Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups

4/4/16 UPDATE: One of my readers has brought to my attention that Shawna Cox, the same individual who read the entirety of the “redress of grievance” during one of those press conferences at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, has since renounced her affiliation with the sovereign citizenship ideology in the aftermath of her filing a Notice of Criminal Counter Suite Against Federal Employees on February 17th of 2016, when she initially declared herself to be a sovereign citizen. As a result, I have altered both the article and its picture to reflect this newest development. Also, I have removed the Freemen-on-the-Land advocates from the new article picture because as non-Americans, their inclusion was crowding out the actual sovereign citizens visually. Otherwise, this article remains largely unchanged.

[Download a PDF of this article]

“Stay away from the Freeman-on-the-Land and the sovereignty theories, they don’t work…and your ‘guru’ is not doing it himself…it’s all talk, it’s all theory, it’s all wishful thinking, and your ‘guru’ is going to get you in trouble…I’m sorry that you fell for it. I hope you haven’t put it to the test and found out for yourself. I hope you haven’t had to discover that it doesn’t work and end up in prison…I’m not quite sure who you think is succeeding with this stuff…I’m sorry that you think people are enforcing claims, trust indentures, UCC-1s, and liens. I’m sorry that you think that, but it’s not happening in reality.”

Ben Lowry

 

sovereign citizen collage redux

From top to bottom & left to right: Alfred Adask, Anna von Reitz, Bruce Doucette, Donald Barber, John David van Hove, J.M Sovereign Godsent, Mike School, Winston Shrout, & Tim Turner.

 

“Sovereign” citizens, briefly defined, are political dissidents whose misunderstanding of the government’s own laws entices them into believing that they can reign in Leviathan with nothing more that declaring themselves legally immune from governmental coercion. Their methods of using “fee schedules,” filing liens, and “Accepted for Value” have not been proven efficacious at all, thereby not satisfying Hitchens’ razor. Similarly, their rhetoric about the Title 4 flag, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the “corporate UNITED STATES” is simply nothing more than mere patriot mythology.

Despite this, the “sovereigns” have wormed back into the news cycle as well as the American patriot movement. In 2010, Tim Turner became President of the “Republic of the united States of America” (perhaps thinking that meant he was President of the United States), at least until he was indicted, convicted, and lost on appeal his case involving a variety of criminal violations between 2012 – 2014. On January 30th of 2015, the RuSA hijacked the simulcast of William Wolf’s lecture about Committees of Safety by claiming to the other simulcasters that only their live feed was stable enough to support all the out-of-state listeners; this subsequently gave the false impression that Committees of Safety are a “sovereign” citizen thing.

Throughout 2015, the “sovereigns” appear to be declaring themselves to be fake judges. Anna von Reitz declared herself an “Alaska State Superior Court Judge” in her Declaration of Judgeship on April 28th; Bruce Doucette, on May 23rd, signed his Oath for Constitutional Superior Court Judge, and Gary Darby signed his “oath of office” on August 24th. Last time I checked, it was statutorily illegal to impersonate a government agent, pursuant to Title 18 United States Code § 912 & Texas Penal Code § 37.11.

As you may remember, Bruce Doucette was the very same individual who worked alongside Rodger Marsh in order to sucker those Coloradan off-grid homesteaders into becoming “sovereign” citizens. Doucette swore in his “judgeship” a mere five months before the “Meet the Judge” event in Costilla County; similarly, Darby swore in his “judgeship” a mere six months before he made the now infamous phone call to that provost marshal, which was rightfully mocked once it became apparent that Darby wanted to sic the military against the Federal Bureau of Investigation during their operations in Harney County, Oregon. Unfortunately, “judge” Darby gave an interview to none other than vlogger Professor Doom, who gave such an air of credibility to Darby that another vlogger, Montagraph, rightfully schooled the “professor” for his tolerance of Darby’s nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that the “sovereign” citizens have been attempting to twist the Committee of Safety model to their own ends. It didn’t stop with just RuSA hijacking Wolf’s lecture, for Chris Briels and Duane Schrock of the Harney County Committee of Safety signed off on a document that was dated January 31st, which asserted that the FBI worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and as such, the Harney County Committee of Safety required the assistance of the provost marshal immediately to stop them. On a follow-up document that is dated February 5th, Darby wrote:

 

“Major: This letter was originally expected to be signed off by the Harney County Safety Committee and the Common Law Grand Jury…unfortunately, this was not possible because the invaders of Harney County are looking for them. These Americans are now deeply concerned of a reprisal against them both collectively and individually just for being part of a Constitutional Grand Jury. It is a fact, and it has been ‘Confirmed’ that the members of the Common Law Grand Jury and the Safety Committee of Harney County have been split up and placed in protective hiding in multiple locations because they are afraid of the FBI and likely BlackWater merceraries [sp] who are currently searching for these people.”

 

I sincerely doubt Briels and Schrock, or any of their fellow committeemen, were ever in hiding from anybody, especially considering that such a “fact” has never independently verified, to my knowledge. Nevertheless, the guilt by association of the Harney County Committee of Safety with a “citizens’ grand jury” is what Darby made here, and this is critical for understanding Doucette’s role in undermining the SLV Just Us group.

Simply put, Bruce Doucette’s purpose for his “Meet the Judge” event was the establishment of a “citizens’ grand jury,” who appeared to have issued a writ of mandamus on January 8th of 2016 “indicting” eight Costilla County government agents for “feloniously embezzling public funds.” On January 12th, Doucette convened a similar “citizens’ grand jury” in Harney County, for presumably the same ends. Why would a “sovereign” citizen bother setting up such a franchise in the first place?

Infinite Source Broadcast Network and Bards Logic Political Talk conducted roundtable-styled “interviews” with Bruce Doucette earlier this year. On January 26th and January 27th, Doucette admitted that he wanted to convene “Seventh Amendment courts;” this is a rather odd project, because the Seventh Amendment only “guarantees” the right to a jury trial in civil cases. He also admitted that he has established “superior court grand juries” in Colorado, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii; additionally, he said that he personally “trains” new “superior court judges.” On February 13th, Doucette claimed that he has had 17 years of experience in “restoring” the common law courts, and that the “Continental uNited States of America” (CuSA) has 15 – 20 “judges” and 15 – 20 “common law juries” right now in operation.

Interestingly enough, the National Liberty Alliance (NLA) was mentioned during two of Doucette’s interviews. In one, he said that CuSA has nothing to do with them, and in another, he said that John Daresh and the NLA are controlled opposition. According to an NLA document that is dated February 22nd, it says:

 

“Government agent provocateurs have been fueling a quasi-shadow government movement that essentially advocates the overthrow of the government. People in this movement, led by de facto Judge Anna Von Reitz, de facto Bruce Doucette and de facto god-graced Administrator Joaquin Folch, who have taken on these self-appointed titles, are duping people from the liberty movements looking for a solution to the subversion within our government who, being ignorant of the law, fall pretty to the Pied Pipers. Many who are following these de facto judges, actually believe them to be properly elected or appointed.”

 

This initially appears to jive more in line with what some of the off-grid homesteaders experienced with Operation Patriot Rally Point, yet, the only thing I am certain of at this point is that the NLA and the CuSA are at odds with each other, for whatever reason. Contrary to the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Fake judges appear to be the latest trend amongst these “sovereign” citizen demagogues, yet, when was the last time “sovereign” citizens went on a political fieldtrip? Have any one of them ever served on an actual government jury? Did they cancel their voter registration, or at the very least, reclaim their unclaimed property?

No, of course not, because that’s not the point, is it? Not only are “sovereign” citizens incompetent when it comes to legal opportunism (aka, “lawfare”), but they desire to proselytize falsehoods about “corporate governments” instead of the horrific truth that are the administrative agencies, which are the fourth branch of government. Instead of correcting economic illiteracy, as libertarians do, “sovereign” citizens seek to promote misinformation about the government’s laws.

What can be done, if anything, about these “sovereign” citizens? Unlike the federal government and their corporate “partners,” I know that false accusations of “paper terrorism” are unfair and unwarranted, especially in light of what terrorism legally means. Rather than entertaining reformism as an alternative to the “sovereigns,” I suggest the judicious use of vetting and ostracism in order to keep patriot groups as free as possible from the distracting influence of these useful idiots.

Like I’ve said before, skepticism is healthy. Blindly accepting the latest pabulum inspires the creation of satirical parodies just as a response to the utter lunacy swirling around us. Sadly, those who falsely imagine themselves to be “awake” prefer to think that “organizing” people necessarily involves counter-productive bickering, usually on Fascistbook. I’ll leave you with this observation made by Stefan Molyneux:

“It is our willingness to attack each other, it is our willingness to attack each other, it is our willingness to attach each other, that allows the hierarchy to continue; the State is not in Washington, the State is not in Moscow, the State is not in Tehran, the State is not in London; the State is in the defensive savagery of your fellow citizen who will emotionally abuse you, attack you, reject you, and ostracize you for pointing out the basic truths of our environment. To see the farm is to leave the farm; the farm is the willingness of your fellow slaves to attack you for pointing out the truth. You simply, if you want to be free (in my experience and opinion), you simply stop associating with people who will attack you for pointing out the basic moral, economic, and practical realities of our situation, of our life; the State survives, the State flourishes, the State exists ONLY because slaves praise it and attack fellow slaves for questioning its moral foundation.”

28 thoughts on “Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups

  1. Pingback: Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups • FPRN Radio

  2. Pingback: Citizens for Constitutional Freedom | cindyloulife

  3. These “Pooptriots” cant use a dictionary and you think they’ll understand Molyneux? Thats like taking a squirrel to the tigers den at the zoo.
    But seriously, The Sov-Cits movement has woven itself into the “patriot movement” and along the fringes of course is “Turner Diaries” types with all different flavors of racism/antisemitism and Dementia, capital D. Mix in some Alex Jones and Pete Santilli will their bullhorns blaring to the less intellectually fortunate amongst us, and you have a salivating, pitchfork wielding mob. (*except now they carry M-4’s) For the last several years, weekly faxes have gone out to LE Nationwide, from both the DoJ/FBI/DHS warning officers of the deep danger presented by these wholly crazy but absolutely, dead-seriously devoted.
    A nation, that is truly great… is only as big as its compassion. Justice & revenge are not the same thing, nor are they interchangeable. We all, who have perhaps even been sucked into this quagmire in the past, have to repetitively shout from the hilltops that this whole set of mis/dis beliefs is b.s.; period.
    There are times when I think these people (sov-cits) are in a dungeons and dragons mentality for hillbilly’s. Finally? For the LEADERS of this FAKE and patently DANGEROUS group, we must drop a building on them, remorselessly.
    A mentally ill person being sucked in, and used like David Fry, demonstrates the cash register ringing, but ill stand in the back cowardice of these phoneys, fakes and frauds. Thats why in a recent Twitter poll, 39% of respondents voted for a sentence of 30 years to life for the leaders of the #Oregonstandoff.

    • Mr. Wagner, would you be so kind as to hyperlink and/or upload a screenshot of that Twitter poll? I’d like to see that.

      Otherwise, your commentary is reflective of the antipathy the “sovereigns” cause with all of their disinformation. However, the problem doesn’t end there, for the federal government is eager to smear other types of dissidents, even anarchists, as if they were “sovereigns.” Much like the Islamists, the “sovereigns” are useful to the feds as a type of boogeyman, an Emmanuel Goldstein archetype by which to encourage a Two Minutes Hate by other Americans.

      Because of these subversions, whether it be from “sovereigns” or the neocons, is why I think it needs to be documented so that an objective history of the patriot movement can even have a chance of being written.

  4. Sovereign Citizen is an oxy moron. You can tell its made up by the media because the word literally contradicts itself. No one claims to be apart of this movement. Its just a way for the media to make freedom loving people look evil. Its a smear campaign against real freedom. Sovereign means king whereas citizen means subject. Its literally an oxymoron. Contradiction and proof of propaganda in America.

  5. Pingback: Fake Judges: How & Why Sovereign Citizens are Undermining Patriot Groups - Liberty Under Attack

    • Yup, that’s Ben Lowrey, when he blew the whistle on the Freeman-on-the-Land crap back on February 11th of 2013; it was so good it’s why I partially transcribed it, and used some of his words as the opening quote for this article.

      I would further suggest that people who want to see a more European critique of the “sovereignty” misunderstandings of the government’s own legalese to watch Lowrey’s other videos where he specifically debunks them, line-by-line.

  6. As one of the supposedly “fake” judges referenced in this hit piece, I have to observe that I am going about my lawful business unmolested by the Federales and if Ammon Bundy or any of these other fine patriots had listened to me instead of leaning on their own ignorance, they wouldn’t be in federal prison.

    As Mark Twain observed— it isn’t what we know that gets us in trouble. It’s what we THINK we know that just ain’t so.

    My sympathies and heart are 100% with these men, but the truth is that you can lead a horse to water, but….. as with Thomas Deegan in West Virginia, too.

    The further truth is that these men are all naturally “State Citizens” under Article IV, Section 2 of the Federal Constitution, but they are being mischaracterized and prosecuted as “citizens of the United States” under Amendment XIV of the Corporate Constitution instead.

    In their ignorance, they are clinging to this foreign political status— literally clinging to their chains—-and they are being prosecuted accordingly. Truly, I say to all of you that they will continue to be railroaded and “made examples of” and they will lose their good names and their property and spend many long years in jail and be held responsible for crimes they did not commit because they have forgotten who they are.

    Which is the same problem that causes them to mistake who I am, too. Time to wake up and ask yourselves—- am I a Puerto Rican?

    • Ms. Reitz,

      Are you saying that you did not declare yourself an “Alaska State Superior Court Judge,” according to the “declaration of judgeship” document that is dated April 28th of 2015?

      You might be interested in reading A Primer on State Citizenship, which was originally published on July 25th of 2014; in it, I covered the historicity of the Comity Clause (Art. IV § 2 cl. 1), as well as the fact that there are now two classes of American citizenship.

      If you are interested, I would appreciate any answers you’d be willing to give to my questions that I listed as bullet points towards the end of my article, Only on Paper: The Pathetic Story of Commercial Redemption, Freeman-on-the-Land, Sovereign Citizens, Lawful Rebellion, & Community Immunity, which was originally published on February 3rd of 2014. Should I be in error, I would be more than happy to be corrected by anyone who is more knowledgeable about the nuance and minutiae involved.

      Finally, would you also be interested in a moderated debate with me? I have participated in a moderated debate about the efficacy of protesting as well as an unmoderated one about the efficacy of jury nullification; obviously, I prefer the former style to the latter. Should this strike your fancy, please feel free to email me at the address hyperlinked towards the bottom of my “About/Contact” page (feel free to also use PGP, if you like; my public key is there). There is a selection of neutral moderators that you and I can choose from, and for the purpose of civil discourse, I would be open to negotiating with you whatever rules you think would be appropriate (for an example of what was done before, please listen to the beginning of the efficacy of protesting debate, when the rules were listed for the benefit of the audience).

    • You tell him Anna. I firmly believe this “Kyle” is nothing more than a spreader of deceit and I also believe this “hit piece” is a load of disinformation about who and what we are in this nation. There are many that are using sovereignty in an appropriate fashion and are winning against this defacto government. Kyle, “sovereign citizen” IS an oxymoron. You are either sovereign or you are a citizen. You are not both.

      • Rongil, did you even bother to check out the hyperlinks within this article in order to verify my claims, or have you already made up your mind because I have dared to approach the unapproachable? The fact of the matter is these faux common law advocates, of whichever flavor they claim to be (there used to be 5, including the “Freemen-on-the-Land,” but now there are at least 4 more that cropped up) don’t understand the government’s use of lawfare against the American citizenry, and they spread misinformation about what the government’s own laws say and mean. To call me a “spreader of deceit” when “judge” Reitz rarely cites her sources is intellectual dishonesty on your part, which unfortunately, reminds me of when I called out Ernie Tertlgte for not understanding Montana’s own statutory code that he cited in his vlog.

  7. I am an American State National (Article IV, Section 2). I am also an Alaskan owed the contractual provisions of The Alaska Statehood Compact, which guarantees the Equal Footing Doctrine. As such, I am lawfully exercising the Alaska State Session Laws (not the private corporate Session Laws of the State of Alaska) and the Alaska State Common Law Court System established therein. As you are aware there are indeed two populaces established from the beginning of this country— and there still are. Likewise there are established two court systems owed to the people— one an admiralty court system operating in the jurisdiction of the sea, the other an American Common Law court system operating on the jurisdiction of the land. There was additionally established an administrative court system under Article I to oversee the functioning and internal squabbling within the federal corporation itself. For people unaware of these facts (see Kyle Rearden, John Daresh, and their associates above) the common and ignorant assumption is that we should all be Bar Members and should be listed as judges or justices working for the “STATE OF ALASKA” or “STATE OF COLORADO” court systems, when in fact by Amendment of the people’s Constitution, we cannot be Bar Members and have nothing to do with the admiralty court system at all. The only lynch pin that is supposed to be connecting both the Common Law Court System owed to the people and the Admiralty Court System owed to the corporations is the Citizens Common Law Grand Jury which is enabled to hand down indictments to the Admiralty Courts and presentments to the American Common Law Courts. Mr. Daresh and his pals have been attempting to operate Common Law Grand Juries as US Citizens, which can only result in the creation of Martial Common Law Grand Juries operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea—- which is not, I think, the intention of the majority of NLA members or CLGJ organizers who wish instead to rebuild the American Common Law Court System we are owed and which is clearly stipulated as Amendment VII.

    And yes, you are correct that Jury Nullification, the absolute authority of 12 Americans to “try the law” is the absolute means by which the people rule. In the Common Law Court System, 12 Americans get to decide whether a law is just, whether it is appropriate, whether it should be enforced, and whether it should be thrown out. This is how our Common Law Court System provides us with the means to overturn any legislation we find impractical, offensive, unfair, or evil.

    It also provides us with the means to avoid conscription, confiscation, involuntary servitude, improper taxation, charges related to regulatory infractions, and a host of other evils.

    For these reasons it is absolutely imperative for Americans to get busy and form their Jural Assemblies and operate their own Common Law Courts. When we fail to do so, Federal Military Tribunals are authorized for the sake of public safety and peacekeeping to come into our states and railroad us under foreign Admiralty Law. That is what Milligan Ex Parte is about.

    As long as we run our own courts and adopt our own lawful identity as American State Nationals, these Admiralty Courts and Federal “State” Military Tribunals have no authority over us. It is only when we fail our duty to ourselves and our children to operate our own court system that these evils abound.

    Mr. Daresh and his buddies including Mr. Rearden will have to wake up and face the facts sooner or later, but the rest of us are not going to stand around twiddling our thumbs waiting for the Intelligence Fairy to appear and knock them over the heads.

    • Ms. Reitz,

      The only reason I quoted the National Liberty Alliance document from February 22nd earlier this year was to prove that there is virulent disagreement between various flavors of common law advocates (a verbal “turf war,” if you will). I am no friend of John Daresh and I have no interest in getting to know him or anyone else associated with the NLA, quite frankly. If you would like to know why, then please feel free to read my article entitled, Disingenious Activists! Why Leaderless Resistance is Preferable to Formal Organizations.

      If American constitutionalist patriots want to “organize” much of anything, I think Committees of Safety are the right way to go. I think the whole citizens’ grand jury thing fails to strike at the root of statism, which libertarians usually describe as being the monopoly on courts and police. Should you believe in “limited” government, then nothing less than establishing local Committees of Safety is what it’s going to take the restore constitutional republicanism; should you believe in no government, then the best route would be to develop the privatization of both security and adjudication services.

      Would I be correct in assuming that you are not interested, then, in either answering the bullet-pointed questions in my earlier Only on Paper article or having a moderated debate with me using a neutral moderator who will enforce the debate rules that you and I consent to?

  8. Pingback: The National Liberty Alliance is Attempting to Subvert the Committee of Safety Concept - Liberty Under Attack

  9. “crack a law book {B.A.R} swine…….i love the way you maggots try and convince people that you have a law license when law can NOT be licensed …..no such thing as a sov/cit………only the stupid listen to you dumb asses who know nothing in law……i have taken children from the state by law and NOT by jumping through their damn unlawful and illegal regime hoops of the criminal {B.A.R}….. schware v. the board of bar examiners 353 u.s 238,239,252,353 law can not be licensed for it is an open practice to all who can elucidate it…… Subject: Supreme Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law.

    If you ever get attacked for practicing law without a license.

    Reference Court Cases:

    * Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

    1. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)

    2. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594). The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propria persona.

    3. NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with “Unauthorized practice of law.”

    4. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.

    5. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases

    6. Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. “Next Friend” A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest…

    7. Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) “If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem.”

    8. Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.

    9. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

    10. Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who ‘takes on the mantel of sovereign’,”

    11. Oklahoma is a “Right to Work” State! Bill SJR1! Its OK to practice God`s law with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first! “There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God” U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)

    12. “The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) “The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same….

    • Ronnie, I have said repeatedly in interviews and elsewhere that I am not a lawyer, and I don’t have a license to practice law. That being said, there is copious literature dating at least as far back as the 1990s where sovcits like John David van Hove referred to himself and others of like mind as “sovereign citizens.” I did not invent the term, and neither did the government, ironically. Why you and others have told me repeatedly, either implicitly or explicitly, that the term “sovereign citizen” was invented by lawyers and/or the government simply reveals your ignorance of your own ideological history.

      Maybe if you and your cadre were willing to put up court documents and make them available as PDFs for free download, as Shane Radliff has done with various political prisoners, then maybe the efficacy of techniques like Accepted for Value can be reevaluated. Until that happens, American State Nationals and their versions thereof, are just engaged in magical thinking, and nothing more.

      I’m sorry if the truth hurts, but skepticism is the means towards wisdom.

  10. u.c.c 1-308 formerly 1-207…….reservation of rights….,plus {jut naturale},-{jus soli}….GODS rights for man,earths rights for man….the other that is illegal and unlawful is the {B.A.R} statutes-codes-ordinances that are in repugnance of the primary protocol of your rights or marbury v. madison 5 u.s. 137 {1903}…… ” Byars v. United States – 273 US 128 “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
    We are the the Beneficiaries……………….

    The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State’s citizens. TO grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 L.Ed.at page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

    7.” the relevant cases demonstraight that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a “judicial” one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

    8.some defendants urge that any acts “of a judicial nature” entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

    9. Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

    10. A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

    11. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest , are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882
    Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999

    12. Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right’s would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.
    Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.
    Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}…………

    my whole team recorded this post i sent to you to be considered……i hope you do post these comments…..i have many more facts that most do not know……let me know when your ready…..

  11. A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
    A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
    A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law).
    A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
    All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.
    “The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *