IN THE COURT OF Petitioner CASE#_________________ Vs JUDGE________________ ______________________________ Plaintiff JUDICIAL NOTICE; NOTICE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ALL COURTS ARE OPERATING UNDER (1) TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AS CODIFIED IN TITLE 50 USC, (2) TITLE 28 USC, CHAPTER 176, FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE, AND (3) FED.R.CIV.P. 4(j) UNDER TITLE 28 USC §1608, MAKING THE COURTS “FOREIGN STATES” TO THE PEOPLE BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE & IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL PROCEDURES (4) OBLIGATIONUALLY CONTRACTUALLY VIOLATION BY PARTIES UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT TO WE THE PEOPLE FOR PAY
STATEMENT OF ISSUES by: _______________________________agent Third Party ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE :* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.  That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.  It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.  Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987) Texas Penal Code Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code: (9) "Coercion" means a threat, however communicated: (A) to commit an offense; (B) to inflict bodily injury in the future on the person threatened or another; (C) to accuse a person of any offense; (D) to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; (E) to harm the credit or business repute of any person; or (F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action. (19) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if: (A) induced by force, threat, or fraud; (B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner; (C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or (D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense. (24) "Government" means: (A) the state; (B) a county, municipality, or political subdivision of the state; or (C) any branch or agency of the state, a county, municipality, or political subdivision. (30) "Law" means the constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county commissioners court, or a rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute. (41) "Public servant" means a person elected, selected, appointed, employed, or otherwise designated as one of the following, even if he has not yet qualified for office or assumed his duties: (A) an officer, employee, or agent of government; (B) a juror or grand juror; or (C) an arbitrator, referee, or other person who is authorized by law or private written agreement to hear or determine a cause or controversy; or (D) an attorney at law or notary public when participating in the performance of a governmental function; or (E) a candidate for nomination or election to public office; or (F) a person who is performing a governmental function under a claim of right although he is not legally qualified to do so. THE COUNTY OF, ________________, INC. THE STATE OF, __________________, INC. THE UNITED STATES, INC. Re: Alphanumeric Code E.I.N. or T.I.N. OR CASE # ------------------------- JUDICIAL NOTICE: NOTICE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ALL COURTS ARE OPERATING UNDER (1) TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AS CODIFIED IN TITLE 50 USC, (2) TITLE 28 USC, CHAPTER 176, FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE, AND (3) FED.R.CIV.P. 4(j) UNDER TITLE 28 USC §1608, MAKING THE COURTS “FOREIGN STATES” TO THE PEOPLE BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE AND IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL PROCEDURES (4) OBLIGATIONUALLY CONTRACTUALLY VIOLATION BY PARTIES UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT TO WE THE PEOPLE FOR PAY "IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO DECLARE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN. J.W. Seavey Hop Corp. v. Pollock, 20 Wn.2d 337,348-49, 147 P.2d 310 (1944), cited with approval in Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wn2d at 669. NOW, COMES _________________________Petitioner as of Right to challenge and set straight the jurisdiction of the Court on error of conviction / allegation by Plaintiff or Defendant, in violation of Constitutionally-Protected Rights, Due Process violation, Administrative Procedures violation, Judicial Procedures violation, Foreign State violation, violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act and violation of the Federal Debt Collection Procedure under 28 USC chapter 176. People Pay For Honest Service ISSUE ONE: PUBLIC OFFICIALS UNDER CONTRACT AS PER THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY LAW Those holding Public Office under the Constitution and Statutory Law have a WRITTEN contract with We The People. The contract clearly states there is compensation for the services. This compensation is for “Honest Service” as per WRITTEN contract / trust / charter, or whatever phrase that is used for the job position serving We The People. No one can hold such a position of trust without meeting the qualifications as found in the Statutes at Large; Oaths of Offices, and within the Constitution, Article VI 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.” In no place does the Constitution allow pay over and above the set compensation. Any other remuneration is dishonest service, and not part of the original WRITTEN contract We The People.
The federal statutes also address pay allotment. Federal and State funding and grants give allotment to all public offices. When the people have provided compensation to the public officials and then are further charged for services which have already received compensation, and then fail to get remedy, this becomes Honest Services fraud upon the people. When public offices sell their position for credit standing while receiving compensation from the people, this constitutes Honest Services fraud. When public officials use their public position to aid any other agency or department in order to enhance their own revenue, this is fraud, and to receive federal or grant funding in addition to their pay violates Honest Service. Any public official that receives funding in addition to their own compensation under the Constitution would be deemed to have overthrown a Constitutional form of government. Below are listed the foundations of public office.
The Petitioner well reminds the Court under Article III section 2 also deal in contract law. When the Eleventh was passed not only was judicial power restricted so was the law of contract, your offices comes now under common law private contract to the people under commerce condition to pay.
Article I Section 6 clause 1
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Article II section 1 clause 7 The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Article III section 1 clause 1 The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER I §5507. Officer affidavit; condition to pay An officer required by section 3332 of this title to file an affidavit may not be paid until the affidavit has been filed. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II
§3332. Officer affidavit; no consideration paid for appointment An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the appointment. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II §3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II §3333. Employee affidavit; loyalty and striking against the Government (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United States or in the government of the District of Columbia shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. (b) An affidavit is not required from an individual employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia for less than 60 days for sudden emergency work involving the loss of human life or the destruction of property. This subsection does not relieve an individual from liability for violation of section 7311 of this title. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart F > CHAPTER 73 > SUBCHAPTER II §7311. Loyalty and striking An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or (4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 93 > §1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 §1346. Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 15 §333. Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. EXAMPLE OF STATE FEES: RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL RULES Rule 3.3. Court fees (I) Fees
(A) Original Entries:
Civil Writ of Summons or Counterclaim (including set-off, recoupment, cross-claims and third-party claims) $ 130.00
Replevin $ 120.00
Landlord/Tenant entry $ 100.00
Registration of Foreign Judgment $ 150.00
Small Claims Entry and Counterclaim, $5000 or less (including set-off, recoupment, cross-claims and third-party claims) $72.00
Small Claims Transfer Fee $ 108.00
Small Claims Entry and Counterclaim, $5001 to $7500 (including set-off, recoupment, cross-claims and third-party claims) $ 127.00
(B) General and Miscellaneous
Motion for Periodic PaymentS $ 25.00
Petition to annul criminal record $ 100.00
Original writ $ 1.00
Writ of Execution $ 25.00
Petition for Ex Parte Attachment, or Writ of Trustee Process $ 25.00
Reissued Orders of Notice $ 25.00
Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice $ 225.00
(C) Certificates & Copies
Certificate of Judgment $ 10.00 Exemplification of Judgment $ 25.00 Certified Copies $ 5.00
All copied material (except transcripts) $ .50/page Computer Screen Printout $ .50/page
Pursuant to RSA 490:26-a, II, the sum of $25.00 shall be added to each civil filing fee set forth in paragraph (I)(A) above, except for the following types of cases which pursuant to RSA 490:26-a, II(b) are exempt from the surcharge: (III) Records Research Fees (A) Records Research Fees. Record information must be requested in writing and include the individual's full name and, if available, the individual's date of birth. A fee of $20 per name will be assessed per name for up to 5 names. Additional names will be assessed $5 per name. Record information must be requested in writing and include the individual's full name and, if available, the individual's date of birth. (B) The Clerk may waive the records research fee when a request for record information is made by a member of the media consistent with the public's right to access court records under the New Hampshire Constitution. FEDERAL OFFICIALS Table 1. Salaries of Federal Officials Position Jan. 2003 Jan. 2004 Jan. 2005 Legislative Branch Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate) $198,600 $203,000 $208,100 Speaker of the House of Representatives 198,600 203,000 208,100 President Pro Tempore of the Senate 171,900 175,700 180,100 Majority and Minority Leaders — House and Senate 171,900 175,700 180,100 Senators, Representatives, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, and Delegates 154,700 158,100 162,100 Judicial Branch Chief Justice of the United States $198,600 $203,000 $208,100 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court 190,100 194,300 199,200 Judges, U.S. Courts of Appeal 164,000 167,600 171,800 Judges, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services 164,000 167,600 171,800 Judges, U.S. District Courts 154,700 158,100 162,100 Judges, United States Court of Federal Claims 154,700 158,100 162,100 Judges, United States Court of International Trade 154,700 158,100 162,100 Judges, Tax Court of the United States 154,700 158,100 162,100 Judges, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 154,700 158,100 162,100 Bankruptcy Judges 142,300 145,500 149,132 Magistrate Judges 142,300 145,500 149,132 Executive Branch President of the United States a $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Executive Schedule Level I: Cabinet-level officials $171,900 $175,700 $180,100 Level II: Deputy secretaries of departments, secretaries of military departments, & heads of major agencies 154,700 158,100 162,100 Level III: Under secretaries of departments & heads of middle-level agencies 142,500 145,600 149,200 Level IV: Assistant secretaries & general counsels of departments, heads of minor agencies, members of certain boards & commissions 134,000 136,900 140,300 Level V: Administrators, commissioners, directors, & members of boards, commissions, or units of agencies 125,400 128,200 131,400
Clerk of Court
CLERK OF COURT: United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Manhattan, New York City, NY. Salary: $174,000 (2010). CLERK OF COURT: United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California. Sacramento, CA. Salary: $142,783 - $174,000 (2010). COURT CLERK 1: Second Judicial District Court. Washoe County, NV. Salary: $26,332 - $55,577 (2010). CLERK OF COURT: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Atlanta, GA. Salary: $156,734 - $162,900 (2009). CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT II: North Dakota Court System. Fargo, ND. Salary: $4,678 monthly starting salary with an increase to $4,871 monthly upon successful completion of probationary period (2009). CLERK OF COURT: United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. Los Angeles, California. Salary: $167,258 - $174,000 (2009). CLERK OF COURT: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. New Orleans, LA. Salary: $150,533 - $163,389 (2009). ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT: Office of Court Administration, Second Judicial District Court. Reno, Nevada. Salary: $71,614 - $103,854. (2009). CLERK OF THE COURT: United States District and Bankruptcy Court, District of Idaho. Boise, Idaho. CASE INITIATION CLERK: Eleventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta GA.. Salary: $35,161-$48,545. (2009) CLERK OF COURT: U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit. Pasadena, CA. Salary: $105,566 - $137,242; $105,566 - $137,242. (2009) DEPUTY COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2: Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Administration Division, Human Resource Division. Albuquerque, NM. Salary: $59,290 - $74,112/annually DOE. (2009) CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT: New Jersey Judiciary. NJ. Salary: $104,010 - $137,821. (2009) CLERK OF THE COURT: District Court of Oregon, Portland OR. Salary: $158,267 – 171,784. (2009) CLERICAL ASSISTANT: Office of Attorney Ethics, Supreme Court of NJ, AOC. Ewing, NJ. Salary: $18.00/hour. (2009) RECORDS CLERK: United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio; Cleveland, OH. Salary: $31,644 - $51,424. (2009) CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT II: North Dakota Court System; Fargo, ND. .. Salary: $4,678 monthly. (2009) CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Salary: $111,349 - $149,978. (2008) CLERK OF COURT: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids... Salary: $126,618 - $157,999 (2008) CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT: Circuit Court, Eau Clair County, WI. TSalary: $59,172 - $60,651 (2008) CLERK OF COURT: United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ.. Salary: $109,450 - $158,500 (2008) CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT: United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.. Salary: $111,349-$149,978. (2008) CLERK OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT: State of Maine Judicial Branch, Portland, ME. Salary: $50,533-$65,818. (2007) CLERK OF THE COURT II: Second District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake City, UT.. Salary: $20.06 – $24.92 per hour. (2007) CLERK OF COURT: United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York.. Salary: $154,600 - $165,200 (2007) STAFF ATTORNEY (Trial Court Law Clerk): Salary: $43,403.40 (2007) DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK OF THE COURT: Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, (work in Reno, Nevada) Salary: $80,122 - $124,218 (2007) CLERK OF COURT III: Salida, CO... Salary: $3,494 - $4,683 / Month. (2007) COUNTY CLERK: Whatcom County, Bellingham, WA. Salary: $67,500 - $93,168. (2006) COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.. Salary: Commensurate with experience. (2006) CLERK OF COURT: U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Alabama.. Salary: $138,685 - $150,664. (2006) CLERK OF THE COURT: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Salary: $141,422 - $153,637. (2006) CLERK OF THE COURT IV: Anchorage, Alaska. rectly to the Presiding Judge. Perform other duties as assigned by the ACA or Presiding Judge. Salary: $5,162.00 monthly. (2006) Chief Deputy Clerk of Court CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Atlanta, GA. Qualifications: Applicants must possess a minimum of six years of progressively responsible managerial or administrative experience, three of which must have involved extensive management responsibility, preferably in an appellate or federal court environment. Salary: $139,383 - $165,300 (2010). CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK (TYPE II): United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington. Seattle, WA. . Salary: $59,978 - $162,900 (2009). CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK: Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas-St. John District. St. Thomas and St. Croix, Virgin Islands.. Salary: $62,085 - $101,733 (2010). DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT: Maricopa County, AZ.. Salary: $93,600 to $108,160 (2009). Massachusetts Court 4.600 Classification and Wage Compensation Plan A. The Plan The Chief Justice for Administration and Management has established a system-wide position Classification and Wage Compensation Plan (Plan) in which positions have corresponding job descriptions and are evaluated and classified according to objective criteria using a weighted factor point methodology. This methodology allows for the evaluation of positions on the basis of such things as duties, responsibilities, and qualifications required for each position. Once evaluated, positions are then classified into compensation levels with corresponding salary ranges based upon the total of the weighted factor points. The Plan and its methodology are flexible and can respond to the operational needs of the Trial Court. Within this framework, positions and classification levels can be added or adjusted. B. Responsibilities Department heads are responsible for maintaining the correct classification of their employees at all times. Department heads are encouraged to contact the Human Resources Department before changing an employee's duties and responsibilities to see if an adjustment in position classification is appropriate. Following promotions, department heads are responsible for ensuring that the duties and responsibilities of the promoted employee are consistent with the employee's new position title and job description. The Human Resources Department has the ultimate responsibility for the administration of the Plan consistent with the policies established by the Chief Justice for Administration and Management. The procedures of this section may be subject to other requirements as set forth from time to time by the Chief Justice for Administration and Management. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER IV § 5531. Definitions For the purpose of section 5533 of this title— (1) “member” has the meaning given such term by section 101 (23) of title 37; (2) “position” means a civilian office or position (including a temporary, part-time, or intermittent position), appointive or elective, in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States (including a Government corporation and a nonappropriated fund instrumentality under the jurisdiction of the armed forces) or in the government of the District of Columbia; TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER I § 5306. Pay fixed by administrative action (A) employees in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government of the United States (except employees whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives) and of the government of the District of Columbia, whose rates of pay are fixed by administrative action under law and are not otherwise adjusted under this subchapter;
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER I § 5307. Limitation on certain payments 1) Except as otherwise permitted by or under law, or as otherwise provided under subsection (d), no allowance, differential, bonus, award, or other similar cash payment under this title may be paid to an employee in a calendar year if, or to the extent that, when added to the total basic pay paid or payable to such employee for service performed in such calendar year as an employee in the executive branch (or as an employee outside the executive branch to whom chapter 51 applies), such payment would cause the total to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for level I of the Executive Schedule, as of the end of such calendar year. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER VII § 5372. Administrative law judges (A) There shall be 3 levels of basic pay for administrative law judges (designated as AL–1, 2, and 3, respectively), and each such judge shall be paid at 1 of those levels, in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The Office of Personnel Management shall determine, in accordance with procedures which the Office shall by regulation prescribe, the level in which each administrative-law-judge position shall be placed and the qualifications to be required for appointment to each level. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER VII § 5374. Miscellaneous positions in the executive branch The head of the agency concerned shall fix the annual rate of basic pay for each position in the executive branch specifically referred to in, or covered by, a conforming change in statute made by section 305 of the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 422), or other position in the executive branch for which the annual pay is fixed at a rate of $18,500 or more under special provision of statute enacted before August 14, 1964, which is not placed in a level of the Executive Schedule set forth in subchapter II of this chapter, at a rate equal to the pay rate of a grade and step of the General Schedule set forth in section 5332 of this title. The head of the agency concerned shall report each action taken under this section to the Office of Personnel Management and publish a notice thereof in the Federal Register, except when the President determines that the report and publication would be contrary to the interest of national security. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER IV § 5533. Dual pay from more than one position; limitations; exceptions (a) Except as provided by subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, an individual is not entitled to receive basic pay from more than one position for more than an aggregate of 40 hours of work in one calendar week (Sunday through Saturday). (b) Except as otherwise provided by subsection (c) of this section, the Office of Personnel Management, subject to the supervision and control of the President, may prescribe regulations under which exceptions may be made to the restrictions in subsection (a) of this section when appropriate authority determines that the exceptions are warranted because personal services otherwise cannot be readily obtained. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER IV § 5536. Extra pay for extra services prohibited An employee or a member of a uniformed service whose pay or allowance is fixed by statute or regulation may not receive additional pay or allowance for the disbursement of public money or for any other service or duty, unless specifically authorized by law and the appropriation therefor specifically states that it is for the additional pay or allowance. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER IV § 5535. Extra pay for details prohibited (a) An officer may not receive pay in addition to the pay for his regular office for performing the duties of a vacant office as authorized by sections 3345–3347 of this title. (b) An employee may not receive— (1) additional pay or allowances for performing the duties of another employee; or (2) pay in addition to the regular pay received for employment held before his appointment or designation as acting for or instead of an occupant of another position or employment. This subsection does not prevent a regular and permanent appointment by promotion from a lower to a higher grade of employment. TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian; (4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that: (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
U.S. Department of Justice FY 2010 Budget Request PRISONS AND DETENTION + $386 million in Enhancements FY 2010 Overview The FY 2010 Budget provides $6.1 billion for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and $1.4 billion for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) to ensure that sentenced criminals and detainees are housed in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. The budget includes $386 million in program increases for BOP and OFDT. As a result of successful law enforcement policies targeting terrorism, immigration offenses, violent crime, drug crime, and other major crimes, the number of criminal suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow at a rapid pace, as does the number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated. BOP and OFDT have limited flexibility in how they perform these important tasks as their activities are primarily governed by statue. BOP and OFDT continue to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled the environments of prisons and contract- or community-based facilities. BOP also provides work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The FY 2010 Budget provides funding for an average daily detention population of nearly 61,000, increases detention bed space in the Southwest Border region, and provides for prisoner transportation and medical costs. The BOP operates 114 federal prisons and contracts for low security prison beds to confine approximately 205,000 inmates in FY 2009. BOP projects that the federal prison population will increase by approximately 4,500 in FY 2010. Therefore, the FY 2010 budget also expands federal prison capacity by funding the build-out and activation of two new medium security prisons (over 2,400 prison beds). It also provides for medical care and other operational increases, contract bed space, and over 1,000 additional correctional workers to help manage the larger inmate population. Bureau of Prisons (BOP): $243 million The BOP ensures that sentenced criminals are removed from society and housed in prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. An appropriately trained and equipped staff is one of the primary means of accomplishing this task. 1 Activation of FCI Mendota, CA (1,152 Beds) and FCI McDowell, WV (1,280 Beds): $102.1 million and 737 positions (350 correctional officers) to begin the process of equipping and staffing newly constructed prisons. When fully operational, these medium security facilities will house approximately 2,400 inmates. This enhancement funds constructive program opportunities for federal offenders, promoting an atmosphere conducive to positive change while they are incarcerated and better transition upon release. There are no current services for this initiative. BOP Staffing Increase: $70.6 million for increased BOP correctional officer staffing to effectively manage the growing inmate population at BOP institutions. BOP adheres to core values, which include correctional excellence. BOP staff are correctional workers first, and committed to the highest level of performance. However, operating the crowded Federal Prison System without commensurate personnel increases has placed severe demands on existing staff. Currently, 88 percent of the authorized correctional officer positions are filled. Insufficient staffing levels can seriously compromise the security of our federal prisons, endangering life and property. Current services for all of BOP staffing funded by the Salaries and Expenses appropriation is $3.6 billion. New and Existing Contract Beds: $53.4 million to procure 1,000 new contract beds ($27 million) and to pay for inflationary increases built into existing contracts ($26.4 million). The FY 2010 request provides full year funding for the 1,000 contract beds. Current services for contract beds is $798 million. Medical Increases: $16.7 million to pay for inflationary increases in medical costs ($16.7 million) needed to operate 115 federal institutions that are expected to house 171,524 offenders in FY 2010. On average in FY 2009, BOP will expend more than $2,700 per inmate annually for medical costs. (Note that the funding for medical costs for the inmates that will be housed in the two prisons that will be activated in FY 2010 is included in the $102.1 million Office of Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT): $143.2 million OFDT is responsible for providing secure detention space to individuals who have been arrested and await final disposition of their cases. Detainee Housing, Medical and Transportation: $98.6 million is provided in the budget to ensure that OFDT is able to pay for the housing, medical, and transportation costs for its detainee population. Recently, contract confinement costs have been increasing at a considerable rate. In addition, in many areas of the country, bed space is scarce, which has resulted in premium prices for existing beds. Consequently, OFDT is forced to pay an expensive premium in order to retain the beds for anticipated growth. The FY 2010 President’s Budget will support the anticipated average daily detainee population of 60,575. Current service resources are $928.7 million. Southwest Border and Immigration Enforcement: $44.6 million is provided for costs associated with prisoner detention and care for Southwest Border prosecutorial initiatives. This includes $371,000 to support increased human capital needs for office operations. This program increase is to accommodate the increased housing requirement for criminal aliens apprehended along the southwest border and prosecuted in U.S. district courts during FY 2010. It will support detention housing for 7,000 offenders apprehended by DHS and processed by USMS. Current services for this initiative is 366.7 million.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure – 18 USC Sec. 4121. Federal Prison Industries; board of directors "Federal Prison Industries", a government corporation of the District of Columbia, shall be administered by a board of six directors, appointed by the President to serve at the will of the
President without compensation.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Sec. 4122. Administration of Federal Prison Industries
(a) Federal Prison Industries shall determine in what manner and to what extent industrial operations shall be carried on in Federal penal and correctional institutions for the production of commodities for consumption in such institutions or for sale to the departments or agencies of the United States, but not for sale to the public in competition with private enterprise.
TITLE 18 > PART III > CHAPTER 307 §4127 Prison Industries report to Congress The board of directors of Federal Prison Industries shall submit an annual report to the Congress on the conduct of the business of the corporation during each fiscal year, and on the condition of its funds during such fiscal year. Such report shall include a statement of the amount of obligations issued under section 4129 (a)(1) during such fiscal year, and an estimate of the amount of obligations that will be so issued in the following fiscal year. Federal Prison Industries Summary UNICOR, the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), is a government-owned corporation that employs offenders incarcerated in correctional facilities under the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). UNICOR manufactures products and provides services that are sold to executive agencies in the federal government. FPI was created to serve as a means for managing, training, and rehabilitating inmates in the federal prison system through employment in one of its industries. The question of whether UNICOR is unfairly competing with private businesses, particularly small businesses, in the federal market has been and continues to be an issue of debate. The debate has been affected by tensions between competing interests that represent two social goods — the employment and rehabilitation of offenders and the need to protect jobs of law abiding citizens. At the core of the debate is UNICOR’s preferential treatment over the private sector. UNICOR’s enabling legislation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation require federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense (DOD), to procure products offered by UNICOR, unless authorized by UNICOR to solicit bids from the private sector. While federal agencies are not required to procure services provided by UNICOR they are encouraged to do so. It is this “mandatory source clause” that has drawn controversy over the years and is the subject of current legislation. Of the eligible inmates held in federal prisons, 19,720 or 18% are employed by UNICOR. By statute, UNICOR must be economically self-sustaining, thus it does not receive funding through congressional appropriations. In FY2005, FPI generated $765 million in sales. UNICOR uses the revenue it generates to purchase raw material and equipment; pay wages to inmates and staff; and invest in expansion of its facilities. Of the revenues generated by FPI’s products and services, approximately 74% go toward the purchase of raw material and equipment; 20% go toward staff salaries; and 6% go toward inmate salaries. In recent years, the Administration has made several efforts to mitigate the competitive advantage UNICOR has over the private sector. Going beyond the Administration’s efforts, Congress has taken legislative action to lessen the adverse impact FPI has caused on small businesses. For example, in 2002, 2003, and 2004, Congress passed legislation that modified FPI’s mandatory source clause with respect to procurements made by the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); in 2004, Congress passed legislation limiting funds appropriated for FY2004 to be used by federal agencies for the purchase of products or services manufactured by FPI under certain circumstances. Legislation introduced in the 110th Congress would address many of the same issues as legislation in the 109th Congress. Like legislation in the 109th Congress, legislation introduced in the 110th Congress, S. 1407, S. 1547, and S. 1548, would eliminate the requirement that some or all executive agencies purchase products or services from FPI in most cases. This report will be updated as warranted. As the federal prison system was established in the first decade of the 20th century, factories were constructed within the prisons to manufacture products needed by the federal government. Labor organizations had been making arguments against prison industries since the late 1800s due to the poor conditions in which inmates were working and their perception that the industries were taking jobs away from law abiding citizens. The Depression of the 1930s and the resulting high levels of unemployment crystalized the debate. UNICOR was established in 1934 under an executive order issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.9 The purpose of UNICOR was to consolidate the operations of all federal prison industries in order to provide training opportunities for inmates and “diversify the production of prison shops so that no individual industry would be substantially affected.” UNICOR is economically self-sustaining and does not receive funding through congressional appropriations. In FY2006, FPI generated $718 million in sales.17 UNICOR uses the revenue it generates to purchase raw material and equipment; pay wages to inmates and staff; and invest in expansion of its facilities. Of the revenues generated by FPI’s products and services, approximately 77% go toward the purchase of raw material and equipment; 18% go toward staff salaries; and 5% go toward inmate salaries. Inmates earn from $0.23 per hour up to a maximum of $1.15 per hour, depending on their proficiency and educational level, among other things. Under BOP’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, all inmates who have court ordered financial obligations must use at least 50% of their FPI income to satisfy those debts, which accounted for $2.7 million in FY2005; the rest may be retained by the inmate. 28 CFR 42.201
TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 42--NONDISCRIMINATION; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY;
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Subpart D--Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs--
Implementation of Section 815(c)(1) of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 [[Page 695]]
815(c) of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (42 U.S.C. 3789d(c); title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d; and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq., to the end that no person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied employment in connection with any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under either the Justice System Improvement Act or the Juvenile Justice Act by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the National Institute of Justice, or the Bureau of Justice Statistics. These regulations also implement Executive Order 12138, which requires all Federal agencies
awarding financial assistance to take certain steps to advance women's business enterprise. ISSUES TWO CURE FOR CONTRACTUALLY VIOLATION The Petitioner set forth the cure for contractually violation against the party to whom made contract with the people who hold such public office as found under the UNITED STATES Constitution Fourteen Amendment section 3 to public offices. Section 4 allow the Petitioner the collection of public debt under bounty ” Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” The Petitioner set forth such a bounty against the private party(s) to who made the contract agree with the people under condition to pay clause in order to hold such public office under section 3 of the 14th amendment in the amount of $150 million dollar for any such contractually violation against the public debt plus any amount of public debt accrued by that private party(s) in such a contractually agreement between them and the Petitioner at such time and place that is agree upon to conduct such contractually agreement. Such public debt shall then pay to the Petitioner upon the conclusion of such agreement by the party(s) entering to such contractually agreement at the time and place specified. If at the time and place specified no such agreement can be agreed to as to the public debt and an error was made by said parties the Petitioner will that of sweat equity of $1500 dollars for appearance fee and $250 per hour or any part of an hour spend their after. ISSUE THREE:
OATH OF OFFICE MAKES PUBLIC OFFICIALS “FOREIGN” 1. Those holding Federal or State public office, county or municipal office, under the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch, including Court Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement Department employees, Officers of the Court, and etc., before entering into these public offices, are required by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law to comply with Title 5 USC, Sec. §3331, “Oath of office.” State Officials are also required to meet this same obligation, according to State Constitutions and State statutory law. 2. All oaths of office come under 22 CFR, Foreign Relations, Sections §§92.12 - 92.30, and all who hold public office come under Title 8 USC, Section §1481 “Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.” 3. Under Title 22 USC, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section §611, a Public Official is considered a foreign agent. In order to hold public office, the candidate must file a true and complete registration statement with the State Attorney General as a foreign principle. 4. The Oath of Office requires the public official in his / her foreign state capacity to uphold the constitutional form of government or face consequences. Title 10 USC, Sec. §333, “Interference with State and Federal law” The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. 5. Such willful action, while serving in official capacity, violates Title 18 USC, Section §1918:
Title 18 USC, Section §1918 “Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the government” Whoever violates the provision of 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both. and also deprives claimants of “honest services: Title 18, Section §1346. Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” “For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. and the treaties that placed your public offices in that foreign state under international law and under the United Nation jurisdiction:
49 Stat. 3097; Treaty Series 881 CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
1945 IOIA –That the International Organizations Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; Title 22, Sections 288 to 2886 U.S.C.) the US relinquished every office TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101 The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states
JUDGE SERVES AS A DEBT COLLECTOR
6. Judges hold public office under Title 28 USC, Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedure: Title 28, Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section §3002 As used in this chapter: (2) “Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court. (3) “Debt” means— (A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or (B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States; (8) “Judgment” means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt. (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. Title 22 USC, Sec. §286. “Acceptance of membership by United States in International Monetary Fund,” states the following: The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. 8. Title 22 USC, Sec. § 286e-13, “Approval of fund pledge to sell gold to provide resources for Reserve Account of Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility Trust,” states the following: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to instruct the Fund's pledge to sell, if needed, up to 3,000,000 ounces of the Fund's gold, to restore the resources of the Reserve Account of the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility Trust to a level that would be sufficient to meet obligations of the Trust payable to lenders which have made loans to the Loan Account of the Trust that have been used for the purpose of financing programs to Fund members previously in arrears to the Fund. ISSUE FIVE:
NO IMMUNITY UNDER “COMMERCE” 9. All immunity of the United States, and all liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials have been waived under commerce, according to the following US Codes: Title 15 USC, Commerce, Sec. §1122, “Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials” (a) Waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. The United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall not be immune from suit in Federal or State court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for any violation under this Act. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity by States. Any State, instrumentality of a State or any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity for any violation under this Act.
Title 42 USC, Sec. §12202, “State immunity” A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State Title 42 USC, Sec. §2000d–7, “Civil rights remedies equalization” (a) General provision (1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. (2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State. 10. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 gives immunity in Administrative Court to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) only when an action is brought by the people against a public, agency or corporate official / department. Under Title 5 USC, Commerce, public offices or officials can be sanctioned. Title 5, USC, Sec. §551:
(10) “sanction” includes the whole or a part of an agency— (A) prohibition, requirement, limitation, or other condition affecting the freedom of a person; (B) withholding of relief; (C) imposition of penalty or fine; (D) destruction, taking, seizure, or withholding of property; (E) assessment of damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation, costs, charges, or fees; (F) requirement, revocation, or suspension of a license; or (G) taking other compulsory or restrictive action; 11. Justice is required to be BLIND while holding a SET OF SCALES and a TWO-EDGED SWORD. This symbolizes true justice. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (60 stat 237) would allow the sword to cut in either direction and give the judge immunity by holding his own court office accountable for honest service fraud, obstruction of justice, false statements, malicious prosecution and fraud placed upon the court. Any willful intent to uncover the EYES OF JUSTICE or TILT THE SCALES is a willful intent to deny Due Process, which violates Title 18 USC §1346, “Scheme or Artifice to Defraud,” by perpetrating a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. This is considered fraud and an overthrow of a constitutional form of government and the person depriving the honest service can be held accountable and face punishment under Title 18 USC and Title 42 USC and violates Title 28 USC judicial procedures. 12. Both Title 18 USC, Crime and Criminal Procedure, and Title 42 USC, Public Health and Welfare, allow the Petitioner to bring an action against the United States and/or the State agencies, departments, and employees for civil rights violations while dealing in commerce. All public officials are placed under Title10 section 333 while under a state of emergency. (Declared or undeclared War – falls under TWEA.) ISSUE SIX: COURTS OPERATING UNDER WAR POWERS ACT 13. The Courts are operating under the Emergency War Powers Act. The country has been under a declared “state of emergency” for the past 70 years resulting in the Constitution being suspended (See Title 50 USC Appendix – Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917). The Courts have been misusing Title 50 USC, Sec. §23, “Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges,” which provides for criminal jurisdiction over an “enemy of the state,” whereas, Petitioner comes under Title 50 USC Appendix Application Sec. §21, “Claims of naturalized citizens as affected by expatriation” which states the following: The claim of any naturalized American citizen under the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] shall not be denied on the ground of any presumption of expatriation which has arisen against him, under the second sentence of section 2 of the Act entitled “An Act in reference to the expatriation of citizens and their protection abroad,” approved March 2, 1907, if he shall give satisfactory evidence to the President, or the court, as the case may be, of his uninterrupted loyalty to the United States during his absence, and that he has returned to the United States, or that he, although desiring to return, has been prevented from so returning by circumstances beyond his control. 14. 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27 1868, states the following: PREAMBLE - Rights of American citizens in foreign states. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. SECTION I - Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. SECTION II - Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. SECTION III - Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868 15. The Courts and the States are enforcing the following code on American nationals: Title 50 USC Appendix App, Trading, Act, Sec. §4, “Licenses to enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance companies; change of name; doing business in United States,” as a result of the passage of The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 to Title 50 USC, Trading with the Enemy Act Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) October 6, 1917. The original Trading with the Enemy Act excluded the people of the United States from being classified as the enemy when involved in transactions wholly within the United States. The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, however, included the people of the United States as the enemy, by incorporating the following language into the Trading With The Enemy Act: “by any person within the United States.” The abuses perpetrated upon the American people are the result of Title 50 USC, Trading With The Enemy Act, which turned the American people into “enemy of the state.”
LANGUAGE NOT CLARIFIED
16. Clarification of language:
the Plaintiff _______________________ has failed to state the meaning or clarify the definition of words. The Petitioner places before the Court legal definitions and terms, along with NOTICE OF FOREIGN STATE STATUS OF THE COURT. This court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4(j), is, in fact and at law, a FOREIGN STATE as defined in Title 28 USC §1602, et. seq., the FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT of 1976, Pub. L. 94-583 (hereafter FSIA), and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction in the above captioned case. The above-mentioned “real party in interest” hereby demands full disclosure of the true and limited jurisdiction of this court. Any such failure violates 18 USC §1001, §1505, and §2331. This now violates the PATRIOT ACT, Section 800, Domestic terrorism. 17. There are three different and distinct forms of the “United States” as revealed by this case law: “The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context.” Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 336 336 (1818) The Court and its officers have failed to state which United States they represent, since they can represent only one, and it’s under Federal Debt Collection Procedure, as a corporation, the United States, Inc., and it’s satellite corporations have no jurisdiction ver Complaintant. An American national and a belligerent claimant, Complainant hereby asserts the right of immunity inherent in the 11th amendment: “The judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens of any Foreign State.” This court, by definition is a FOREIGN STATE, and is misusing the name of this Sovereign American by placing Complainant’s name in all capital letters, as well as by using Complainant’s last name to construe Complainant erroneously, as a “person” which is a “term of art” meaning: a creature of the law, an artificial being, and a CORPORATION or ens legis: “Ens Legis. L. Lat. A creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a natural person. Applied to corporations, considered as deriving their existence entirely from the law.” —Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951. 18. All complaints and suits against such CORPORATION, or ens legis, fall under the aforementioned FSIA and service of process must therefore be made by the clerk of the court, under Section 1608(a)(4) of Title 28 USC, 63 Stat. 111, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2658) [42 FR 6367, Feb. 2, 1977, as amended at 63 FR 16687, Apr. 6, 1998], to the Director of the Office of Special Consular Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, in Washington, D.C., exclusively, pursuant to 22 CFR §93.1 and §93.2. A copy of the FSIA must be filed with the complaint along with “a certified copy of the diplomatic note of transmittal,” and, “the certification shall state the date and place the documents were delivered.” The foregoing must be served upon the Chief Executive Officer and upon the Registered Agent of the designated CORPORATION or FOREIGN STATE. 19. MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, or STATE COURTS lack jurisdiction to hear any case since they fall under the definition of FOREIGN STATE, and under all related definitions below. Said jurisdiction lies with the “district court of the United States,” established by Congress in the states under Article III of the Constitution, which are “constitutional courts” and do not include the territorial courts created under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which are “legislative” courts. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L.Ed. 966 (1873), (See Title 28 USC, Rule 1101), exclusively, under the FSIA Statutes pursuant to 28 USC §1330. 20. It is an undisputed, conclusive presumption that the above-mentioned real party in interest is a not a CORPORATION, and, further, is not registered with any Secretary of State as a CORPORATION. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Prosecuting Attorney has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted to the Complaintant, a FATAL DEFECT, and, therefore, the instant case and all related matters must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of in personam, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction, as well as for improper Venue, as well as pursuant to the 11th amendment Foreign State Immunity. 21. Moreover, the process in the above-captioned case is not “regular on its face.” Regular on its Face -- “Process is said to be “regular on its face” when it proceeds from the court, officer, or body having authority of law to issue process of that nature, and which is legal in form, and contains nothing to notify, or fairly apprise any one that it is issued without authority.” TABLE OF DEFINITIONS Foreign Court The courts of a foreign state or nation. In the United States, this term is frequently applied to the courts of one of the States when their judgment or records are introduced in the courts of another. Foreign jurisdiction Any jurisdiction foreign to that of the forum; e.g., a sister state or another country. Also, the exercise by a state or nation jurisdiction beyond its own territory. Long-arm service of process is a form of such foreign or extraterritorial jurisdiction Foreign laws The laws of a foreign country, or of a sister state. In conflicts of law, the legal principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation. Foreign laws are additions to our own laws, and in that respect are called “jus receptum.” Foreign corporation A corporation doing business in one State though chartered or incorporated in another state is a foreign corporation as to the first state, and, as such, is required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions in order to do business in such first state. Under federal tax laws, a foreign corporation is one which is not organized under the law of one of the States or Territories of the United States. I.R.C. § 7701 (a) (5). Service of process on foreign corporation is governed by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 See also Corporation. Foreign service of process Service of process for the acquisition of jurisdiction by a court in the United States upon a person in a foreign country is prescribed by Fed R. Civ. P. 4 (i) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608. Service of process on foreign corporations is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (3). Foreign states Nations which are outside the United States. Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. Foreign immunity With respect to jurisdictional immunity of foreign states, see 28 USC, Sec. §1602 et seq. Title 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Sec. §1101(14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states. Profiteering Taking advantage of unusual or exceptional circumstance to make excessive profit; e.g. selling of scarce or essential goods at inflated price during time of emergency or war. Person In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute the term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representative, trusts, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, §2(1). Definition of the term “person” under Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75, Subchapter D, Sec. Sec. §7343 The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. A corporation is a ”person” within the meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution. Tertius interveniens A third party intervening; a third party who comes between the parties to a suit; one who interpleads. Gilbert's Forum Romanum. 47. Writ of error Coram nobis A common-law writ, the purpose of which is to correct a judgment in the same court in which it was rendered, on the ground of error of fact, for which it was statutes provides no other remedy, which fact did not appear of record, or was unknown to the court when judgment was pronounced, and which, if known would have prevented the judgment, and which was unknown, and could of reasonable diligence in time to have been otherwise presented to the court, unless he was prevented from so presenting them by duress, fear, or other sufficient cause. “A writ of error Coram nobis is a common-law writ of ancient origin devised by the judiciary, which constitutes a remedy for setting aside a judgment which for a valid reason should never have been rendered.” 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law. § 1610 (2004).“The principal function of the writ of error Coram nobis is to afford to the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding.” Black's Law Dictionary., 3rd ed., p. 1861; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 b., p. 145; Ford v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 718, 229 S.W.2d 470.At common law in England, it issued from the Court of Kings Bench to a judgment of that court. Its principal aim is to afford the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered. It is also said that at common law it lay to correct purely ministerial errors of the officers of the court. Furthermore, the above-mentioned “real party in interest” demands the strict adherence to Article IV, section one of the National Constitution so that in all matters before this court, the Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; and to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, still in force pursuant to Article VI of the National Constitution, so that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State," selective incorporation notwithstanding. The lex domicilii shall also depend upon the Natural Domicile of the above-mentioned “real party in interest.” The lex domicilii, involves the "law of the domicile" in the Conflict of Laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied. DECLARATION OF STATUS AND RIGHT OF AVOIDANCE The above-mentioned Petitioner, “the real party in interest” hereby declares the status of a “foreign state” as defined in 28 USC 1331(b)(1), as “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,” (in the instant case, “otherwise”), (b)(2), “an organ (a vital part) of a foreign state” and (b)(3), “neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c)” (a corporation, an insurer, or the legal representative of a decedent, an infant or an incompetent), “nor created under the laws of any third country.” Furthermore, the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is not an artificial, corporate “person” as defined and created by PUBLIC STATUTES, and is not a juristic person which may be “affected” by PUBLIC STATUTES; but, is invested with and bears the status, condition and character of “a sovereign without subjects.” The above-mentioned “real party in interest” is always and at all times present in his / her “asylum home state,” which is “the common case of the place of birth, domicilium originis,” also referred to as Natural Domicile, which is “the same as domicile of origin or domicile by birth,” (See Johnson v. Twenty-One Bales, 13 Fed.Cas. 863; Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition), which is the source and the seat of her sovereignty and immunity. Accordingly, the above-mentioned “real party in interest” exercises his /her Right of Avoidance and hereby rejects the offered commercial venture and declines to fuse with or to animate the above-mentioned Defendant in Error, or to stand as STRAWMAN “PERSON,” which is defined in Barron’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, (1996), as “a term referred to in commercial and property contexts when a transfer is made to a third party, the strawman “person”, simply for the purpose of retransferring to the transferror in order to accomplish some purpose not otherwise permitted,” i.e., obtaining jurisdiction over the above-mentioned “real party in interest” or relying upon the rebuttable presumption that the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is a corporation. The definition also contains the admonition to “See dummy,” which, at that entry is therein defined as “a strawman; a sham.” The above-mentioned party is, NOT a strawman, NOT a sham, and is certainly NOT a dummy. This DECLARATION OF STATUS constitutes a conclusive presumption, of which the court is bound to take NOTICE, that the “real party in interest” is NOT a corporation; and, the court can exercise no jurisdiction whatsoever over the “real party in interest” or in the above-captioned case, but is duty-bound according to the due process of the law, to which the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is a belligerent claimant, and by the Rule of Law to DISMISS AND REVERSE it. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – PERSON "This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910. The following case citation declares the undisputed distinction in fact and at law of the distinction between the term “persons,” which is the plural form of the term “person,” and the word “People” which is NOT the plural form of the term “person.” The above-mentioned “real party in interest” is NOT a subordinate “person,” “subject,” or “agent,” but is a “constituent,” in whom sovereignty abides, a member of the “Posterity of We, the People,” in whom sovereignty resides, and from whom the government has emanated: "The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." (Persons are not People).--Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943: "Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people" --Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794. "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." --supreme Court, Lansing v. Smith, 1829. “The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..." --supreme Court, 4 Wheat 402. "The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." --Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581. "While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people” --Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, page 370. "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." -- Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979). "Since in common usage the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941). "In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." -- U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947). "Since in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- US v. Fox 94 US 315. "In common usage the word ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign." -- U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: The following two case citations declare the undisputed doctrine, in fact and at law, that the word (term of art) “person” is a “general word,” and that the “people,” of whom the above-mentioned “real party in interest” is one, “are NOT bound by general words in statutes.” Therefore, statutes do not apply to, operate upon or affect the above-mentioned “real party in interest:” "The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., --Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice 612 F2d 417, 425 (1979). "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) he shall not be bound." -- The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "In the United States, sovereignty resides in people.” --Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330). "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." --Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."). Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction. Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."). The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant's due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) ("the actions, being statutory proceedings, ...were void for want of power to make them.") ("The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void."); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) ("The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it." In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute."); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) ("The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute."); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) ("Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction."). "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685. “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.” See 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. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." --Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." --Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." --Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof." --Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 (d). "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination." --Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910. “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.” --Owens v. The City of Independence, "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." --Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. “In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.” --Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."). “Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction.”--Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."). The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant's due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. --Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) ("the actions, being statutory proceedings, ...were void for want of power to make them.") ("The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void."); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) "The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it." In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute."); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) ("The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute."); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) ("Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction."). TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – LACK OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights. In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable.
When a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso 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 . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.
A majority of states including Virginia (see, Va. Code §8.01-195.3(3)), followed the English rule to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, 'Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983' 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969), pp. 326-27 and 29-30).
Also as early as 1806, in the United States there were recognized restrictions on the power of judges, as well as the placing of liability on judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction. In Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806), the Supreme Court confirmed the right to sue a judge for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute.
In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). The Circuit Court overturned this case and the judge was liable.
Judicial immunity may only extend to all judicial acts within the court’s jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but it does not extend to either criminal acts, or acts outside of official capacity or in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' see Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). “When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional provisions or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost.” --Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020 (1981).
As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), 'where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.' The constitutional requirement of due process of the law is indispensable:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived or life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Article V, National Constitution. “A judgment can be void . . . where the court acts in a manner contrary to due process.” --Am Jur 2d, §29 Void Judgments, p. 404. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." --Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. “Moreover, all proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.” --Olson v. Leith 71 Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342. “In criminal cases, certain constitutional errors require automatic reversal,” see State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 88, 139 N.W.2d 800, 807 (1966). TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – RECIPROCAL IMMUNITY AND FOREIGN AGENT REGISTRATION UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IMMUNITIES ACT,
PUBLIC LAW 79-291, 29 DECEMBER 1945(Public Law 291-79th Congress) TITLE I Section 2.(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract. (d) In so far as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments. Section 9. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations and of their officers and employees, and members of their families, suites, and servants, provided for in this title, shall be granted notwithstanding the fact that the similar privileges, exemptions, and immunities granted to a foreign government, its officers, or employees, may be conditioned upon the existence of reciprocity by that foreign government: Provided, That nothing contained in this title shall be construed as precluding the Secretary of State from withdrawing the privileges exemptions, and immunities herein provided from persons who are nationals of any foreign country on the ground that such country is failing to accord corresponding privileges, exemptions, and immunities to citizens of the United States. Also see 22 USC § 611 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE; and, 22 USC § 612, Registration statement, concerning the absolute requirement of registration with the Attorney General as a “foreign principal,” due to the undisputed status of the court and its alleged officers and employees as FOREIGN AGENTS, described supra. This requirement shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, an affidavit of non-communist association. CORPORATION NAMES DELAWARE CODE TITLE 8, Chapters 6, Section § 617: CORPORATE NAME The corporate name of a corporation organized under this chapter shall contain either a word or words descriptive of the professional service to be rendered by the corporation or shall contain the last names of 1 or more of its present, prospective or former shareholders or of persons who were associated with a predecessor person, partnership, corporation or other organization or whose name or names appeared in the name of such predecessor organization.
Texas Administrative Code Subject: 1 TAC § 79.31 CORPORATIONS (ENTITY NAMES) § 79.31. Characters of Print Acceptable in Names (a) Entity names may consist of letters of the Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals, and certain symbols capable of being reproduced on a standard English language typewriter, or combination thereof. (b) Only upper case or capitol letters, with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized. Delaware legislation, March 10 1899 “An Act Providing General Corporate Law” This Act allow the corporation to become a “PERSON” U.S. G.P.O. STYLE MANUAL 3. Capitalization Rules (See also Chapter 4 “Capitalization Examples” and Chapter 9 “Abbreviations and Letter Symbols”) Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table on Demonyms in Chapter 17 “Useful Tables” shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality. 5.23. In designating the natives of the States, the following forms will be used. SUPREME COURT RULING ON CORPORATE PERSON SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 A legal person, also called juridical person or juristic person, is a legal entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if they were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own. This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes
New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909)
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943)
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > § 7343
Sec. 7343. Definition of the term person.
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs ISSUE EIGHT: COURT LACKS JUDICIAL POWER IN LAW OR EQUITY Petitioner also points out that the Federal or State or County or municipal government can be sued in their corporate capacity when functioning as federal debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). If the Federal or State government can claim immunity under the 11th Amendment, then the Federal or State or County or municipal government cannot use Law or Equity jurisdiction against the Petitioner or the people in Court, since the people are not subject to a “foreign state” under Title 28 USC, Judicial Procedure, §§1602 -1610. The States are made up of “State Citizens,” and under the 11th Amendment, “State Citizens” cannot be sued by a “foreign state.” The Petitioner would like point out to the Federal or State or County or municipal government that Article III section 2 and the 11th Amendment of the Constitution are in conflict. The court cannot convene under Article III equity jurisdiction and then have its public officers claim 11th amendment immunity. The court is operating in a foreign state capacity against the people once the court officials take their oath, and they cannot have it both ways.
Article III Section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The ratification of the Eleventh Amendment on February 7, 1795 effectively altered Article III Section 2, and now “All” public offices are using the Eleventh Amendment as a defense against being sued, whereas, the Eleventh Amendment actually removed protection since judicial power no longer extended to any suit in Law or Equity, and subsequently afforded the people the same protection as any level of government. The people cannot be charged in Law or Equity claims by anyone in the government. The court only has one action as revealed by the Rules of Civil Procedure: “Rule 2—One form of Action : There is only one form of action – the civil action.” Civil action can be brought only by the people and not any level of government.
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The Petitioner is aware of the Stripping Doctrine. But the Constitution was amended again in 1868 to protect various civil rights, and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that amendment. The courts have recognized that this new amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the 11th Amendment. When Congress enacted legislation under the auspices of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, they specifically abrogated 11th Amendment immunity, and states can, under such federal statutes be prosecuted in federal court. The Petitioner will refer the Court’s attention to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court ruled that this Congressional enactment was unconstitutional. Civil Rights Acts (1866, 1870, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968) US legislation. The Civil Rights Act (1866) gave African-Americans citizenship and extended civil rights to all persons born in the USA (except Native Americans). The 1870 Act was passed to re-enact the previous measure, which was considered to be of dubious constitutionality. In 1883, the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the 1870 law. The 1875 Act was passed to outlaw discrimination in public places because of race or previous servitude. The act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (1883–85), (U.S. Supreme Court Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Civil Rights Cases Submitted October Term, 1882 Decided October 16th, 1888 109 U.S. 3) which stated that the 14th Amendment, the constitutional basis of the act, protected individual rights against infringement by the states, not by other individuals. The 1957 Act established the Civil Rights Commission to investigate violations of the 15th Amendment. The 1960 Act enabled court-appointed federal officials to protect black voting rights. An act of violence to obstruct a court order became a federal offence. The 1964 Act established as law equal rights for all citizens in voting, education, public accommodations and in federally-assisted programs. The 1968 Act guaranteed equal treatment in housing and real estate to all citizens No level of the Executive or Judicial government has ever introduced into any Court action a real party of interest under Rule 17. The Court has no jurisdiction under 12(b) (1), (2), (3) over the Petitioner or people. Decision and Rationale: The 8-1 decision of the Court was delivered by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, with John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky alone in dissent. The Court decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional. Neither the 13th nor the 14th amendment empowers the Congress to legislate in matters of racial discrimination in the private sector, Bradley wrote. “The 13th Amendment has respect, not to distinctions of race…but to slavery.…” The 14th Amendment, he continued, applied to State, not private, actions; furthermore, the abridgment of rights presented in this case are to be considered as “ordinary civil injuries” rather than the imposition of badges of slavery. Bradley commented that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the 14th Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, the Court limited the impact of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. ISSUE NINE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE UNDER TITLE 5 USC, SUBCHAPTER II The Petitioner reminds the Court that it is an Article I Administrative Court and lacks judicial power for review per the Eleventh Amendment. The Plaintiffs are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before moving to a judicial review on the Petitioner. The Petitioner was denied administrative remedies which violates judicial review and the requirement of honest service, for the Court lacks judicial power to hear this case under the Eleventh Amendment. (Not sure if the words are right.) If the Court claims it is in fact an Article 3 Court with judicial power under Article 3 section 2, then the Petitioner’s constitutionally-protected rights and statutory rights have been violated. The Court has failed to comply with protecting the rights of the Petitioner that a reasonable person would do under the Constitution and under the Bill Rights and the folllowing amendments: first, fourth fifth, seventh (a suit in common law), eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and the fourteenth.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND U.S. ATTORNEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the inferior courts and the Office of Attorney General, as well as the position of U. S. Attorney for each district. The history is set forth in the United States Attorneys’ Manual: The States Attorney General Office and all whom prosecute in the NAME OF THE STATE come under the same judiciary act which created the inferior Courts of the States. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL CHAPTER 3-2.000: United States Attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys, Special Assistants, and the AGAC 3-2.110 HISTORY The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment "in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States ... whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned ..." 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att'y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the "general superintendence and direction duties ..." While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att'y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States." See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519. 3-2.140 AUTHORITY Although the Attorney General has supervision over all litigation to which the United States or any agency thereof is a party, and has direction of all United States Attorneys, and their assistants, in the discharge of their respective duties (28 U.S.C. Secs. 514, 515, 519), each United States Attorney, within his/her district, has the responsibility and authority to: (a) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (b) prosecute or defend, for the government, all civil actions, suits, or proceedings in which the United States is concerned; (c) appear on behalf of the defendants in all civil actions, suits or proceedings pending in the district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to such officers, and by them paid into the Treasury; (d) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law unless satisfied upon investigation that justice does not require such proceedings; (e) make such reports as the Attorney General shall direct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547. The Attorney General has limited jurisdiction to prosecute. The jurisdiction derives from Article 1 section 8, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with Indian Tribes. The Office of Attorney General of the federal and State government and all employees under that office, lacks the authority to bring charges against the people it violate article I section 8 . Now that it has been shown that the position of Attorney General was created by Congress under the Judiciary Act of 1789, making the Prosecutor’s role Judicial, and not Executive / administrative, the Attorney General falls under the 11th amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” The Office of Attorney General, and all employees of the Office of Attorney General, lack the authority to set forth any action in any Court in LAW OR EQUITY, per the 11th amendment, as the Office clearly comes under “Judicial” and not “Executive.” By virtue of this grant of statutory authority and the practical realities of representing the United States throughout the country, United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. They are the principal federal law enforcement officers in their judicial districts. In the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion, United States Attorneys construe and implement the policy of the Department of Justice. Their professional abilities and the need for their impartiality in administering justice directly affect the public's perception of federal law enforcement. Now, by and through the 11th amendment, the Courts and the position of Attorney General no longer derive Article III Constitutional standing, but now have Article I administrative standing, thereby lacking any authority in Law or Equity, and limited to functioning as administrative review boards to hear cases against agencies, departments, and public officials brought by the people. The Courts and Prosecutors lack jurisdiction in any criminal action against the people, as they are, by Congressional mandate, administrative courts. They have no force in effect in Law or Equity, and any action is a “presumption,” which is in direct conflict with the constitution, statutory laws, Congressional mandate and the procedures, as the facts have been placed before the Court and the prosecution, or if the State, as such, is a defendant, it is then required to rebut or disprove that such Congressional mandate, as laid out in this document, does not exist. The Court’s only choice is to rule in favor of the Petitioner / People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines "presumption" as follows:
A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. ... A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence.
CONCLUSION AND RECTUM ROGARE The facts and the law contained herein are the Truth; and we hold said Truths to be self-evident; and self-evident Truths are undisputed and incontrovertible, no oral argument is requested, for no words can alter or overcome these Truths; an Truth is Sovereign: She comes from God and bears His message, from whatever quarter her great eyes may look down upon you; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Corinthians. 13:8; THEREFORE; this court must perform its duty under the Rule of Law, do Justice, Rectum Rogare, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND REVERSE the above-alphanumeric code # without delay for “Justice delayed is Justice denied.” Rectum Rogare - "to do right; to petition the judge to do right." --Black's Law Dictionary 4th edition. AMENDATORY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF MARCH 11, 1868 An Act to amend the act passed March 23, 1867, entitled, "An Act supplementary to 'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,' passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate their restoration. SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF FORTIETH CONGRESS. An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration. " This act created the 14th amendment federal citizen under section 3 of the federal constitution. All who hold public office fall under this section as UNITED STATES citizens. Those who hold office have knowingly and willingly given up their citizenship to this country under Title 8 Section §1481 to become a foreign state agent under 22 USC. The oath of office to the constitution requires office-holders to uphold and maintain our Constitutional form of government under the people’s authority. This right was never surrendered by the people; failure to do so violates 10 USC §333 and 18 USC §1918, chapter 115 §2382, §2383, §1505, §1001, §241, §242, 42 USC §1981 & 31 USC §3729 just to name a few. The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund comes under the Uniform Commercial Code under banking and business interest and Trust laws. This makes the Court / Judges trustee over the trust and responsible whether or not the Petitioner understands the trust issue. The 1933 bankruptcy act placed all public officials in a fiduciary position to write off the public debt, since this Nation is not solvent. The TWEA suspended the U.S. Constitution in the court room, and therefore, the standard American flag in the courtroom was replaced with a military Admiralty flag for dealing with alien enemy residents. The people never rescinded their nationality to the real united States of America. Those who hold public office rescinded their nationality to become a foreign agent in order to hold public office. International law requires the judge to uphold the people’s Constitutional form of government as defined in the “Federalist Papers”. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure / Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 only allows civil action, and under Rule 17, a real party of interest has to be present in the courtroom in order for there to be any claims of injury or damages against “the people.” Any charges under the “UNITED STATES” or “THE STATE OF……..” fall under the TWEA Section 23. The people are not subject to this jurisdiction as it is a Foreign State jurisdiction. The people hold 11th amendment immunity to claims in equity and commerce from a foreign state. The courts lack jurisdiction over the Complainant by Congressional mandate. For the aforestated reasons, the Respondent / Court lacks jurisdiction under Rule 4(j) & 12(b) (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) over this Complainant. Adversarial System; Mack vs. City of Detroit, Chief Justice Cavanagh, No. 118468, 2002. "The adversarial system ensures the best presentation of arguments and theories because each party is motivated to succeed. Moreover, the adversarial system attempts to ensure that an active judge refrain from allowing a preliminary understanding of the issues to improperly influence the final decision. This allows the judiciary to keep an open mind until the proofs and arguments have been adequately submitted. In spite of these underlying concerns, the majority today claims that the benefits of full briefing are simply a formality that can be discarded without care. The majority fails to comprehend how the skilled advocates in this case could have added anything insightful in the debate over the proper interpretation of a century's worth of precedent. Whatever its motivation, the majority undermines the foundations of our adversarial system. The Complainant is covered under Title 18 § 4 Misprision of felony & Title 31 USC §3729 False Claims as Whistle-blowers.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 § 4 Misprision of felony Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 37 > SUBCHAPTER III
§3729. False claims(a) Liability for Certain Acts.— Any person who— (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid; TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 37 > SUBCHAPTER III §3730 Civil actions for false claims (b) Actions by Private Persons.— (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. The action shall be brought in the name of the Government. The action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting. These are the laws as we know them—clear, precise and written by those with superior knowledge of the law: “LAWYERS”, not the people. The people cannot be held accountable if there is a failure to clarify or if its “incomprehensible, baseless assertions and citations to disjointed and/or irrelevant legal authority, grammatically, logically and legally incomprehensible, frivolous and unintelligible” or a conflict in the laws. This then goes back to those “LAWYERS” who created this conflict in law to be held accountable. Any failure for the judge to adhere is a violation under 18 USC 1001, 1346 1505, 2331 and 10 USC 333 This now violate the PATRIOT ACT SECTION 800 HOMELAND SECUIRTY and other Departments now has to be notify of domestic terrorism. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT Submitted this _______ day of _________________, 2010. ___________________________ PROOF OF SERVICE I, ______________________________the Petitioner comes with this, JUDICIAL NOTICE; NOTICE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ALL COURTS ARE OPERATING UNDER THE (1) “TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT” AND, (2) TITLE 28 USC, CHAPTER 176 “FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE,” MAKING THE COURTS “FOREIGN STATES” TO THE PEOPLE BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE, & IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL PROCEDURES being placed before the Clerk of Court of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF ____________________________________ on this day of ________ and month of______________________ in the year of our Lord 2010 AD.. __________________________ CC