possesses 'sovereign immunity,' ['qaulified immunity,' and 'judicial immunity,'] but in relation only to those it creates, and certainly not when acting in an administrative capacity upon the rights of those it has not created. (Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)). "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825); nothing without contract

ASSISTANCE OF CHOSEN COUNSEL
PRIVATE PARTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE

no lawful interference with contract or restriction by a third party may be placed on the free will election of a representative

THAT “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.” (City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46, Tex.Civ.App. – Dalls (1922)

THAT “Each of us has a natural right — from God– to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individually? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend–even by force–his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right– its reason for existing, its lawfulness– is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. This, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force–for the same reason–cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Since no individual acting, separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense... It is the substitution of a common force for the individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.” - Federac Bastiat June 1850
10. THAT 'Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings' (Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar 377 U.S. 1; Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425), and 'Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers may assist other members of the group [family, association, or class] achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law." ' (NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415; United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). "When many join in one act, the law says it is the act of him who could best do it; and things should be done by him who has the best skill." (Noy's Max. h.t.); “ A 'Next Friend' is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.” (FRCP, Rule 17, 28 USCA); Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.12. provides for WHO MAY PRESENT PETITION stating : "Either the party for whose relief the writ is intended, or any person for him, may present a petition to the proper authority for the purpose of obtaining relief."
11. THAT "[O]ne brother may maintain any suite for another." ( 2 Inst. 564 ; Plowd. 304 a ; 1 Haw. P.C. 252) ; whereas " Natural affection or brotherly love are good [ a valid cause and standing in law ] to raise an[ y ] use[ age ] . "(bb) - (The Principle Grounds And Maxims Of Law, William Noy Attorney General to King Charles I ( 1824 ) )

12. "There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established" (Hauenstein vs Lynham 100 US 483 (1879)) "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358; American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950); “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.” (United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221, C.Ct.D.C. (1806); “Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” Justice Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Ct. 1811-1845. "[E]ven so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God... For neither at any time used we flattering words." 1 Thessalonians 2:4-5.
THAT Any private citizen acting as "Private Attorney General" may bring suit against any public official, and allows average citizens, alone or in groups and classes, to sue those organizations and government agents that commit crimes against them and in violation of their natural and civil rights under color of law and legitamate operation of government, in and effecting commerce for damages. The object of RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims "but to turn them into prosecutors," acting as "private attorneys generals, dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity," and has the "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate." (Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151; 3 Id., at 187) There are presently over 60 federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing private plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees. "The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better." (Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000); Private Attorney Generals, who by their own 'self determination' merely aspired to be a 'private party public advocate' have been accordingly awarded judgments declaring entire cities, townships, counties, police and sherrif departments corrupt criminal enterprises and awarded damages, fees and expences, as the “Private Attorney General” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees - "if he can advance a policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons." ( Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722; See also Equal Access to Justice Act, and Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976)) ++ See Cook County Federal Ruling, ect. ++

POLITICAL, PERSONAL, AND NATURAL, LIBERTY

10. THAT (a) Political Liberty is an effectual share in the making and administration of the laws. (Lieb. Civil Lib). (b) Personal Liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law. (1 Bl. Comm. 134); (c) "Natural Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men." (Burlamaqui, c. 3, § 15; 1 131. Comm. 125); "Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people." (U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325 (1903)). "The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence." (Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942)); "Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others [injured party] leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." (Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60 (1887)); Justice Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965) appointed to the United States Supreme Court in 1939 stated "... when the people want to do something I can't find anything in the Constitution expressly forbidding them to do, I say, whether I like it or not, 'Goddammit, let 'em do it.'"

FOUNDATION OF ALL JURISDICTIONS PRESUMED IN LAW
All principles and enumerated rights contained within the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and the Bill of Rights of circa 1791 are brought forward, reserved, retained, invoked and made a part hereof by inclusion and specific reference thereto.

THAT "All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772); "…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions [or licensing boards] formed by his fellowman without his consent." (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. (1796); "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; ... upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these... Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." (William Blackstone, The Commentaries of the Law of England, Volume I, "Of the Rights of Persons," at 2 and 41 (1765); "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." (S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54); "This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit ..."( Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386 (1798)); "God alone is the lawgiver of eternity" - Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432. "The law is from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13). and that he be left alone citation

“The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, which government must respect. The Declaration of Independence stated the now familiar theme: ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined those principles.” (McGowan v. Maryland, 366 US 420, 563, Supreme Court (1961); "The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence." (Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942)); "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infring­ing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." ~Justice William J. Brennan, 1982
THAT "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way... His power to contract is unlimited... He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution... He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." (Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)) - published by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems in over 1,600 cases.

THAT "Each citizen acts as a 'Private Attorney General' who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign' " (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 E.D. Wis. (1972); Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973); and "Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory, is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges [who are barred from making political determinations], as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances." Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 324; U. S. v. Palmer, Id. 610; The Divina Pastora 17 U.S.(4 Wheat.) 52; Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 307, 309; Keene v. McDonough, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 308; Garcia v. Lee, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 511, 520; Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co., 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 415; U. S. v. Yorba, 1 Wall. 412, 423; U. S. v. Lynde, 11 Wall. 632, 638. It is equally well settled in England. (The Pelican, Edw. Adm. App. D; Taylor v. Bar- [137 U.S. 202, 213] clay, 2 Sim. 213; Emperor of Austria v. Day, 3 De Gex, F. &. J. 217, 221, 233; Republic of Peru v. Peruvian Guano Co., 36 Ch. Div. 489, 497; Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus, 38 Ch. Div. 348, 356, 359.) Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, stated: “The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.” (Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393; 19 How. (1856); Boyd v. State of Nebraska 143 U.S. 135 (1892)); 'The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein: not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.' " (Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)); "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone." - The Federalist, No. 46, James Madison.

SOVERIEGN FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY RECOGNIZED BY ALL COURTS AS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF TRUSTEES AND REPRESENTATIVES
"[I]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship." (Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)); "... The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared." (Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)). "A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him." (see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168, 7th Cir. 1985; McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307) "[G]overnments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. (Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581 ( )); "The people in their capacity of Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the state's permission." (4 Wheat, 402);
"The power to "legislate generally upon life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, is "repugnant" to the Constitution."
( United States v Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 Id., at 15 (1876); United States v, Harpris, 106 U.S. 629,639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903)).

"[T]here is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere but powerless outside of it. 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." - Justice Field - Legal Tender Case, (Julliard vs Greenman - 110 U.S. 421 (1884)); "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." (City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1); "No such ideas (government as the sovereign) obtain here: at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." (Chisholm v Georgia, 2. U.S. (Dall 2) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793)), “The words ‘sovereign state’ are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property.” (Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501); “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority", or is introduced by its permission.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)); Government possesses "sovereign immunity," qaulified immunity, and judicial immunity, but in relation only to those it creates. (Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)).
"The theory of the American political system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow them with such powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the common good." (First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb.; 277 SW 762 ()). "When this country achieved its independence the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. And this power still remains with them." (U. S. Supreme Court - Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 33); ". . . 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; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." (Chisholm v. Georgia US 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 (1793)); “When the [American] Revolution took place, the people of each State became themselves sovereign.” ( Pollard v Hagan 3 H. 212( )) . "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S." (Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829); Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7));
Republican Government is "...one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated." (In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626); "In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution." (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins ,118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)); "Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation: and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state." (2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Diet. (1870)); "In this country, sovereignty resides with the people." (Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1883). See also, Bellei v. Rusk, D.C. (1969), 296 F.Supp 1247). The "People are supreme, not the state." (Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93).
"The question is not what power government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people.... [a] union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members [monopoly bar association legislative executives masquerading as judicial branch judges who refuse to acknowlege the preferred position of natural rights and their protection in the common law constitutionally for their commercial exploitation schemes]. (U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1)). The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. (Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234()). A Sovereign Citizen, a member of the "We the People," cannot be punished for sincerely held religious or political convictions, such as the belief that he is in fact born free, not an employee, office, or property of government, being at liberty to act as such within his natural rights. (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its act are unauthorized, void, and of no force.” - Thomas Jefferson; "The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." ( The Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6252-17 (applies to legislative courts)); Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)

somewhere above, in delagated powers, cite constitution, and state similar.

“This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people, and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.” Constitution of the State of Ohio, Art. I, Sec. 20



THE ROOT OF ALL OFFICIAL OPRESION AND DECEPTION
The presumption that controing fundamental laws may be overthrown by subsequent subordinant legislation

THAT "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers [judges, Justices and Executive Administrators] have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law." (Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)), the general misconception among the public being that any exercise of state police, regulatory, or judicial power bearing the appearance of law and exacted upon them to their detriment is in fact in agreement with the law of the land, and is therefore legitimate in its operation as implemented or imposed.
THAT State statutes and regulatory rules for civil proceedure uniformly passed and enacted in each state of the union, such as TRCP RULE 52 in Texas, under such sub headings as ‘ALLEGING A CORPORATION,’ provide : “In any proceeding before the [state] court, it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the complaint; thus, the Corporate existence of any individual entering the court is presumed by the court unless an affidavit specifically denying the existence of such corporation is present;” However, directly contradicting this, as to concure therewith certainly would prejudice the rights, priveleges, immunities and protections of the native, indigenous, natural born sovereign state citizen, unlearned in advanced legal language and forgery, in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 319 (1901), the supreme court ruled that "incorporation 'IS NOT' to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view." Coincidentally, Texas Administrative Code - 1 TAC § 79.31, in defining CORPORATIONS (ENTITY NAMES), states that with respect to such "(a) Entity names... (b) Only upper case or capitol letters, with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized." What this means is that nearly every court proceeding against a natural person is predicated upon a judges initial incorrect presumption in law, for devious and immorral purposes, that the living person called to stand in action before them is dead to natural rights, unless they demand and invoke them. Nearly every state process issued, for this reason alone, is but a form of mail fraud with intent to defraud the person recieving it.
“A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence." California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal Constitution... Thus, it may not extract a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce." (Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)).
"The natural body or such as is formed by the laws of God, [is] as distinguished from an artificial body or such as is devised by human laws. "(1 Bl. Com. 467). " Thus, in law, a body is considered a natural person formed by the laws of God... as distinguished from an 'artificial body,' or 'corporate person,' specifying that an artificial body is devised, and regulated by human laws. And, as such, An artificial body can do only what is authorized by its charter or by law... a natural person or body, whatever is not forbidden by law." (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 177 (1868.)) "The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams "You [the people] have the rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams, 2nd President of the united States of America. The natural person as defined in section 342.31 (1) of the IRS "Handbook for Special Agents" is constitutionally protected, whereas the 'creature of statute' or government created corporate body and tax payer as defined in IRS Code, is not.

A CONTINUING ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
11. THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory obligations, Rules, Regulations, and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [ exploited by the deceptive practices, barratry, legal plunder, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);
THAT (a) A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), (b) nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, (c) a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); ... lacking Due process, in that they they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify the statutes' applicability to 'natural persons,' otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to "artificial or fictional corperate entities or persons," creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of government, but not the 'Natural Person,' or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism. “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), they are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his seperate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.
THAT Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining that "the word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings." ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530); "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825); "Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute, representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by government and not by God]." (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600 (1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers 330 US 258 (1947); "unless the context indicates otherwise" - 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage." (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)) '"...the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
THUS The term 'Person,' as employed in statutory language generally, may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and creatures of statute, those artificial or fictional entities created by government or legislation, but does Not include, extend, or apply to the natural 'person,' or citizen, while any law or presumed obligation that in any manner affects a right by converting the same into a privilege, or deprives a citizen of a right without consent, or by deception or fraud, is unconstitutional, the duty of the citizen being to ignore (16 Am Jur, 2nd) such regulation or constraint intended for creatures of statute, and corporate fictions, which are entities of form without substance, a commercial second class. THAT should any judicial officer or attorney, presumed to know the law and barred from claiming good faith ignorance of the same, knowingly and intentionally, ministerially or administratively, privately or officially, undertake placing an erroneous classification or designation upon a living man woman or child created not by government, as though he or she was not living and created by government, for the purpose of treating the same as a creature of statute, entirely circumventing the natural rights of the same, by the same act does this one abrogate and violate those same rights. He who denies all rights by implication violates all. Article I Section 1 Section 9 provides, No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law' [rules of procedure and statutory construction] shall be employed to usurp one's rights and remedies that were once allowed and for all time secured to the people. In other words, codes, rules, regulations, etc., and the lack there of, written after the constitution, only apply to government authorities, their officers and agents. No sane person, and yet only the deceived, would consent, to being treated as a corpse or slave devoid of natural liberty rights, or an unconscionable contract lacking valuable consideration, and only a criminal would treat a living person standing before them as if dead to rights in law.

All court officers have been redisgnated "revenue agents" under corperate reorganization of government proceeding the bancrupsy of 33 (citation Needed ), now compromised in the execution of their official duties by a pecuniary interest to their corperate empoyer to profit their creditors at the expence of the public, through the mandated collection of tribute and contribution, by economic exploitation and usery, through the misaplication of regulations regaurding the erronious croperate designation of natural persons as corperate person or creatures of statute, as though created by governmennt when clearly not, generating ill gotten gain which government is not lawfully entitled to by means of extortion by this swindel the common people are routinely victimezed by. The legal industrial complex, a carnavle of kangaroo courts and three ring circuses for an offering of proof offered, profits primarily on duping first class natural persons into serving as 2nd class corporate persons, entities or Persons of form without substance, dead to natural rights, dummy corperations and corpses without souls in commerce, abandoned vessels subject to statutory regulations and admiralty maritime tort siezures in rem, including fines and taxes levied through statutory obligations for abridgment of rules and regulations that only apply to artificial and fictional corperate entities created by government, creatures of statute, and certainly not natural born sovereign, indiginous native american citizens.
THAT "The misnomer of the defendant may be pleaded in abatement." (Com. Dig. Abatement, F 18 ; Lutw. 36; 1 Chit. PI. 440; Arch. Civ. PI. 312. See form of a plea in abatement for a misnomer of the defendant in 3 Saund. 209, b., and see further, 1Show. 394; Carth. 307 ; Comb. 188 ; 1 Lutw. 10 ; 5 T. R. 487), when designated or misnamed as a creature of statute pursuant to any state or federal action, yet State statutes and rules of civil procedure (which apply only to fabricated and engineered creatures of statute) make no specific provision for such relief, when natural persons are mistakenly or intentionally named as corporate fictions and creatures of statute, and despite the fact that all rights, and property in common law remedies, not explicitly granted or conferred to government are reserved to the people, the clever deprivation of these elective rights and remedies is achieved by judges erroniously claiming that these rights in action and procedure in law are somehow legislated away for the natural citizen in the states act of legislation and creation of rules for creatures of statute, which do not specifically provide for such remedies in the construction of civil or commercial rules of procedure (intended for creatures of statute only), a false argument, a logical falacy, a sophatic deception of legal reasoning, these rights and remedies in law being forever reserved to the people, to warrant the entrapment, by deception, to deprive remedy to litigants who appear before them , to circumvent the natural rights of these, under threat of default or arrest if they do not appear as a sacrifical lamb for barratry and legal plunder by means of extortion with intent to defraud, to further deprive them from accessing any remedy or means of escape or of relieving themselves of an erroneous corporate designation devoid of natural rights, protections and immunity from any and all such action.

ADMINISTRATORS ENFORCING STATUTES MASQUERADING AS JUDGES ENFORCING LAW

THAT "When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially. But, merely administerially." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. l54 SE 583, 7l ALR 604 ( )). “ [J]udges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes, act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” (K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 CTP. West’s (1965)) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction” as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” (K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, CTP, 6 Ed. West’s (1977); (FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428)); whereas "Judges do not enforce statutes and codes... Executive Administrators [in their private person with no Immunity for their non judicial ministerial or administrative functions] enforce statutes and codes [erroneously, and intentionally often on private citizens for the purpose of economic exploitation through the circumvention of their natural rights, protections and Immunities]. (FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464; Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138-178);
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." (30 Cal 596; San Christina, etc. Co. v. San Francisco 167 Cal. 762, 141 (1914)). Review of administrative proceedings by a court does not change an administrative proceeding to a civil proceeding. (Porter v. Michigan State Bd. of State Examiners in Optometry 199 N.W.2d 666, 41 Mich. App. 150 (1972)) "It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agency's enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him." (Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501 ()); "A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency." (AISI v US, 568 F2d 284 ()). Al1 jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear an the record of the court." (Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22 ( )).
In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty, involving an american citizen, inherently involve judicial determination and must come before an Article III court.” Only Article III courts are invested with judicial power.“Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln... our fathers... For this, and other equally weighty reasons... secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb.” (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866))
THAT Negative laws, such as generally found in statutory constructions, policy statutes, codes, regulations and rules as stated above, are created and written by and for the regulation of corporate persons devoid of natural rights and representatives of government for the regulation of government offices and the functions of their officers who administratively and ministerially commonly miss apply this same designation, classification and related rules and regulations intended for 'corporate persons' upon 'natural persons,' erroniously, knowingly and intentionally with the intent to circumvent, abrogate and deprive those same natural persons of natural rights, for the purposes of criminal economic exploitation and profit.
Not only do Judges, or executive administrators, bound to know the law, in their private capacity, acting as executive administrators of state sanctioned economic exploitation, knowingly, intentionally and wilfully evidence a pattern of action consistant with a conspiracy to deprive natural born native american citizens of constitutionaly protected natural liberty rights by the intentional incorrect and erronious imposition of a corperate status designation upon natural persons, but the State legislature colludes in this activity, deceptive practices, legal plunder and barretry imposed in commerce upon those entitled to honest services, such crimes being predicated upon mail and wire fraud and abuse of office to generate revenue in the intentional misapplication of designations, classifications, and applications, attatching taxes, obligations, fines and liens, and concealment of material fact and full disclosure