WHY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION

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:

• ARGUMENT No. 2

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

• ARGUMENT No. 1

The alleged Defendant’s ANSWER AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF’S/ PETITIONER’S

• PROPOSED ORDER

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.

• MAJOR OBJECTIONS

1. 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

• ARGUMENT No. 2

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:

• A TYPE OF ARGUMENT

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!!