WHY
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IN FACT
AND LAW IS TECHNICALLY A CIVILLY DEAD ENTITY WITHOUT STANDING IN LAW
TO SUE OR MAKE COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYONE!
A
STONE FACT!! NOW YOU CHECK IT OUT !!!
MAKE
REAL SURE NOW!!
The
Bankruptcy of The United States
United
States Congressional Record March 17, 1993 Vol.
#33, page H-1303 Speaker-Senator James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio)
addressing the House: "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter
11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the
greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the
U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our
future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will
lead to our demise."
It
is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency
Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared
by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.
H.J.R.
192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To
Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the
Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities
of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments
and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government
exists today in name only.
The
receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All
United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War
Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now
dissolved,
the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government
for the United States. This new form of government is known as a
Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new
governor for America. This act was instituted and established by
transferring and/or placing the Office of the
Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in
part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation
for representing the United States?'
United
States Congressional Record May 4, 1992,
page H 2891, Senator and Chairman of the House of Representatives
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Senator Henry
Gonzalez (Texas) speaking on "NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES" "We
are bankrupted.
We are insolvent on every level of our national life, whether it is
corporate, whether it is just plain you and I out there with the life
of debt that we have all piled up, private debt, credit cards and
what not or whether it is the government. We are insolvent. How long
will it take before that nasty Mega-truth is conveyed?'
United
States Congressional Record January 19, 1976,
page 240 Marjorie S. Holt (Maryland): "Mr. Speaker, many of us
recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of
Philadelphia, inviting members of Congress to participate in a
ceremonial signing of "A Declaration of INTERdependence"
on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in
Philadelphia.
A
number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this
document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record
to show my strong opposition to this declaration. It
calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international
organizations.
It declares that our economy should be regulated by international
authorities. It proposes that we enter a "New
World Order"
that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of
Independence,
signed 200 years ago in Philadelphia. We fought a great Revolution
for independence and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that
we participate in a world socialist order. Are we a proud and free
people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the jackals of the world,
who want to destroy us? When one cuts through the high-flown rhetoric
of this "Declaration of INTERdependence," one finds key
phrases that tell the story. For example, it states that 'The
economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can
any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and
monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative
regulation by international authorities.' How do you like the idea of
"international authorities" controlling our production and
our monetary system, Mr. Speaker? How could any American dedicated to
our national independence and freedom tolerate such an idea? America
should never subject her fate to decisions by such an assembly,
unless we long for national suicide. Instead, let us have
independence and freedom....If we surrender our independence to a
"new world order"......,we will be betraying our historic
ideals of freedom and self-government.
Freedom
and self-government are not outdated. The fathers of our Republic
fought a revolution for those ideals, which are as valid today as
they ever were. Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters;
let us not betray self-government with world government; let us
celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin?
A
dollar is a measure of weight defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 and
1900 which is still in force today. A "dollar" specifies a
certain quantity, 24.8 grains of gold, or 371.25 grains of silver. In
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth Edition, Dollar: "The money unit
employed in the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or
of any combination of coins totaling 100 cents?" Cent: "A
coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted.
It is the hundredth part of a dollar?"
Gold
and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the
united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that
only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since
gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of
transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued
as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or
"currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute.
Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold
or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises,
and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt
obligation of the federal United States government, not "money?'
The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not
and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united
states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful
money, -gold and silver coin.
It
is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money
and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money
substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no
longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid
any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their
entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you
understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of
the country?
Federal
Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account.
FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through
inflation (devaluation of currency). When ever there is an increase
of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a
corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation
occurs. Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible
governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who
controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They
have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the
printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than
promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise
to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There
is a fundamental difference between "paying" and
"discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with
value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With
FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a
debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that
has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is
valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable
consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to
the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law,
equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.
Their
lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central
banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The
Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles
of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust"
as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock
Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for
any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust"
in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870),
although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
[1:9:3]
The
Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and
distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal
Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter
to the federal United States operating exclusively under
Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks,
and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the
interest, or premiums are the same. Assets of the debtor can also be
hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking
possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The
Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to
be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act
for ever paying the principle.
Prior
to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free
and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act
(1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal
United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in
which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen
(tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of
the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United
States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets
and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S.
citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In
return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal
United States corporation all the credit "money substitute"
it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States
government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors
as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't
have any assets, they assigned the private property of their
"economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against
the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated
federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and
nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All
has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly,
America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots
whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no
rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People
are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a
Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people
have exchanged one master for another.
This
has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed
knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting
loud enough. Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally
bankrupt. Why don't more people own their properties outright? Why
are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no
assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it
feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and
less?
We
are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a
painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious
liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in
Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United
States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt,
and the tyranny to enforce paying it.
America
has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit
and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an
undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most
corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.
The
Federal Reserve: An Astounding Exposure 1934
************************************************************************
All
of the above was published in the Congressional Record March 17, 1993
Volume #33, Page H-1303 by Senator James Trafficant, Jr. It is hereby
being republished in Secret to Reclaim Your Power on the Internet for
your information and enlightenment. Since the total national debt is
larger than the total supply of money substitutes and the personal
income tax is used solely to pay only the interest on the national
debt, paying off the principle and interest of the national debt is a
legal impossibility. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT IMPOSSIBILITIES. It is
now possible to declare your personal independence by filing an
affidavit with your state Secretary of State specially objecting to
the forced use and benefit of receiving Federal Reserve Notes. This
affidavit is a comprehensive removal of signature on all government
applications that made you a statutory person and restores to you a
pure common-law status where your worth is measured only in gold and
silver coin and never in any negotiable instruments such as Federal
Reserve Notes.
You
can get this affidavit for $50.00. For more details click on FIGHT
PACKAGES - Do 'the law does not permit impossibilities declaration
affidavit' and your UCC-1 and become the holder in due course of your
name in all capital letters
Secret
to Reclaim Your Power
PLEASE
NOTE: IF A CORPORATION IS BANKRUPT IN LAW IT IS SAID TO BE CIVILLY
DEAD AND NOT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WHICH HAS RIGHTS TO MAKE
COMPLAINTS OR SUE ANY……BODY, GOT THAT, IT MEANS YOU CAN’T BE
SUED BY THAT CIVILLY DEAD CORPORATION OF PERSON. SEE TYPICAL ARGUMENT
BELOW:
Not
a proper party with standing and NO OATH OF OFFICE TO ACT AS SAID
OFFICER IN AUTHORITY FOR HE IS A DEFACTO OFFICER.
Mr.........../
PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE , ESQUIRE, (P-12345), OTHERWISE
KNOWN FROM HERE ON OUT AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, IS NOT A PARTY IN
INTEREST WITH STANDING
OR
CAPACITY TO SUE OR PROSECUTE A CLAIM , ANY CLAIM, IN THIS CASE AND
NEITHER DOES THE PLAINTIFF(S) , WHO USE, ...... PUT GOVERNMENT
AGENT’S NAME HERE, (P-12345), AS A DEFACTO AGENT, ASSIGN, ACTOR,
COUNSELOR, CONTRACTOR, OR QUASI EMPLOYEE TO DO PLAINTIFF'S BIDDING OR
TASKS. THERE IS NO JURISDICTION PERIOD!!
Now
your Honor all the above duly considered, and not forgetting all
that has been currently filed document wise in this case to date of
the transgressions of these Plaintiff(s)/ Counter Defendant(s) the
simple fact of the matter is THE
PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR DEFACTO AGENT," PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ”,
WHO HAS NO TIMELY FILED OATH OF OFFICE ON FILE WITH EITHER THE CLERK
OF, PUT COUNTY CLERK HERE, COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, OR THE OFFICE
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT SEAL IN LANSING, TO
ACTUALLY OPERATE AS AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF'S, AND SIMPLY PUT HE
DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE CAPACITY TO SUE, OR BRING THIS
FRIVOLOUS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT. I
MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION JUDGE FOR ALL GOOD CAUSE
SHOWN AND SUBMIT MY PROPOSED ORDER FOR GOOD CAUSE CLEARLY SHOWN AND
REQUEST THIS HONORABLE COIRT'S TIMELY RELIEF. THANK YOU JUDGE!!
A
party to a Lawsuit must possess the capacity to sue or prosecute
their claims.
M.C.R. 2.201 (C), AN INCORPORATED ENTITY acquires the capacity to
SUE or prosecute their claims in the STATE OF MICHIGAN through
incorporation and /or compliance with the Laws of the State of
Michigan, M.C.L.A. 450.1911.
The Plaintiff(s) MATTER OF FACT DO
NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF
THIS COMPLAINT AS BEING A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD,
SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, and certainly did not
exist at the time of the alleged Plaintiff's Complaint and
Plaintiff(s)/APPELLEE(S) do not exist presently as a matter of fact
and LAW!! THEY ARE A CIVILLY DEAD, a BANKRUPT CORPORATION. .
PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE IN FACT LIARS AND PERJURERS ON THE RECORD, AND I
AM TRYING TO BE MY NORMAL POLITE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH!! THEY
LIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and assumed they would NEVER be caught!!
PLAINTIFF(S) YOU ARE CAUGHT, A STONE FACT!
Now
your Honor Michigan Courts have consistently held that a dissolved
Corporation is essentially a
" DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT
CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW.
Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc.
145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S.
TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422, 243 NW 2nd
311 (a 1932 case).
All
these cases assumed that at one time the Corporation was in fact in
existence LAWFULLY, but some how went into a state of dissolution.
THESE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE IN FACT A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY
DEAD ON THE RECORD OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AS SUCH BANKRUPT
CORPORATION PLAINTIFF(S) OPERATE AS A FICTION OR DEFACTO CORPORATION.
PLEASE SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192, JUNE 5th, 1933., ALSO NOTE
MR. PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE (P-12345) , IS NOT THE
TRUSTEE OF THAT STATE OF MICHIGAN BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF HE WAS PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN HIS TIMELY
OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED HIS SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE PROPER
AUTHORITY. HE HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR OR
ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE
PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged
Defendant and any claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!
The
Plaintiff(s)/ FLAT OUT LIED ON THE SWORN RECORD OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND THEIR ATTORNEY PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S
NAME HERE (P-12345) SWORE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PLAINTIFF(S) LIES
WERE TRUE IN FACT. SEE MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.114 (A), (B), (C), (D),
(E), AND (F) and clearly this is an ABUSE OF PROCESS NOT TO MENTION
PERJURY AND FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT, A CAPITOL FELONY, A FACT!!
Now
the Plaintiff(s) APPELLEE(S) are NOT
A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
TO
SUE, BECAUSE THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
192, JUNE 5TH, 1933, and
therefore the Plaintiff's/ APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT
ACTION IS BARRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW. Please see Michigan
Court Rule, 2.201(B)
ISSUES
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST " STANDING"
"
(B) Real Party in Interest. An action must be prosecuted in the name
of the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST."
THERE
IS NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH " THE PLAINTIFF(S), THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, which is FRAUD,
.,
a fraud, as they are NOT INCORPORATED LAWFULLY !!THEY ARE CIVILY
DEAD!!
Now
Michigan Courts have addressed the " STANDING TO SUE "
DOCTRINE in several cases. In Department of Social Services vs.
Baayoun 204 Mich. Appeals 170 , 514 NW 2nd 522 (a 1994 case), the
Court held that " STANDING
"
relates to position or situation of a Party relative to the cause of
action and other Parties at the time of Party seeks relief from the
Court. Now in Taylor vs. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, 205
Mich. App. 644, 517 NW 2nd 864 (a 1994 case), the Court held that
"
STANDING
"
is a legal term used to denote the existence of a Party's interest in
the outcome of litigation, which will assure sincere and vigorous
advocacy. The Court further stated for the Record that to have
"STANDING
"
a Party
MUST
DEMONSTRATE
a
legally protected interest that is in jeopardy of being adversely
affected and must allege a sufficient personal stake in the outcome
of the dispute to ensure that the controversy to be adjudicated will
be presented in an adversarial setting capable of judicial
resolution.
In
order to have standing, a party MUST
SHOW
a substantial interest and stake in the outcome of a controversy.
Further see; ROGAN Vs. MORTON, 167 Mich. App. 483, 423 NW 2nd 237 (
a 1988 case), which held, " STANDING",
AS A REQUISITE TO SUE, ensures that only those who have a
substantial interest in the outcome of a LAWSUIT will be allowed to
come into Court and Complain. Further see in support WHITE LAKE
IMPROVEMENT ASS'N vs. WHITEHALL, 22 Mich. App. 262, 177 NW 2nd 473
(a 1970 case )
Now
Upon examination of these facts clearly THE PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE
NOT A PROPER REAL PARTY, WITH STANDING, OR CAPACITY, TO BRING SUIT
IN ANY CAPACITY BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR THEY DO NOT EXIST IN
LAW OR FACT, AND ARE CLEARLY CIVILLY DEAD IN FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY
NO CAPACITY TO SUE ANY
PARTY
IN THIS HONORABLE COURT OR ANY MICHIGAN COURT AS THEY ARE A BANKRUPT
ENTITY SINCE 1933 AND IN FACT ARE IN RECEIVERSHIP AND CIVILLY DEAD.
SEE CLEARFIELD BANK AND TRUST vs. UNITED STATES, 462 F. Supp. 1193 ,
SEE THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE A STUDY IN JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS/
DIVERSITY. OBVIOUSLY, PLAINTIFF(S) ARE A DEFACTO ENTITY , AND THEIR
AGENT, MR. PUT NAME OF DEFACTO AGENT OF OFFICER HERE , ESQUIRE,
(P-12345), is a DEFACTO AGENT, A FICTION OF LAW A MERE NULLITY OR
NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND IN THIS CASE A FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT
and these Alleged Defendants and ACCOMMODATION PARTIES AS THE HOLDERS
IN DUE COURSE, THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR CAPACITY TO
LAWFULLY BRING PLAINTIFF'S UNFOUNDED, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, OR
SPURIOUS COMPLAINTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT AND SUE. TO DO SO IS
FRAUD, 100% FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS,
CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR COUNSELORS.
WHAT
IS FRAUD?
We
will begin with the subject of FRAUD for the specific purpose to
provide you with the knowledge and ability to argue this most serious
defense, because it will in fact negate most problem Contracts which
you will be confronted with. So a very good understanding of this
subject will clearly help you in most serious cases wherein you have
been confronted with adhesion contracts like a “ Drivers License or
Social Security Card Identification or I.R S. assessment procedures.
Let
us begin with definition of what FRAUD really is.
FRAUD
is defined in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660
"
An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance
upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender
a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact,
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended
to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single
act or combination, or by the suppression of truth,
or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by
direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence,
word of mouth, or look, or gesture. Delanty v. First Pennsylvania
Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A generic
term, embracing all maltofarious means which human ingenuity can
devise, and which are resorted to by one Individual to get
advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of
truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and
UNFAIR
way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl.
117, 39 P.2nd 150 "
BAD FAITH "
and
" FRAUD "
are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity,
faithlessness, unfairness, ect."
An
example defense argument for where FRAUD is at issue:
I
wish to point out that this explanation applies fully to my case to
date. I further wish to express my serious and sincere CONSTRUCTIVE
OBJECTIONS to the
Arbitrary and Capricious manner in which my case has been handled to
date by those who are sworn on SACRED
OATH to protect me and
my interests from such travesty of Justice. I am the beneficiary of "
THE CONTRACT "
between the Government and it's great PEOPLE
as
I am one of " THE
PEOPLE ". Please
see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and 16th American Juris
Prudence 2nd Section 97, which held the Constitution shall be
liberally interpreted to include every word, phrase, and syllable, in
favor of the Clearly intended and expressly designated "
BENEFICIARY THE CITIZEN " for the protection of RIGHTS AND
PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN PROTECTED IT HAS BEEN STOLEN ON A
TAKING BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF A GOVERNMENT BODY POLITIC,
WHO IS CLEARLY OUT OF CONTROL IN EVERY ASPECT.
All
WE ARE trying to do is get a fair and impartial hearing on the merits
of my just complaints. Now WE honestly feel that the PLAINTIFF(S) and
the Michigan Courts have perpetrated a FRAUD IN FACT AND LAW upon me
and my lawfully owned property to my great injury and then knowingly
continue the FRAUD when WE seek redress in the MICHIGAN COURTS for
this injury, because WE dare to seek Justice and the protection of
OUR Constitutional Rights against this FRAUDULENT OUT OF CONTROL CITY
OF THE WHATEVER, THE PLAINTIFF(S), who have repetitively sought to
injure or DEFRAUD these citizen members of the PEOPLE IN FACT AND LAW
on so many, many occasions that it is Criminal NEGLECT of their sworn
DUTY....
RES ipsa loquitur, WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTROL,[ Plaintiff(s) could choose
to injure or NOT choose to injure me of their own free volition
thereby having voluntary exclusive control ], and clearly these
PROTECTORS knew or should have known and are knowledgeable of
exactly what they are doing or they clearly should know and these
Plaintiff(s) deliberately do the deed or injury voluntarily,
ANY.....WAY, AND TO HELL WITH THE LAW OR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS!!! THIS IS A STONE FACT!!!
Now
WE give OUR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS to this arbitrary and
capricious deliberate administrative abuse of process and also give
OUR FORMAL NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS you are about to BE SUED!! WE
INTEND TO SUE FOR OUR INJURIES and name every swinging joker for
their unlawful or criminal deeds to injure US. LET ALL PARTIES
TAKE JUST NOTICE OF THIS FACT!!
These
so-called OFFICERS OF THE LAW, all long schooled in the art and
practice of LAW,
have willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and wantonly have clearly
deliberately injured us and induced us to our injury or irreparable
harm by a specie of misinformation, disinformation, or a SPECIE
OF SILENCE, wherein they have used all manner of colorable
officialdom to make false and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND ACTIONS
against us, personally or against our Lawfully owned property, which
is a total violation of
LAW and these
Plaintiff(s) damn well knew exactly what was done and by whom!!
Please
see U.S. vs. Prudden 424 F2d 1021, and U.S. vs. TWEEL, 550 F2d 297 AT
299-300, WHICH CASE HELD "
silence can only be equated with FRAUD when there is a legal and
moral duty to speak the TRUTH or when an inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading to the injury of the parties."
FURTHER,.....In
Re: Dunahay vs. Struik, 393 P 2d 930, (1964) 96 Arizona 246, which
case held,...."
FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY, ( RES
ipsa loquitur, with exclusive control), emphasis added mine, of
speaking is imposed."
FURTHER,.....In
Re: Batty vs. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 { 2d 870, 57 Arizona
239 (1941 case), which held,...
" FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY of
speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely."
FURTHER,.....
In Re: State vs. Coddington, 662 P 2d 115, 113 Arizona 480, Arizona
App. (1983 case) which case held,.... "
WHEN one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and
the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false and
FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION that what is disclosed is the whole truth
and nothing but the truth." and one can go on and on,...."
Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith
to disclose is equivalent to a false or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION,
thereby inducing me to my great injury, please see Leigh vs. Loyd ,
224 P 2d 356, Arizona 84 (1954 case) and further see " WHEN one
conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the
holding back of other facts FRAUD OR DECEIT may arise from silence
where the DUTY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, as well as prohibition from
speaking an UNTRUTH existed under the LAW, ALSO FURTHER SEE Morrison
vs. Acton, 198 P 2d 590, 68 Arizona 27 , (1948 case), which also
supports Leigh v. Loyd SUPRA.
In
short these case go on and on and on so ANY PARTY could be given
sufficient NOTICE OR WARNING of activity which would or could be
FRAUDULENT and books and books of considerable collections at LAW
LIBRARIES speak volumes to this very SUBJECT and clearly the
Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known what they were doing to injure
me was wrong, FRAUDULENT, AND UNLAWFUL IN FACT. Now when such
activities of misinformation or disinformation or a specie of
silence, whose clear purpose it to mis-inform, or dis-inform a party
in interest of real facts and Lawful Rights then FRAUD
HAS CLEARLY BEEN DONE, especially if a party has relied in GOOD FAITH
on such reliances to their very great injury then clear UNLAWFUL
INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH HAS IN FACT OCCURRED AND THE GOVERNMENT
ENTITY WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITY KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY IS IN
BREACH OF THEIR ORIGINAL CIVIC PURPOSE THEY WERE IN FACT CREATED TO
PROTECT AGAINST AND THIS IS A BREACH OF FAITH SUBJECTING THE
OFFENDING PARTY TO
"
QUO WARRANTO " OF THEIR INTENDED GOVERNMENTAL ENFRANCHISED POWER
OR RIGHTS, which they were originally created under their Corporation
CHARTER pursuant to Public Acts 231 of Public Acts, HOME RULE, OR
CHARTER, for ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES and that is just a fact.
WE
CLAIM FRAUD AND WE TIMELY OBJECT TO ALL THE FRAUD IN THIS CASE AND
FOR WARN THE PARTIES THAT LEGAL ACTION IS EMINENT AND WILL BE
COMMENCED VERY SHORTLY IF THIS MATTER IS NOT TIMELY REPAIRED IN TOTAL
TO MY COMPLETE SATISFACTION. FAIR WARNING IS GIVEN!
Now
you hit them with this kind of argument and they get all panicky and
if they got a brain in their heads they settle and fast just to keep
the Law Suits from canceling their insurance policies to run their
little Megopolis. Remember knowledge is power, and properly used
knowledge can and will effect change. Remember we want our Country
and it’s Constitutional Republican form of Government back and you
got to take it back if you truly want to effect changes for the
better. Good luck and God Speed! NOW GO GET THEM AND MAKE THEM CHANGE
THEIR UNLAWFUL WAYS!
QUESTION
PLAINTIFF’S? IS IT TRULY YOUR HONEST INTENTION TO DEFRAUD ME OR
INJURE ME IN ANY WAY OR INTENT TO CONSPIRE OR DENY ME ANY BASIC
GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HERE? I’D THINK REAL HARD ABOUT
THAT IF I WERE YOU!!
HOW
TO ARGUE JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THIS CASE.
Jurisdiction
comes in two basic forms or categories. These is “
IN REM “
JURISDICTION , which basically means I got possession of you right
now in your proper person and if you move I can tell that bailiff to
seize you OR KILL YOU, and he will do that so matter of fact I got
you babe. Next there is “ SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION “ WHICH
MEANS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AS APPLIED TO YOU. There
are many, many challenges here and one needs to really pay attention
to what they are doing, because this subject is like fly paper, and
once you are stuck, you are probably for all purposes stuck good,
so watch it. IT IS BEST TO STAND MOOT FIRST RIGHT AFTER YOU CHALLENGE
THE PLAINTIFF’S LAWFUL JURISDICTION USING McNUTT vs. GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORP. 56 S. Ct. 502. A U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE, which
basically says JURISDICTION ONCE CHALLENGED MUST BE PROVEN BY THE
PLAINTIFF(S)/ CLAIMANTS OF SAID CLAIMED JURISDICTION AND MAY NEVER BE
JUST ASSUMED NOT EVEN BY BLACK ROBES OR COLORABLE ACTION OR LAW. ALSO
SEE TITLE 5 U.S. CODE SECTION 556 (d) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE U.S.
CODES., which says the proponent of a RULE or ORDER has the entire
burden of all proofs of same. NOW START CHALLENGING THEIR
JURISDICTION!! MAKE THEM PROVE JURISDICTION BOTH IN REM AND SUBJECT
MATTER AS APPLIED TO YOU, NOT A STRAW MAN OR STRAW WOMAN, AND THEY
MUST HAVE BOTH TO ACTUALLY BRING THEIR COMPLAINT.
JURISDICTIONAL
ARGUMENT
The
alleged Defendant’s ANSWER AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO
THE PLAINTIFF’S/ PETITIONER’S
NOW
COMES, PUT FULL Christian NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith, the
Alleged Defendant(s), APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA, on his own behalf
APPEARING ON A SPECIAL APPEARANCE AS IS DISTINGUISHED FROM A GENERAL
APPEARANCE as a Courtesy to this Honorable Court and formally
CHALLENGES JURISDICTION OF PLAINTIFF(S)/ PETITIONER(S) to bring this
ACTION AND MAKES JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES AND CLAIMS OF BASIC
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ESPECIALLY FOR DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS AS NO HEARING OR TRIAL ON THE MERITS HAS BEEN ACTUALLY
DONE CONCERNING THIS CASE AND A PROPOSED ORDER IS CONSIDERABLY
PREMATURE AT THIS TIME THEREBY DENYING THE Alleged Defendant(s) DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
-
First
for the Record I formally OBJECT to the Plaintiff(s)/ Petitioner(s)
claims of ASSUMED JURISDICTION. I cite McNutt vs. GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORP. 56 S. Ct. 502, which case held ….. Jurisdiction
may NEVER be assumed not even by COLORABLE CLAIMS OR STATUS OR BLACK
ROBES OR OFFICIALDOM OR APPEARANCES, but must be substantively
proven by the PLAINTIFF(S)/ CLAIMANTS of said Jurisdiction. Once
challenged by ANY PROPER PARTY the Plaintiff(s)/ Claimants MUST
prove their JURISDICTION in a timely manner. Failure to timely prove
said claimed Jurisdiction and LACHES INCURRS. Now Title 5 U. S. CODE
section 556(d) which states;
(d)
Except as otherwise provided by statute,
the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.
Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as
a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant,
immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A
sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on
consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a
party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence.
The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of
justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the
agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title
sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a
party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused
such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or
defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence,
and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full
and true disclosure of the facts.
In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or
applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will
not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all
or part of the evidence in written form.”
UNITED
STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE
5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART
I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER
5--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER
II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Current
through P.L. 104-98, approved 1-16-96
Sec.
557. Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency;
submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record
(a)
This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, when a
hearing is required to be conducted in accordance with section 556 of
this title.
Especially
note this section because any denial of basic DUE PROCESS OF LAW
RIGHTS AND ALL JURISDICTION CEASES AUTOMATICALLY BY THIS STATUTE, BUT
YOU GOT TO CLAIM IT BY RIGHT.
UNITED
STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE
5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART
I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER
7--JUDICIAL REVIEW
Current
through P.L. 104-98, approved 1-16-96
Please
pay very close attention here and NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW!
TITLE
5 U.S. Code
Sec.
706. Scope of review
To
the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing
court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or
applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court
shall--
(1)
compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed;
and
(2)
hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions
found to be--
(A)
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law;
(B)
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C)
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or
short of statutory right;
(D)
without observance of procedure required by law;
(E)
unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556
and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an
agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F)
unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to
trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In
making the foregoing determinations,
the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by
a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial
error.
JURISDICTION: Clause
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
The
Constitution itself is recognized amongst the Laws Of Nations, as a
Common-Law Charter providing, in part, for the admittance of
admiralty Jurisdiction onto the land pursuant to the Law Merchant
(Black's 5th, page 798) within those geographic limits set forth in
Article I., Section 8,Clause 17 (See Above).
“Special
provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction
from the states over places where the federal government shall
establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these
places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise
a general jurisdiction” [New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10
Pet.) 662 (1836)]
“All legislation is prima facie
territorial”
[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213, U.S.
347 at 357-358]
“the United States never held any
municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or
any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no
Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction,
sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or
elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted
...”
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 213, 221, 223]
“No
sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v.
Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
“Once challenged, jurisdiction
cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” [Stuck v.
Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
“Jurisdiction,
once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be TIMELY PROVEN, AND
EMPHATICALLY DECIDED. ”
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502]
“The
law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the
administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” [Hagans
v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533]
If any tribunal finds absence of proof
of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be
dismissed.”
[Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.
Ct. 42]
Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct.
789,80 L. Ed. 1135, Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272,
Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83
L. Ed. 111, and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1, All these cases confirm,
that, when challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and
proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the
courts..
Title 18 U.S.C. ? 7 specifies that the
“territorial jurisdiction” of the United States extends only
outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states,
and Title 40 U.S.C. ? 255 specifies the legal conditions that must be
fulfilled for the United States government to have exclusive or
shared jurisdiction within the area of lands belonging to the States
of the Union.
THEREFORE, the accused would demand of this
court to establish the required exclusive Federal or State
jurisdiction that has been merely assumed in this matter,
United
States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez,
110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term
"the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously
held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had
the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the
First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
means at least all citizens in the United States. This case thus
resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual
right.
Presser
v. Illinois,
116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding
in Cruikshank
that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by
the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power
to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the
States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question
out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so
to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security and disable the people from
performing their duty to the general government."
Presser,
moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot
forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is
necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The
statute under which Presser
was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but
rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns
unless authorized by law..." Thus, the Court concluded that the
statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
[Footnote
186] <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/>New
York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992).
As
you have read the Framers did not include “ THE PEOPLE” of the
United States of America in Article VI, because the Constitutions was
written to protects our liberties, rights, and freedoms from
governmental infringements.
The
Constitution was written for the United States representatives. It
limited them, It prescribed and controlled how these representatives
dealt with their United State Citizens and territories, Not NORTH
America and it’s inhabitants.
It
is clear that the constitution is a contract with the government it’s
officials, employees and it’s citizens. It keeps these officials
form infringing upon “Non Naturalized, Aliens, Aboriginal,
Inhabitant’s” God given rights and liberties, through Oath and
Affirmation to support the Constitution, Therefore “We” are not
subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions by the United States
Courts, and Enactment made by any Constitutionally Created
Legislature,
Executive
Branch of Government, nor, Constitutionally Created Judiciary.
NOTE:
Article
1 section 1 of the MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION and Government is
instituted for the protection of the people for their mutual
benefit and protection. At no time was Government instituted to bully
the people in the possession of their lands or property. ALL POWER IS
INHERINT IN THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR EXCLUSIVE USE ONLY OR ON GRANT
PERMISSION FROM THEM!!!
Therefore:
In
the complete absence of any Lawful and verified Oath or Affirmation
made by a Non participant Individual, to support any Constitution; or
in the complete absence of proving a Higher Title to that REAL FLESH
Known and Described as the Non participant Individual Himself, In
Personam Jurisdiction does not exist; the Constitution only protects
Non participants, and in the complete absence of proving a Lawful and
voluntary contract made by Such Non participant, pledging Himself
and/or His Property- Rights to certain specified performance, Subject
Matter Jurisdiction does not exist; and in the complete absence of
any Lawful and verified complaint made against Such Non participant,
wherein a Real Injured Party Claims a Damage, no criminal
Jurisdictions exist; thus in the complete absence of proving the
existence of either In Personam and or Subject Matter Jurisdiction,
governmental Jurisdiction over the Non participant Individual does
not exist.
QUOD
ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM!
"If
two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or
intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised the same...they shall
be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years,
or both..." Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
"Whoever,
under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, territory or district
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution of laws of the United States...shall be
fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both..." Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
The constitution never provided THE PEOPLE with Rights that they did not
already possess prior to creation of this Instrument.
Existence
and formal recognition of preexistent Rights is demonstrated
throughout The Magna Carta, June 15, 1215; the Declaration of Rights
in Congress, at New York, October 19, 1765; the Declaration of Rights
in Congress, at Philadelphia, October 14, 1774; the Declaration of
Independence July 4, 1776; the Articles of Confederation, November
15, 1777; and the Bill of Rights inclusive of the Ninth and Tenth
Article Amendments, December 15, 1791, etc.
Article.
VI.
Clause
1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Clause
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.
ARTICLE
VI
PRIOR
DEBTS, NATIONAL SUPREMACY, AND OATHS OF OFFICE
Clause
1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
PRIOR
DEBTS
Clause
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall
be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.
NATIONAL
SUPREMACY
Marshall's
Interpretation of the National Supremacy Clause
Although
the Supreme Court had held, prior to Marshall's appointment to the
Bench, that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state
constitutional or statutory provision which was inconsistent with a
treaty executed by the Federal Government,\1\ it was left for him to
develop the full significance of the clause as applied to acts of
Congress. By his vigorous opinions in McCulloch v. Maryland\2\ and
Gibbons v. Ogden,\3\ he gave the principle a vitality which survived
a century of vacillation under the doctrine of dual federalism. In
the former case, he asserted broadly that ``the States
have
no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or
in
any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted
by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general
government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that
supremacy which the Constitution has declared.''\4\ From this he
concluded that a state tax upon notes issued by a branch of the Bank
of the United States was void.
1\Ware
v. Hylton, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 199 (1796).
2\4
Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819).
3\9
Wheat. (22 U.S.) 1 (1824). \4\4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 436(1819).
In
Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court held that certain statutes of New
York
granting an exclusive right to use steam navigation on the waters
of
the State were null and void insofar as they applied to vessels
licensed
by the United States to engage in coastal trade. Said the Chief
Justice: ``In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law
passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty,
comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the
Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal
opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this
state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not
only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity
of an act,
inconsistent
with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the
Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that
part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and
treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not
transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of
acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the
laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some
treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such
case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of
the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted,
must yield to it.''\5\
\5\9
Wheat. (22 U.S.), 210-211 (1824). See the Court's
discussion
of Gibbons in Douglas v. Seacoast Products, 431 U.S. 265,
274-279
(1977).
The
Operation of the Supremacy Clause
When
Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting
state law and policy must yield.\7\ Although the preemptive effect of
federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce
clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever
Congress
legislates constitutionally. And the operation of the supremacy
clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not
express but implied, not plenary but dependent upon state acceptance.
The latter may be seen in a series of cases concerning the validity
of state legislation enacted to bring the States within the various
programs authorized by Congress pursuant to the Social Security
Act.\8\ State participation in the programs is voluntary, technically
speaking, and no State is compelled to enact legislation comporting
with the requirements of federal law. Once, however, a State is
participating, its legislation, which is contrary to federal
requirements, is void under the supremacy clause.\9\
\7\Gibbons
v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 1, 210-211 (1824). See,
e.g.,
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992); Morales
v.
TWA, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (1992); Maryland v. Lousiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746
(1981);
Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).
\8\By
the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C.
Sec.
301 et seq., Congress established a series of programs operative in
those States which joined the system and enacted the requisite
complying legislation. Although participation is voluntary, the
federal tax program underlying in effect induces state participation.
See Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 585-598 (1937).
\9\On
the operation of federal spending programs upon state laws, see South
Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (under highway funding programs).
On the preemptive effect of federal spending laws, see Lawrence
County v. Lead-Deadwood School Dist., 469 U.S. 256 (1985). An early
example of States being required to conform their laws to the federal
standards is King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968). Private parties may
compel state acquiescence in federal standards to which they have
agreed by participation in the programs through suits under a federal
civil rights law (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983). Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S.
1 (1980). The Court has imposed some federalism constraints in this
area by imposing a ``clear statement'' rule on Congress when it seeks
to impose new conditions on States. Pennhurst State School &
Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 11, 17-18 (1981).
Obligation
of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
The
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a
part of the law of every State as its own local laws and
constitution. Their obligation ``is imperative upon the state judges,
in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From
the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon
to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were
not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of
theState, but according to the laws and treaties of the United
States--`the supreme law of the land'.''\18\ State courts are bound
then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to
disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes,
of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and
treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the
United States Supreme Court. \19\ While States need not specially
create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give
courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a
state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the
court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.\20\ The
existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and
exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of
subjects
has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts
are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and
encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal
common law,\21\ it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court
rulings on state courts.
\18\Martin
v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 335
(1816).
State courts have both the power and the duty to enforce
obligations
arising under federal law, unless Congress gives the federal courts
exclusive jurisdiction. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876);
Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1 (1912); Testa v. Katt,
330 U.S. 386 (1947).\19\Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 1958).\20\Howlett
v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990); Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988).
\21\Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943);
Textile Workers of America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448
(1957);Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972).
LOSS
OF JUDICAL IMMUNITY
It
has also been well established that: When a judge knows that he\she
lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes
expressly depriving him\her of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is
lost. Rankin
v. Howard,
(1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller
v. Rankin,
101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
"Where
there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion
is incident to jurisdiction." Piper
v. Pearson,
2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley
v. Fisher,
13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
A
judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and
person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.
Davis v. Burris, 51
Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)
Generally,
judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of
their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or
corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory
v. Thompson,
500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)
There
is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully,
although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and
cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.
Cooper v. O'Conner,
99 F.2d 133
When
a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without
compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable
for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in
good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State
use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217
Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.
"...
the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States
confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to
all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution
is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by
that instrument." Marbury
v. Madison,
1 Cranch 137 (1803).
"No
judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful
authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or
judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these
boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."
Ableman v. Booth,
21 Howard 506 (1859).
"The
courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under
which he presumes to act."
Hoffsomer v. Hayes,
92 Okla 32, 227 F 417.
"The
doctrine of judicial immunity originated in early seventeenth-century
England in the jurisprudence of Sir Edward Coke. In two decisions,
Floyd & Barker and
the Case
of the Marshalsea, Lord
Coke laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial immunity."
Floyd
& Barker, 77
Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607; The
Case of the Marshalsea, 77
Eng. Rep. 1027 (1612) were both cases right out of the Star Chamber.
Coke's
reasoning for judicial immunity was presented in four public policy
grounds:
1. Finality of judgment;
2. Maintenance of
judicial independence;
3. Freedom from continual calumniations;
and,
4. Respect and confidence in the judiciary.
The
Marshalsea presents a case where Coke denied a judge immunity for
presiding over a case in assumpsit. Assumpsit is a common-law action
for recovery of damages for breach of contract. Coke then explained
the operation of jurisdiction requirement for immunity:
"[W]hen
a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds iverso ordine
or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister
of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no
action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction
of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is
not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of
the precept or process..."
Although
narrowing the availability of judicial immunity, especially in courts
of limited jurisdiction, Coke suggested that there was a presumption
of jurisdiction and that the judge must have been aware that
jurisdiction was lacking.
STATUS
"The
status of an individual used as a legal term, means the legal
position of the individual in or with regard to the rest of the
community. L. R. 4 P.D. 11. The rights, duties, capacities and
incapacitates which determine a person to a given class, constitutes
his status, Campb. Austin 137.
The
action of assumpsit must be reckoned a technical instrument which
gave no small help to the forces which were making for the transition
from status to contract; 3 Holdsw. Hist. E. L. 349." Bouvier's
Volume 3, page 3129
GOD
Created Mankind, Mankind created Constitutions, Constitutions created
governments, governments created Fictitious Status, Rules, Codes,
Regulations, and/or Statutes (Called Enactments), most of which are
nefariously Executed and Applied as some government -sponsored Court
- Crime -Revenue Raising-Activity.
This
court’s presumption is that “ Noble ” is subject to
government Jurisdiction by way of government Enactments. This court
presumes that “ Noble: ” is subject to those Jurisdictions
created by the Constitutions, which in-turn created Such governments
(The Courts). This Unlawful presumption is properly debunked by:
Article I., Section 9, Clause 8, and lack of delegated power.
Presumed
government
Sovereignty over THE PEOPLE is just that a presumption and a fiction,
and which when once repudiated, must thereafter be proved to exist.
In the absence of proof that The Individual is subject to the
Jurisdiction of any Constitution or other Social Contract or Compact,
Jurisdiction over Him. “
DOES NOT EXIST.”
Lets
use Article VI which defines exactly Who is subject to the
Jurisdiction of the Constitution, and exactly Who shall be
Contractually Bound by Oath or Affirmation to support Such
Constitution in Consideration for Offices Of:
1. Public
Trust and those Benefits of Public Service.
2. Public
Employment.
FAIR
WARNING IS FAIRLY GIVEN!
E.
F.O.I.A.
I
also ask that you send to me bona fide copies of the bona fide
documents which are in compliance with the requirements of 40 U.S.C,
Sec 255, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution for
the United States of America that provide any bona fide written
confirmation that the legislature of MICHIGAN or the UNITED STATES
ever approved or were approved the cession of the property upon which
the federal, and District courthouses sit, which are located in
Detroit or Michigan over to any bona fide jurisdiction of the UNITED
STATES, MICHIGAN. I also ask that you send to me bona fide copies of
the "notices of acceptance" that are in compliance with 40
USCS ?
255
and its interpretive notes, which provide bona fide lawful evidence
of the acceptance of any bona fide lawful jurisdiction of the United
States over said property.
It
is a principle of law that, once challenged, the person asserting
jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction to exist as a matter of
law:
E.
Federal Procedure
2.455 states,
as follows: “If a party’s allegation of jurisdictional facts are
challenged by an adversary in any appropriate manner, he or she must
support them by competent proof.” ! Also see Title 5 U.S.Code
Section # 556(d) and Sections # 557 and #706 holding ALL JURISDICTION
CEASES IF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS DENIED IN ANY WAY!
Your
Jurisdiction has been challenged ON THE RECORD!!!
TITLE
5 <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/index.html>> PART I
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/pI.html>> CHAPTER 5
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/pIch5.html>>
SUBCHAPTER II
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/pIch5schII.html>> Sec.
556
5
U.S.Code Section # 556(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute,
the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.
Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as
a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant,
immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A
sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on
consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a
party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence.
The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of
justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the
agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title
sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a
party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused
such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or
defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence,
and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full
and true disclosure of the facts.
In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or
applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will
not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all
or part of the evidence in written form.”
It
is now left UP TO THE PLAINTIFF(S), and TO THEIR STRICTEST PROOFS OF
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, but I would like to also cite ARTICLE 1, SECTION
1 OF THE MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION and Government is instituted
for the protection of the people for their mutual benefit and
protection. At no time was Government instituted to bully the people
in the possession of their lands or property, or rights. ALL POWER IS
INHERINT IN THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR EXCLUSIVE USE ONLY OR ON GRANT,
PERMISSION FROM THEM!!! YOU ARE AT THIS POINT OUTSIDE OF YOUR
TRUSTEE STATUS OF LOOKING OUT FOR THE BENIFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT,
“THE PEOPLE” FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RIGHTS AND OR
PROPERTY!!! THIS IS A STONE FACT!! See BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273
U.S. 28 AND 16th AMERICAN JURIS PRUDENCE section 97.
THESE
ACTIONS COULD CAUSE YOU TO LOSE YOUR JUDICAL IMMUNITY!
THE
RULES ON OATHS OF OFFICE REQUIREMENTS
FAILURE
IN ANY WAY TO FOLLOW THESE RULES IS AN AUTOMATIC VACATING OF OFFICE
BY THE PARTY SO VIOLATING THESE RULES.
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
15. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
CONSTITUTIONAL
OATH OF OFFICE
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
15.151.
Employees and persons in service of state to take constitutional oath
of office
Sec.
1. All
persons now employed,
or
who may be employed by the state of Michigan, or any governmental
agency thereof, and all other persons in the service of the state or
any governmental agency,
shall,
as a condition of their employment, take and subscribe to the oath or
affirmation required of members of the legislature and other public
officers
by section 2 of article 16 of the constitution of 1908 of the state
of Michigan. [FN1]
[FN1]
See, now, Const. Art. 11, Sec. 1.
M.C.L.A.
49.33
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
ASSISTANTS,
CLERKS, AND INVESTIGATORS
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
49.33.
Statement of appointment, filing
Sec.
3. The
prosecuting attorney shall,
within
10 days
after entering on the execution of the duties of his office, file
in the office of the county clerk
a statement in writing of his appointments, designating 1 assistant
prosecuting attorney as chief assistant prosecuting attorney and
designating all other assistant prosecuting attorneys in the order in
which they shall rank in discharging the functions and performing the
duties of the office of prosecuting attorney.
M.C.L.A.
49.42
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
49.42.
Assistant prosecuting attorney; term, duties, oath, compensation
Sec.
2. Any
such assistant prosecuting attorney shall hold his office during the
pleasure of the prosecuting attorney appointing him, perform any and
all duties pertaining to the office of prosecuting attorney at such
time or times as he may be required so to do by the prosecuting
attorney and during the absence or disability from any cause of the
prosecuting attorney, but he shall be subject to all the legal
disqualifications and disabilities of the prosecuting attorney, and
shall before entering upon the duties of his office take and
subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this
state and file the same with the county clerk of his county.
The compensation of any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall be
paid by the prosecuting attorney appointing him.
M.C.L.A.
49.52
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
SECOND
ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
49.52.
Second assistant prosecuting attorneys; term, duties, oath,
compensation
Sec.
2. Any
such assistant prosecuting attorney shall
hold his office
during the pleasure of the prosecuting attorney appointing him,
perform any and all duties pertaining to the office of prosecuting
attorney at such time or times as he may be required so to do by the
prosecuting attorney and during the absence or disability from any
cause of the prosecuting attorney, but he shall be subject to all the
legal disqualifications and disabilities of the prosecuting attorney,
and
shall before entering upon the duties of his office, take and
subscribe to oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this
state and file the same with the county clerk of his county.
Any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall be allowed by the
county for his services such reasonable compensation as the board of
supervisors shall determine.
M.C.L.A.
85.10
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTERS
81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES
FOURTH
CLASS CITY ACT
CHAPTER
V. OFFICERS
QUALIFICATIONS,
OATH AND BOND OF OFFICE
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
85.10.
Oath of office
Sec.
10. All
officers elected or appointed in the city, within 10 days
after receiving notice of election or appointment, shall
take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the state
constitution of 1963 and file the oath with the city clerk.
M.C.L.A.
85.11
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTERS
81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES
FOURTH
CLASS CITY ACT
CHAPTER
V. OFFICERS
QUALIFICATIONS,
OATH AND BOND OF OFFICE
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
85.11.
Bond or security
Sec.
11. Each
officer
elected or appointed in the city, before
entering upon the duties of his or her office and within the time
prescribed for filing the official oath, shall file with the city
clerk the bond or security required by law, ordinance, or requirement
of the council with sureties approved by the council, for the due
performance of the duties of that person's office. The bond or
security of the clerk shall be deposited with the city treasurer.
M.C.L.A.
85.16
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTERS
81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES
FOURTH
CLASS CITY ACT
CHAPTER
V. OFFICERS
VACANCIES
IN OFFICE
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
85.16.
Failure to file oath or bond
Sec.
16. If
any person elected or appointed to office shall fail to take and file
the oath of office, or shall fail to give the bond or security
required for the due performance of the duties of his office, within
the time herein limited therefore, the council may declare the office
vacant,
unless previous thereto he shall file the oath and give the requisite
bond or security.
M.C.L.A.
168.467j
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
168. MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW
MICHIGAN
ELECTION LAW
CHAPTER
XXIA. JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
168.467j.
Oath
of office
Sec.
467j. Every
person
elected to the office of judge of the district court, before entering
upon the duties of his office, shall
take and subscribe to the oath as provided in section 1 of article 11
of the state constitution, and file the same with the secretary of
state and a copy with each county clerk in his district.
TAKE
SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING
M.C.L.A.
201.3
MICHIGAN
COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER
201. VACANCIES
IN OFFICE
RESIGNATIONS,
VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS VACANCIES
Current
through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28
to 58, and 61 to 100
201.3.
Vacancies;
creation
Sec.
3. Every
office shall become vacant, on the happening of any of the following
events, before the expiration of the term of such office:
1.
The death of the incumbent;
2.
His resignation;
3.
His removal from office;
4.
His ceasing to be an inhabitant of this state; or, if the office be
local, of the district, county, township, city, or village, for which
he shall have been appointed, or within which the duties of his
office are required to be discharged;
5.
His conviction of any infamous crime, or of any offense involving a
violation of his oath of office;
6.
The decision of a competent tribunal, declaring void his appointment,
or,
THIS> 7.
His
refusal or neglect to take his oath of office, or to give, or renew
any official bond, or to deposit such oath, or bond, in the manner
and within the time prescribed by law.
IN
SUMMATION YOUR HONOR
Clearly
your Honor one could easily and fairly come to the simple Lawful
conclusion that if a PARTY, CANDIDATE, OR ELECTED, OR APPOINTED
OFFICIAL truly desired to take an Official Office and actually hold
that Official Office Lawfully he or she would certainly timely follow
the Law and timely file within the (10) ten day requirement the
appropriate OATH OF OFFICE AND OR SURETY BONDS and that failing that
certainly the Record would be clear that he or she voluntarily
vacated that Office for failure to timely file or post that OATH OF
OFFICE AND OR SURETY BOND. It is about specific performance and
clearly your Honor ALL OFFICE HOLDERS as a condition of employment
are REQUIRED by statute, to file the appropriate OATH OF OFFICE and
post the appropriate SURETY BONDS or they automatically VACATE THEIR
OFFICE and having so vacated their OFFICE they would have no power or
authority to speak or act as a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH LAWFUL “
STANDING “ TO ACT OR SUE.\
A
party to a Lawsuit or claim must possess the capacity to sue or
prosecute their claims.
M.C.R. 2.201 (C), AN INCORPORATED ENTITY acquires
the capacity to SUE or prosecute their claims in the STATE OF
MICHIGAN through incorporation and /or compliance with the Laws of
the State of Michigan,
M.C.L.A. 450.1911.
The Plaintiff(s) AS A MATTER OF FACT, DO NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST
IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF THIS COMPLAINT AS BEING A
BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IS CIVILLY DEAD, SEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, YOU ARE CIVILLY DEAD! A
BANKRUPT CORPORATION!
Michigan
courts have consistently held that a dissolved Corporation is
essentially a
" DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT
CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW.
Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc.
145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S.
TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422, 243 NW 2nd
311 (a 1932 case).
THIS
COURT IS NOT THE TRUSTEE OF THE SAID UNITED STATES, NOR THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF
THE PLAINTIFF/S, AGENT/S WERE PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN THEIR
TIMELY OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED THEIR SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE
PROPER AUTHORITY. THIS COURT HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK FOR OR ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
NOR FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE PLAINTIFF/S, AGENT/S HAVE
NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged Defendant and any
claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!
Now
Michigan Courts have addressed the " STANDING TO SUE "
DOCTRINE in several cases. In Department of Social Services vs.
Baayoun 204 Mich. Appeals 170 , 514 NW 2nd 522 (a 1994 case), the
Court held that " STANDING
"
relates to position or situation of a Party relative to the cause of
action and other Parties at the time a Party seeks relief from the
Court. Now in Taylor vs. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, 205
Mich. App. 644, 517 NW 2nd 864 (a 1994 case), the Court held that
"
STANDING
"
is a legal term used to denote the existence of a Party's interest in
the outcome of litigation, which will assure sincere and vigorous
advocacy. The Court further stated for the Record that to have
"STANDING
"
a Party
MUST
DEMONSTRATE a
legally protected interest that is inM.C.L.A. 201.3
jeopardy
of being adversely affected and must allege a sufficient personal
stake in the outcome of the dispute to ensure that the controversy to
be adjudicated will be presented in an adversarial setting capable of
judicial resolution.
In
order to have standing, a party MUST
SHOW
a substantial interest and stake in the outcome of a controversy.
Further see; ROGAN Vs. MORTON, 167 Mich. App. 483, 423 NW 2nd 237 (
a 1988 case), which held, " STANDING",
AS A REQUISITE TO SUE, ensures that only those who have a
substantial interest in the outcome of a LAWSUIT will be allowed to
come into Court and Complain. Further see in support WHITE LAKE
IMPROVEMENT ASS'N vs. WHITEHALL, 22 Mich. App. 262, 177 NW 2nd 473
(a 1970 case ). Upon examination of these facts clearly THE
PLAINTIFF(S) ARE
NOT A PROPER PARTY, WITH STANDING, OR CAPACITY, TO BRING SUIT IN ANY
CAPACITY BEFORE THIS COURT FOR THEY DO NOT EXIST IN LAW OR FACT,
AND ARE CLEARLY CIVILLY DEAD IN FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY TO
SUE OR BRING CLAIM AGAINST ANY
PARTY
IN THIS COURT OR ANY MICHIGAN COURT AS THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY
SINCE 1933 AND IN FACT ARE IN RECEIVERSHIP AND ARE CIVILLY DEAD. SEE
CLEARFIELD BANK AND TRUST vs. UNITED STATES, 462 F. Supp. 1193 , SEE
THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE A STUDY IN JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS/ DIVERSITY.
OBVIOUSLY, PLAINTIFF(S) ARE A DEFACTO ENTITY , AND THEIR AGENTSARE
DEFACTO, A FICTION OF LAW A MERE NULLITY OR NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND
IN THIS CASE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT and this Alleged Defendant; THE
PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR CAPACITY TO LAWFULLY BRING
PLAINTIFF'S UNFOUNDED, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, OR SPURIOUS COMPLAINTS
BEFORE THIS COURT AND SUE. TO DO SO IS FRAUD, 100% FRAUD BY
PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS, CONTRACTORS,
EMPLOYEES, OR COUNSELORS.
I
REQUEST IN WRITING THAT YOU SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE!
THE
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
C.
Please also see Michigan Court Rule, 2.201(B)
ISSUES
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST " STANDING"
D.
FRAUD
FRAUD
is defined in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660
"
An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him
or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact,
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment……. of that which should have been disclosed, which
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive,
whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it
be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth,
or look,
or gesture. Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90,
464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A generic term, embracing all maltofarious
means ,…. which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted
to by one Individual to get advantage over another by false
suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning,
dissembling, and UNFAIR
way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald,
170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2nd 150 "
BAD FAITH "
and
" FRAUD "
are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity,
faithlessness, unfairness, etc."
WHEN
one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the
concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false and
FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION that what is disclosed is the whole truth
and nothing but the truth." and one can go on and on,...."
Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith
to disclose is equivalent to a false or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION,
thereby inducing a party to great injury, please see Leigh vs. Loyd ,
224 P 2d 356, Arizona 84 (1954 case) and further see " WHEN one
conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the
holding back of other facts FRAUD OR DECEIT may arise from silence
where the DUTY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, as well as prohibition from
speaking an UNTRUTH existed under the LAW, ALSO FURTHER SEE Morrison
vs. Acton, 198 P 2d 590, 68 Arizona 27 , (1948 case), which also
supports Leigh v. Loyd SUPRA.
In
short these cases go on, and on, and on, so ANY PARTY could be given
sufficient NOTICE OR WARNING of activitywhich would or could be
FRAUDULENT and books and books of considerable collections at LAW
LIBRARIES speak volumes to this very SUBJECT! Clearly the
Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known what they were doing to injure
me is/was wrong, FRAUDULENT, AND UNLAWFUL IN FACT. Now when such
activities of misinformation or disinformation or a specie of
silence, whose clear purpose it to mis-inform, or dis-inform a party
in interest of real facts and Lawful Rights then FRAUD
HAS CLEARLY BEEN DONE! Especially if a party has relied in GOOD
FAITH on such reliance’s to their very great injury, then clear and
UNLAWFUL, INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH HAS IN FACT OCCURRED AND THE
GOVERNMENT ENTITY, WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITY KNOWINGLY AND
WILLFULLY IS IN BREACH OF THEIR ORIGINAL CIVIC PURPOSE TRUSTEESHIP,
THEY WERE IN FACT CREATED TO PROTECT AGAINST! THIS IS A BREACH OF
FAITH SUBJECTING THE OFFENDING PARTY TO " QUO WARRANTO " OF
THEIR INTENDED GOVERNMENTAL ENFRANCHISED POWER OR RIGHTS, which were
originally created under their Corporation CHARTER pursuant to Public
Acts 231 of Public Acts, HOME RULE, OR CHARTER, for ALL GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES and that is just a fact. WE CLAIM FRAUD AND WE TIMELY OBJECT
TO ALL THE FRAUD IN THIS CASE AND FOR WARN THE PARTIES THAT LEGAL
ACTION IS EMINENT AND WILL BE COMMENCED VERY SHORTLY IF THIS MATTER
IS NOT TIMELY REPAIRED IN TOTAL TO MY COMPLETE SATISFACTION.
FAIR
WARNING IS FAIRLY GIVEN!
CLEARFIELD
DOCTRINE
The
Clearfield Case/Doctrine is a stare decisis upon all courts,
and imposes that an entity cannot Compel performance upon its
corporate rules unless it like any other corporation is the “Holder
in Due Course” of some contract or commercial agreement between it
and the one on whom its demands for performance is made, and is
willing to produce documents, and to place the same into evidence
before trying to enforce its demands.
The State Of MICHIGAN is a Bankrupt Corporation. Michigan courts have
also consistently held that a dissolved Corporation is essentially a
" DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT
CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW.
Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc.
145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S.
TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422, 243 NW 2nd
311 (a 1932 case). SEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, THIS RESOLUTIONS INDEED
MAKES THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CIVILLY DEAD! THEY
ARE BOTH BANKRUPT CORPORATIONS!
THIS
COURT IS NOT THE TRUSTEE OF THE SAID UNITED STATES, NOR THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF
THE PLAINTIFF/S, AGENT/S WERE PROPERLY LICENSED, SWORN THEIR TIMELY
OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED THEIR SURETY BONDS IN A TIMELY MANNER WITH
THE PROPER AUTHORITY. THIS COURT HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR OR ACT IN THE BEHALF OF THE BANKRUPT
CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER
THE PLAINTIFF/S, AGENT/S HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE
OR BRING CLAIM AGAINST THIS Alleged Defendant and any claims to the
contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!
Perhaps
the most concise example is from Patrick Henry: "The great
object is, that every man be armed ...Everyone who is able may have a
gun."
Attorney
General John Ashcroft on Right to Bear Arms
The
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual
right to keep and bear arms, explained U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft, by letter dated May 17, 2001, to James Jay Baker, Executive
Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for
Legislative Action. In the Attorney General’s letter it is the
opinion of the Attorney General that “ While I cannot comment on
any pending litigation, let me state unequivocally my view that the
text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protects
the rights of individuals to keep and bear firearms.
While
some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a
“collective” right of the States to maintain militias, I believe
that Amendment’s plan meaning and original intent prove otherwise.
Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second amendment protects
the rights of “the people” which the Supreme Court has noted is a
term of art that should be interpreted consistently through out the
Bill of Rights. United
States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (plurality opinion). Just as the First and
Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security
respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
deep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but
unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. See, e.g. Federalist
No. 45 (Madison); Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton); see also, Thomas
Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1764 (“No free man shall
ever be debarred the use of arms.”) George Mason at Virginia’s
U.S. Constitution ratification convention 1788 (“I ask, sir, what
is the militia? It is the whole people…To Disarm the people is the
best and most effectual way to enslave them.”)
This
is not a novel position. In early decisions, The United States
Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the
Second Amendment applied to individuals. See. e.g. Logan
v. United States,
144 U.S. 263, 276, (1892); Miller
v. Texas
153 U.S. 535, 538 (1893); Robertson
v. Baldwin,
165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897); Maxwell
v. Dow,
176 U.S. 581,597 (1900). Justice Story embraced the same view in his
influential Commentaries on the Constitution. See (3) J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution subsection 1890, p. 746 (1833). It
is the view that was adopted by The United States Attorney General
Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the
constitutionally of the first federal gun control statute, the
National Firearm Act of 1934.
I
REQUEST PROOF OF LAND OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN!
I
have studied the law and I am not a person under the Federal nor
State territorial jurisdiction of your agency.
“Indeed,
no more than an [affidavit]
is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United
States v. Kis,
685 f.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); Certiorari denied, 50 U.S.W. 2169. S.Ct
March
22, 1982.
THIS
IS THE LAND OF MY ANCESTOR’S AND THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN OWNS NO SUCH LAND!
“Special
provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction
from the states over places where the federal government shall
establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these
places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise
a general jurisdiction” [New Orleans v. Unite States, 35 U.S. (10
Pet.) 662 (1836)] Also U.S. vs. LOPEZ,
UNITED
STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995), CASE No. 93-1260. Argued
November 8, 1994, Decided April 26, 1995, A
TEXAS CASE.
“the
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or
right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed
... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise
municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the
limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is
expressly granted ...”
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 213, 221,
223]
Now
your Honor may it please this Honorable Court obviously some errors
have occurred in this case and NO PROOFS OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION
has been in fact proven by these Plaintiff(s)/ Claimants to this very
date. So it is clearly very premature for the Plaintiff(s) to be in
fact issuing a PLAINTIFF(S) PROPOSED ORDER IN THIS MATTER as we have
not even satisfied the basic standards of Review or PROPER IN REM OR
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION of the Plaintiff’s/ Petitioner’s
petitions or complaints. I OBJECT TO THAT AND AGAIN ISSUE MY FORMAL
CHALLENGES OF PROPER JURISDICTION and I invoke Michigan Court Rule
concerning REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST WITH “ STANDING “ to even
bring suit and I ALLEGE FRAUD ON THE CONTRACT.
MCR
2.116
WEST'S
MICHIGAN COURT RULES
CHAPTER
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER
2.100 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; SERVICE OF
PROCESS;
PLEADINGS; MOTIONS
Current
with amendments received through 2-15-96
RULE
2.116 SUMMARY DISPOSITION I SO MOTION THE COURT FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT YOUR HONOR MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT FAILURE TO STATE A VALID
CLAIM FOR WHICH THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN LAWFULLY GRANT ANY RELIEF TO
THE OPPOSING PARTY AND FURTHER STATE YOUR JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES,
BECAUSE ONCE JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGED IT MUST BE TIMELY PROVEN BY
THE PLAINTIFF(S) / CLAIMANT’S OF SAID JURISDICTION. THEY CAN’T DO
IT AND THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR ALL GOOD AND JUST CAUSE BEING
CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE RECORD
Not
a proper party with standing and NO OATH OF OFFICE TO ACT AS SAID
OFFICER IN AUTHORITY FOR HE IS A DEFACTO OFFICER.
Mr.
PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE , ESQUIRE, (P-12345), OTHERWISE
KNOWN FROM HERE ON OUT AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, IS NOT A PARTY IN
INTEREST WITH STANDING
OR
CAPACITY TO SUE OR PROSECUTE A CLAIM , ANY CLAIM, IN THIS CASE AND
NEITHER DOES THE PLAINTIFF(S) , WHO USE PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S
NAME HERE, (P-12345), AS A DEFACTO AGENT, ASSIGN, ACTOR, COUNSELOR,
CONTRACTOR, OR QUASI EMPLOYEE TO DO PLAINTIFF'S BIDDING OR TASKS.
Now
your Honor all the above duly considered, and not forgetting all
that has been currently filed document wise in this case to date of
the transgressions of these Plaintiff(s)/ Counter Defendant(s) the
simple fact of the matter is THE
PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR DEFACTO AGENT," PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ”,
WHO HAS NO TIMELY FILED OATH OF OFFICE ON FILE WITH EITHER THE CLERK
OF PUT COUNTY CLERK HERE, COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OR THE OFFICE OF
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT SEAL IN LANSING, TO
ACTUALLY OPERATE AS AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF'S, AND SIMPLY PUT DOES
NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE CAPACITY TO SUE, OR BRING THIS
FRIVOLOUS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT.
A
party to a Lawsuit must possess the capacity to sue or prosecute
their claims.
M.C.R. 2.201 (C), AN INCORPORATED ENTITY acquires the capacity to SUE
or prosecute their claims in the STATE OF MICHIGAN through
incorporation and /or compliance with the Laws of the State of
Michigan, M.C.L.A. 450.1911.
The Plaintiff(s) MATTER OF FACT DO
NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF
THIS COMPLAINT AS BEING A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD,
SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, and certainly did not
exist at the time of the alleged Plaintiff's Complaint and
Plaintiff(s)/APPELLEE(S) do not exist presently as a matter of fact
and LAW!! THEY ARE A CIVILLY DEAD, a BANKRUPT CORPORATION. .
PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE IN FACT LIARS AND PERJURERS ON THE RECORD, AND I
AM TRYING TO BE MY NORMAL POLITE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH!! THEY
LIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and assumed they would NEVER be caught!!
PLAINTIFF(S) YOU ARE CAUGHT, A STONE FACT!
Now
your Honor Michigan Courts have consistently held that a dissolved
Corporation is essentially a
" DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT
CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW.
Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc.
145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S.
TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422, 243 NW 2nd
311 (a 1932 case).
All
these cases assumed that at one time the Corporation was in fact in
existence LAWFULLY, but some how went into a state of dissolution.
THESE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE IN FACT A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY
DEAD ON THE RECORD OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AS SUCH BANKRUPT
CORPORATION PLAINTIFF(S) OPERATE AS A FICTION OR DEFACTO CORPORATION.
PLEASE SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192, JUNE 5th, 1933., ALSO NOTE
MR. PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE (P-12345) , IS NOT THE
TRUSTEE OF THAT STATE OF MICHIGAN BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF HE WAS PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN HIS TIMELY
OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED HIS SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE PROPER
AUTHORITY. HE HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR OR
ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE
PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged
Defendant and any claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!
The
Plaintiff(s)/ FLAT OUT LIED ON THE SWORN RECORD OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND THEIR ATTORNEY PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S
NAME HERE (P-12345) SWORE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PLAINTIFF(S) LIES
WERE TRUE IN FACT. SEE MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.114 (A), (B), (C), (D),
(E), AND (F) and clearly this is an ABUSE OF PROCESS NOT TO MENTION
PERJURY AND FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT, A CAPITOL FELONY, A FACT!!
Now
the Plaintiff(s) APPELLEE(S) are NOT
A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
TO
SUE, BECAUSE THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
192, JUNE 5TH, 1933, and
therefore the Plaintiff's/ APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT
ACTION IS BARRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW. Please see Michigan
Court Rule, 2.201(B)
ISSUES
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST " STANDING"
"
(B) Real Party in Interest. An action must be prosecuted in the name
of the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST."
THERE
IS NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH " THE PLAINTIFF(S), THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, which is FRAUD,
.,
a fraud, as they are NOT INCORPORATED LAWFULLY !! THEY ARE
CIVILLY DEAD!! They DO NOT EXIST IN LAW OR FACT!! HOW THEREFORE
DOES THE state of Michigan file complaint ONE? IT IS TOTALLY
IMPOSSIBLE!!
LASTLY:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES: MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.116(C)
WHAT
IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HOW DO I DEFEND AGAINST THIS OBVIOUS TACTIC
TO DENY ME A FAIR AND HONEST HEARING ON THIS CASE.
Now
this is a dirty tactic whose purpose is clearly designed to
discriminate against you getting your honest day in Court and a
chance to present your case and REDRESS YOUR LAWFUL GRIEVANCES. It
was created by Lawyers, who rather routinely look their noses down
on PRO SE Litigants who dare to come to Court and speak to the Court
themselves rather than hire a learned lawyer or attorney long
schooled in the art and practice of LAW.
Now
first we will give you the Court Rules on the subject and then we
will give you the defense or argument to allow you your day in Court
or give you considerable argument for your appeal of the case should
you be in fact discriminated against in this cowardly manner. You
see attorneys hate to get beat by a PRO SE LITIGANT and will do
ANY…..THING to avoid such a life long humiliation, because all
their buddy attorneys will rib them to death about “ HEY, YOU TAKE
ON ANY BIG CASES LATELY? DID YA WIN, HA HA, AND BEAT THAT PRO SE
LITIGANT?!!!!!” AWE SHUT UP IS THE RETORT BACK!!! “
So
we do want to WIN, HUH?!! Now read very carefully especially section
“ (C) “ as this section gives you all the reasons and of course
how to defend against this type legal manoover.
-
MCR
2.116 MICHIGAN COURT RULES
WEST'S
MICHIGAN COURT RULES
CHAPTER
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER
2.100 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; SERVICE OF
PROCESS;
PLEADINGS; MOTIONS
Current
with amendments received through 2-15-96
RULE
2.116 SUMMARY DISPOSITION
(A)
Judgment on Stipulated Facts.
(1)
The parties to a civil action may submit an agreed-upon stipulation
of facts to the court.
(2)
If the parties have stipulated to facts sufficient to enable the
court to render judgment in the action, the court shall do so.
(B)
Motion.
(1)
A party may move for dismissal of or judgment on all or part of a
claim in accordance with this rule. A party against whom a defense
is asserted may move under this rule for summary disposition of the
defense. A request for dismissal without prejudice under MCL
600.2912c; MSA 27A.2912(3) must be made by motion under MCR 2.116
and MCR 2.119.
-
NOTE
THIS ESPECIALLY IT IS A MUST
(2)
A motion under this rule may be filed at any time consistent with
subrule (D) and subrule (G)(1), but the hearing on a motion brought
by a party asserting a claim shall not take place
until at least 28 days after the opposing party was served with the
pleading stating the claim.
ESPECIALLY
NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
NOTE********(C)
Grounds. The motion
may be based on one or more of these grounds, and must specify the
grounds on which it is based:
THIS> (1)
The court lacks jurisdiction over the person or property.
THIS> (2)
The process issued in the action was insufficient.
(3)
The service of process was insufficient.
THIS> (4)
The court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.
THIS> (5)
The party asserting the claim lacks the legal capacity to sue.
(6)
Another action has been initiated between the same parties involving
the same claim.
THIS> (7)
The claim is barred because of release, payment, prior judgment,
immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds,
an agreement to arbitrate, infancy or other disability of the moving
party, or assignment or other disposition of the claim before
commencement of the action.
THIS> (8)
The opposing party has
failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
THIS> (9)
The opposing party has failed to state a valid defense to the claim
asserted against him or her. THIS
INCLUDES FAILURE TO PROPERLY NAME THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CALLED
FAILURE TO JOINDER THE PROPER PARTIES A FATAL ERROR AND THE CASE MUST
BE DISMISSED.
(10)
Except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or
partial judgment as a matter of law.
THIS> (D)
Time to Raise Defenses
and Objections. The
grounds listed in subrule I must be raised as follows:
THIS> (1)
The grounds listed in subrule I(1), (2), and (3)
must be raised in a party’s first motion under this rule or in the
party’s responsive pleading, whichever is filed first, or they are
waived. LACHES
INCURRS!!
NOW
your Honor may it please the Court the Plaintiff(s)/ Petitioner(s)
have further made numerous errors in their Petitions and Complaints
and I wish to further bring arguments as follows:
FORMAL
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND
CLAIM
OF FRAUD BY, PUT
YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith,
a real live human being natural person, as THE ACCOMMODATION PARTY
AND THE
HOLDER
IN DUE COURSE.
Now
first off PUT YOUR
Christian NAME IN HERE, John Edward, , Smith,
a real live natural human being, flesh and blood, natural person,
as The Holder in DUE COURSE of the STRAW MAN , PUT
NAME HERE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ( THAT IS THE STRAWMAN),
(
AN ARTIFICE, ARTIFICIAL PERSON, NOT A REAL FLESH AND BLOOD PERSON, A
CORPORATION OR PRIVILEGED ENTITY), AND I FORMALLY OBJECT AND DENY
OUTRIGHT THAT HE OWES TO PLAINTIFF(S) ANY JUST AND LAWFUL DEBT OR
DAMAGE AND LEAVES THE PLAINTIFF(S) TO THEIR STRICTEST PROOFS OF ANY
SUCH CLAIMS OF DEBTS IN A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. PUT
YOUR Christian NAME IN HERE
, The Holder in DUE COURSE, AND ACCOMMODATION PARTY, APPEARING IN
PROPRIA PERSONA, FORMALLY CLAIMS THAT SHE GAVE NO PERMISSION OR
AUTHORITY OR POWER OF ATTORNEY TO USE THE "STRAW MAN " ,
JOHN EDWARD SMITH,
AND AS THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE FIRST LIEN HOLDER CLAIMS FRAUD ON
THE CONTRACT, JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR COMPLAINT AND FRAUD VOIDS THE MOST
SACRED CONTRACT, PLEASE SEE, U.S. vs. TWEEL 550 U.S. 297, 299-300.
ALSO SEE THE FRAUD SECTION OF THIS ANSWER AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
AND OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SECTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO REVERSE THE PROGRAM
BACK ON THEM WITH OUR OWN SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
-
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF A PRO SE LITIGANT IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW
ACCORDING
TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!
Now
it appears to the Alleged Defendant(s), that the Plaintiff(s) and
the COURTS are in fact operating in a modified form of
SUMMARY JUDGMENT under
Political expediency, called “ PUBLIC
POLICY “ for the
specific purpose of enhancing THE PUBLIC POLICY that the KING CAN DO
NO WRONG, and you are just out of luck Alleged Defendant(s) for we
have no intention of letting you have your HONEST,
FAIR , AND JUST, day in
Court. MY COUNSEL
IS....." I WOULD RECONSIDER YOUR UNLAWFUL POSITION BEFORE
SERIOUS LITIGATION AND SANCTIONS ARE IN FACT INITIATED, BECAUSE ONCE
INITIATED THEY WILL NOT BE STOPPED UNTIL FULL SATISFACTION OF THE
CONTRACT IS TO BE HAD IN SPADES!!!! FAIR WARNING!!!! NO EXCEPTIONS
WILL BE MADE!!!! Please see the following for your immediate perusal
and understanding. THIS IS THE REAL LAW!
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF PRO SE LITIGANT
FURTHER
the Plaintiff(s) in this particular case are PRO SE LITIGANTS and WE
ARE not looking for any special treatment, or HIGH BREAD DEFENSE,
but are merely asking for our chance to get a fair and just hearing
on the merits of this case. The United States Supreme Court has
spoken quite emphatically on the issue of SUMMARY JUDGMENT as it
deals with the Pro Se Litigant. Unless it appears beyond absolute
doubt that the Plaintiff(s) Pro Se can prove no set of facts in
support of their claims, which would be entitled to relief before
this Honorable Court, Summary Judgment IS NOT POSSIBLE OF A PRO SE
LITIGANT.
The
Plaintiff Pro Se Complaint must be viewed in a light most favorable
to the Pro Se Litigant as the Pro Se Litigant is not held to the same
rigid, professional standards as a learned Attorney/ Counselor,
long schooled in the art and practice of the Law That the complaint
must be viewed most favorably to the Plaintiff(s), PRO SE are
presumed right until proven in Court wrong, and unless it is so
obviously spurious or so totally defective as to be moot ON IT’S
FACE, the case must be heard. Please see Conley vs. Gibson 355 U.S.
41 at 46-47 (1957 case). Also please see Hughs vs. Rowe 449 U.S. 5 AT
10 and U.S. vs. GAUBERT 113 L.Ed. 2nd 335 (1991 case). In McGuckin
vs. Smith et al 947 F2d 1050 (1992 case) the Court held that before
the District Court may dismiss a Pro Se litigant complaint for
failure to state a valid claim the Court must provide the Pro Se
Litigant an opportunity to amend the complaint and or fix any errors
prior to the dismissal and this has yet to be done in this case.
In
addition in U.S. SUPREME COURT in Scheuer vs. UNITED STATES 416 U.S.
232 AT 236 (A 1974 CASE) " WHEN A FEDERAL COURT REVIEWS THE
SUFFICIENCY OF A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE RECEPTION OF ANY EVIDENCE
EITHER BY AFFIDAVIT OR BY ADMISSIONS, ITS TASK IS NECESSARILY A
LIMITED ONE. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL
ULTIMATELY ON THE MERITS, BUT WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO
OFFER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACTUAL CLAIMS. INDEED IN MAY APPEAR ON
THE FACE OF THE PLEADING THAT RECOVERY IS VERY REMOTE AND UNLIKELY,
BUT THAT IS NOT THE TEST. THE TRUE TEST IS WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS
AFFORDED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT HIS CLAIMS TO
REDRESS HIS JUST GRIEVANCES. THEREFORE THE COURT MUST ACCEPT AS TRUE
ALL THE CLAIMANT'S FACTUAL PLEADINGS AND ALLEGATIONS AND DRAW FROM
THEM ALL REASONABLY FAVORABLE INFERENCES PLEASE SEE D.P.
ENTERPRISES Inc. vs. BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 725 F2D 943 AT
944 AND HAINES vs. KERNER 404 U.S. 519 (A1972 CASE) PRISONER PRO SE
COMPLAINT SEEKING RECOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT
AFFORDING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS CLAIMS.
NOW
CLEARLY THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS OR PROPOSED ORDERS ARE CONSIDERABLY
PREMATURE AND DID NOT EVEN AFFORD THE Alleged Defendant(s) AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TIMELY RESPOND WITHIN
THE 28 TWENTY EIGHT DAYS, M.C.R. 2.116(B)(2)(a), AND
CLEARLY THIS RUSH JOB BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IS DESIGNED TO CAUSE
THE PRO SE LITIGANT TO BE DENIED A PROPER EVIDENTIAL HEARING TO
PRESENT THEIR JUST CLAIMS FOR REDRESS. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES SET THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THAT STANDARD IS AT
LEAST AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT OUR EVIDENCE
AND OR CASE AND WE HAVE
YET TO GET THAT TOTAL REVIEW OF OUR CASE TO DATE. THEREFORE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE
BY LAW,
WHERE A PRO SE LITIGANT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
OPPORTUNITY AT A HEARING ON THE MERITS TO PRESENT THEIR FACTS AND OR
EVIDENCE, OR CASE IN CHIEF, TO AN INDEPENDENT TRIOR OF FACTS. Please
see … HAINES vs. KERNER, SUPRA. COUNSELS ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY
ARE MISINFORMED AND OR MISPLACED IN FACT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
SPOKE VERY CLEARLY IN STARAE DECISIS AND RES JUDICATA AND SAYS THIS
MANDATE MUST BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. Please see BUTLER vs.
UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 1-88, FOR THE
COURT IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO WHAT ALL OTHERS CAN SEE AND KNOW IS
WRONG, NOR MAY THE
COURT DO COVERTLY WHAT IS FORBIDDEN OVERTLY! THAT THE CONSTITUTION
IS TO BE PROTECTED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN, NOTHING ADDED TO OR TAKEN
AWAY FROM THAT CONSTITUTION, FOR
IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE WHERE THERE ARE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF A FACTUAL COMPLAINT. FURTHER the Alleged
Defendant(s) in this particular case are PRO SE LITIGANTS and they
are not looking for any special treatment, but are merely asking
for their chance to get a fair hearing on the merits of his case.
HAINES vs. KERNER 404 U.S. 519 (A1972 CASE) PRISONER PRO SE
COMPLAINT SEEKING RECOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT
AFFORDING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS CLAIMS. WE
ARE PRAYING BEFORE THE COURT FOR THIS SAME RIGHT ON HIS JUST AND
LAWFUL CLAIMS.
NOW
CLEARLY THE PLAINTIFF'S OR THE COURT'S MOTIONS ARE CONSIDERABLY
PREMATURE AND DID NOT EVEN AFFORD THE Alleged Defendant(s) AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TIMELY RESPOND WITHIN THE (14) FOURTEEN DAYS AND
CLEARLY THIS RUSH JOB BY THE PLAINTIFF(S) OR THE COURTS IS DESIGNED
TO CAUSE A PRO SE LITIGANT TO BE DENIED A PROPER EVIDENTIAL HEARING
TO PRESENT THEIR JUST CLAIMS FOR REDRESS.
THIS
IS AN UNLAWFUL ACTION AND ALL PARTIES ARE CLEARLY POSTED TO THAT
FACT. THE OPPOSING PARTY IN MY CASE TO DATE HAS FAILED TO TIMELY
RESPOND OR OTHERWISE BY CONTRAVENTION ARGUMENT EVER REFUTE THE BASIC
CHALLENGES RAISED PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIREMENTS, WHICH
THE Alleged Defendant(s) have continually and repetitively
challenged them to in fact do and to date no proper opportunity to
force the Plaintiff's or the Court to hold an honest hearing on the
merits and hold Plaintiff's feet to the fire so to speak has in fact
occurred to date and this is why these Alleged Defendant(s) NEED TO
GO FORWARD, SO JUSTICE WILL IN FACT BE DONE!! THE PLAINTIFF(S)
obviously do NOT wish to give these Alleged Defendant(s) their just
and honest day in Court TO REDRESS THEIR LAWFUL GRIEVANCES, for they
wish by trickery to SUMMARY JUDGMENT the Alleged Defendant(s) by
FRAUD serving this PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER FOR SUBMISSION OR
SIGNING BY THE COURT EVEN BEFORE THERE IS A HEARING OF THE CASE OR
THE (28) DAYS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER NOTICE ARE GIVEN! IT IS FRAUD
PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
NOW
your Honor obviously SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF A PRO SE LITIGANT IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE, JUST, OR PROPER JURIS PRUDENCE TO FOLLOW and I would
most respectfully encourage your Honor most respectfully to decide
in favor of PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg John Edward, , Smith, ,
who is the real aggrieved Party here before you today.
Now
WE are down to the chase here. I am presently preparing an ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON OUR
COUNTER CLAIM FOR THE INJURIES WRONGFULLY SUSTAINED BY THE Alleged
Defendant(s) and WE ARE going to sue THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, THE COUNTY OF ST CLAIR, ALL THEIR
LACKIES, AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS, EMPLOYEES, COUNSELORS, CONTRACTORS,
AND ANYBODY ELSE, WHO ENTERED INTO THIS CONTRACT TO DELIBERATELY
INJURE OR DEFRAUD US!!!!!
FAIR
WARNING IS GIVEN SO ALL PARTIES CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO
PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS HERE. WE ARE NOT SCREWING AROUND HERE. WE
REFUSE TO LET ANYBODY JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF US OR UNJUSTLY INJURE
US, OR WHO DELIBERATELY PUSH US AROUND AND STEAL OUR LAWFULLY OWNED
LAND ON SOME PRETEXT OF LAW JUST FIGURING WE ARE A PLUMP CHICKEN
RIPE FOR THE PLUCKING, ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE LITTLE CITIZENS AND LOOK
LIKE A GOOD EASY TARGET.
WE
ARE ALL DONE PLAYING AROUND HERE . Believe me these guys are in for
one hell of a fight, pure and simple and you would think that if
they took the time to read the briefs a child of three could see,
hey, these Alleged Defendant(s) do NOT know the meaning of the word
" QUIT " and maybe we should just leave these little guy
defendant(s) alone, before they really gets pissed and file
something "HEAVY DUTY" that we could not answer even on a
dare, WITH ALL KINDS OF BIG NUMBERS WITH 12 ZEROS TRAILING ON THEM.
I
am talking FIVE HUNDRED MILLION IN DAMAGES PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON
TOP OF THAT!!! NOW RAISE ME AND CALL AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE!!!!
WE GOT ALL KINDS OF TIME ON MY HANDS TO PERFECT MY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES
AND IT IS A LABOR OF LOVE FOR US TO DO IT!! SO " MAKE MY
DAY"!!! I love my GRAND KIDS HOW BOUT YOU??? DO YOU WANT THIS
SYSTEM TO BE A YOKE ON YOUR GRAND KIDS. Wake up and smell the
coffee!
NOW
DO NOT LET THESE BUMS GET AWAY WITH THIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT GARBAGE!
WHAT ABOUT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REDRESS YOUR GRIEVANCES?
They do not want to even give you a hearing, BECAUSE
THEY KNOW YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!
NOW SOCK IT TO THEM, AND DON’T
LET THEM
GET AWAY WITH THIS TREASON AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE AND
GOVERNMENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Come on now YOU CAN DO
IT!!
NO
LAWYER HAS EVER ANSWERED THESE ARGUMENTS NOR COULD HE OR SHE AND THE
REASON IS OBVIOUS THIS INFO IS IRREFUTABLE THE GOD’S OWN TRUTH,
AND I HAVE HAD MANY ATTORNEY STAND UP AND TELL THE COURT HE OR SHE
WAS CONFUSED HERE YOUR HONOR, AND I DON’T THINK ANYONE COULD
ANSWER THESE BRIEFS, AND THE JUDGE SAT BACK, SMILED, AND SAID I
WOULD AGREE!! SO WHAT IS YOU DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE YOUR HONOR,
AND THE ATTORNEY SAID WELL IF WE DON’T DROP THE CASE WE KNOW IT IS
GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT ON APPEAL, AND IT IS A
TOTALLY WASTE OF RESOURCES YOUR HONOR, SO PLAINTIFF’S CHOOSE WITH
REGRET, WE DECIDED TO JUST DROP THE CASE JUDGE, AND HOPEFULLY
DEFENDANT’S WILL NOT PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER! BOOM SAYS THE
JUDGES HAMMER SUBMIT YOUR ORDER FOR SIGNING!!
WHY
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IN FACT
AND LAW IS TECHNICALLY A CIVILLY DEAD ENTITY WITHOUT STANDING IN LAW
TO SUE OR MAKE COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYONE!
A
STONE FACT!! NOW YOU CHECK IT OUT !!!
MAKE
REAL SURE NOW!!
