NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS
AND NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
“Proceedings in a court are legally void where there is an absence of jurisdiction.” Scott v. McNeal 154 US 34; Re: Bonner, 151 US 242.;
“The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” Article 4 section II of the U.S. Constitution, in its entirety. An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection’ it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425.
- “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises. “The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime.” Marchetti v. US, 390 US 39, 57; See v Seattle 387 US 541. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
- “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right from liability for they are deemed to know the law.”. “The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty.” Boyd v. U.S. (1886)116 U.S. 616.
- “The Fifth Amendment mandates that all judicial proceedings must proceed by due process. Since all judges take an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has additionally held that government employees who violate any law in the performance of duties do not represent the government, should we conclude that adjudication that is not within constitutional requirements nullifies any claim to jurisdiction? Surely it does. This is the only guarantee that a court of admiralty, a star chamber proceeding, a kangaroo court, or an arbitrary proceeding by whatever name does not occur. That court proceedings must be within constitutional provisions has been forcefully established by the Supreme Court.” Muskrat v. United States.
- “Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered”. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.
- If in Common Law Jurisdiction, then a verified complaint from an injured victim claiming damage caused to the victim by Defendant must be produced.
- If in Admiralty Jurisdiction, a contract that Defendant has violated must be produced.
- If in “Statutory Jurisdiction”, the “Rules For Statutory Procedure” must be produced.
- Statute is a (corporate) rule of of society given the power of law by mutual consent.
- In federal courts (all lawyers are international lawyers) once you cross over or into the BAR area, you agree to subject yourself (US Citizen/Fiction) to the Jurisdiction of the court based upon the Jurisdictional flag of the ship.
- A military court has no right to try a civilian (Sovereign) because it is a violation of the Geneva Convention (International Treaty). Any violation of my Rights, Freedom, or Property by the federal government, or any agent thereof, would be an illegal and unlawful excess, clearly outside the limited boundaries of federal jurisdiction.
- Therefore, all sovereigns commanded to appear should fire their lawyer and file a (demurrer) on the grounds of: A: Title 18 U.S.C. Was never voted into positive law and B: You are a civilian (A Sovereign state citizen) nor a U.S. Citizen or soldier and as such this court have no subject matter or personal Jurisdiction over you and is violating the Geneva Convention. Notice to the Geneva Convention of such atrocities will fall upon the president and so much for the judges future pension
- The jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution, quoted as follows:
- “The Congress shall have the power … 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 Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] 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 – To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”; and
- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: “The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
- The definition of the “United States” being used here, then, is limited to its territories:“THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE.” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287.
- The District of Columbia;
- Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
- U.S. Virgin Islands;
- American Samoa;
- Northern Mariana Islands;
- Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
- Military bases within the 50 states
- Federal agencies within the 50 states
- It does not include the 50 states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites: “We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.” Slaughter House Cases United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
- This is further confirmed by the IRS: Federal jurisdiction “includes:“TITLE 26>Subtitle C>CHAPTER 21>Subchapter C> §3121. Definitions
- the District of Columbia,
- the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
- the Virgin Islands,
- American Samoa.”
(e) State, United States, and citizen For purposes of this chapter— (1) State The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (2) United States, The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”
- In legal terminology, the word “includes” means “is limited to”.
- When referring to this “District” United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHIN” the United States. When referring to the 50 States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHOUT” the United States. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases prove that federal jurisdiction is limited to the few federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided:
- “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government,” – Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215
- “We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed,” - 44 U.S., at 221
- “[B]ecause, the United States have 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,” - 44 U.S., at 223
- “Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law,” - 44 U.S., at 228, 229. – Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229 (The same applies to this State, does it not?)
- Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the “territorial jurisdiction” of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 States. (Does this State belong to United States “territorial jurisdiction”?)
- “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.; “Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370”.
- Below are the seven issues of jurisdiction in any and every court case. Remember, if any one of these seven are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the case can't continue:
- The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT, any means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates the accused without doubt. (By the way, there is no constitutionally valid requirement that you must identify yourself to the judge or to anyone.) For stop and identify issues (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.
- The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders. If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. ("I'm sorry, your Honor. I assumed that the regulation indicated by that number was a legitimate statute. My secretary must have made an error.") For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
- The acts of alleged offense must be described in non- prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
- The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
- The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
- To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge). Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim. It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.
- The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue of personal jurisdiction. The seventh element (also element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court and to any trans- jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial long-arm statutes).
- SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS: Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many acts by Cops, prosecuto9rs, and Judges are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, The People is being prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law.
- See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of "regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules" Also Canons 1 through 9.
- Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)
- Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such as whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully ratified or failure to distinguish between Statute and Law constitutes Gross Negligence which constitutes fraud. If the courts were to address this type of question honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron special interests would be placed in jeopardy. This potential threat is not allowed nor will it ever be. It is much easier for the courts to label such potential threats as political questions, point to the lateness of the clock and refuse to hear or rule. Whatever the political representative does, it uses the facade of law to justify or reconcile it. The only way such questions will have force and effect is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.
- US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur's opinion on the 16th Amendment. You will see the beginnings and threat of disbarment of a certain "aggressive" licensed attorney. To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a good understanding of politics. This is especially so since government and the courts are primarily concerned with a public perception of the balancing of the scales of justice rather than the attainment of true justice under the law.
- Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become proficient in the political arena. By politics, we speak, not of the electoral process, but of the politics of association.
- Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man accused of breaking a "rule" for which he may suffer penalties of imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal charge against himself directly in court and thereby blunt his adversaries' attack. To the uninitiated, this may sound like madness, but to the political scholar destined to appear before a "master" to answer to alleged rule violation of the unauthorized practice of law, the self-accusatory route to the courts may be the only hope of victory; legal and political.
- As to “Practicing Law Without a License, there is no such thing as a “Law License”. Admittance to the BAR Association does not constitute “Licensing” nor does BAR attorney's have a “License” such a “Driver License” (If so, please show it). Furthermore, The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state” State Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. “The practice of law is an occupation of common right”, Sims v. Aherns, 271 s.w. 720 (1925)
THEREFORE; in addition to the fact that no unrevealed federal contract can obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and uncoerced consent, likewise,
- No federal laws or Statutes apply to me or have any jurisdiction over me; and
- I hereby affirm that I do not reside or work in any federal territory of the “District” United States, and that therefore no U.S. federal government laws have any authority over me; and
- Ignoring this Memorandum and Not abiding by it's Authorities violates Due Process.
FURTHERMORE; Citations Showing that "We the People" have the Right & Duty to Resist Tyrants who Masquerade as Our Constitutionally-Lawful Governmental Officers:
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257; (Pages: 547 & 177?)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,
is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose;
since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
“Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . .
“A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." . . .
“The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ...
Carpenter v. Carter, 298 US 296, 193
And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law - the “Lawmakers being the People themselves”, in whom under Our System All Political Power & Sovereignty primarily Resides, & through whom such Power & Sovereignty primarily Speaks.
It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible.
“We the people of the United States,” it says, “do ordain and establish this Constitution ...”
Ordain and Establish ! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly - “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ...”
The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance to the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication,must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict.
"Declaration of Independence" (Quote)
Oregon's Constitution, Article 1 Section 1. (Quote)