"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." [Offutt vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11]

"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition, PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically ignorant of the biological status of its subjects."

· Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).

"Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of two factors, 'an evil-meaning mind and an evil-doing hand...' ...Few areas of criminal law pose more difficulty than the proper definition of the MENS REA required for any particular crime. [Extended discussion then follows defining what the MENS REA is and is not]."· UNITED STATES VS. BAILEY, 444 U.S. 394, at 402 (1979

"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE." [emphasis added] Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. ( 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287

United States went "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and Executive Order 6260, (See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the "Trading With The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.

The several States of the Union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous committees, such as the "Council of State Governments", "Social Security Administration", etc., to purportedly deal with the contrived economic "Emergency" caused by the bankruptcy.

These Organizations operated under the "Declaration of Interdependence" of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in "The Book of the States."

NOTE: The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into such things as the "National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws", whose Headquarters Office is located at 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and "all" being "members of the Bar", and operating under a different "Constitution and by-laws" has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported statutory provisions, to "help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable." (See: 1990/1991 Reference Book, National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, pg. 2)

This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote "we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130)

The "original" 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment that reads: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530).

On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812.

Before a thirteenth State could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interrupted this very rapid move for ratification.

It is worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration Statement" pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv) & 612), when representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 613, Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)

According to 16 American jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, no "emergency" justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of Powers".

"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted IN a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are NOT altered by emergency." [Emphasis added] Home Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 290 US 426 (1934)

"The Constitution of the United States is a LAW for rulers and people equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection ALL classes of men, at ALL times, and under ALL circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was EVER invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of the government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or to despotism." [Emphasis added] U.S. Supreme Court in 1866

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. (See: the Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)

"Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars", Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people. (See: pg. 3 & 7).

The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41 10 further describes the International "Civil Affairs" operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the Agency for International Development is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at page 3-8, that the operation is "paramilitary." The International Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement and enforce a "DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES." (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186)

Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. (See: Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100- 70, Military Law Review, Vol. 70)

In the field of law we got removal of federal common law with the Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins case, 304 US 64; and the hodgepodging of the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known as "One Form Of Action"; as two of the main insanities dictated by the new owners. Law and Equity does not mix any better than oil and water.

Sometime between 1958 and 1970 admiralty was mixed in with the "One Form of Action" "civil actions". (See Rule 1 in the 1958 and 1970 Editions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Title 28 United States Code.)

In Federalist Paper No. 83 Hamilton expressed, "My convictions are equally strong that great advantages result from the separation of the equity and the law jurisdiction ..."

The Constitution establishes the three jurisdictions as separate in Article III.

It is a clearly established principle of law that a corporation being incorporeal and a creature of the law must be represented by an attorney. An attorney representing an artificial entity, such as the (de facto) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand.

A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 USC Section 612 et seq.).

See Victor Rabinowitz et. al. v Robert F. Kennedy 376 US 605.

Failure to file said "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement"…goes directly to the jurisdiction, and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC þþ 219, & 951.

The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious. "NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS." See Bible, Luke 16:13, Jeffery v Pounds, 67 Cal.App.3d 6, Cinema 5 v Cinerama 528 F 2d 1384, Easly v Brookline Trust 256 SW 2d 983. 45

In US v Woodly 726 F 2d 1328 and 751 F 2d 1008, it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another Department or others, is not an Article III de jure judge.

And in US v Ferreira 13 How 42 it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another (not independent), is only a commissioner under a treaty.

There is no authority under the Constitution for Statutory Administrative courts.

"We (Courts) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." (Emphasis added) Cohen v Virginia 6 Wheat 264

Judges who pretend judicial power without really having it, and when they act for foreign principals, violate 18 USC þþ 219 and 951.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principle than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Federalist Paper No. 78 Alexander Hamilton

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component, one of three well known systems of ethics: pagan, stoic or Christian.

The common law draws its subsistence from the later, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." [Emphasis added] Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So. 2d 727, 728.

"Legislatures cannot confer judicial powers or functions." Nickle v. School Board, 6 N.W.2nd 566, 571 (1953); George v.State, 55 So.2nd, 116. 1953)

"The term 'administrative law' is of comparatively recent origin and is not one of the traditionally recognized parts of the common law" 73 C.J.S.355.

"A de facto government exists after it has expelled the regularly constituted authorities from the seats of power and the public offices, and established its own functionaries in their places, so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation." Samuel Thomas, Sheriff v. Wm. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 703 (1869); Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 357, 370, Case No. 7,722 (1868)

"A government de facto … is a government that unlawfully gets the possession and control of the rightful legal government … and claims to exercise the powers thereof." Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 185 (1877)

It is a maxim of law that "a thing invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by a subsequent act." "[T]he Federal government … as a creature of that compact (the constitution), must be bound by it to its creators, the several States in the Union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights but such as that instrument confers." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, v. i., 318

"At the revolution the sovereignty devolved in the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects …" [Emphasis added] Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 436, 491 "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." [Emphasis added] Woo Lee v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." [Emphasis added] Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905) Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970): "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of duty to provide protection for private rights." [Emphasis added] Wynhamer v. People, 13 NY 378