In the Constitutional Court of Calloway County of Kentucky State
Supposed CASE NUMBER: 98-CR-00120
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTICKY
verses
MAURICE E. BRAHIER
Supposed Accused Maurice Edward, Brahier's Notices and Advisement concerning supposed entry upon the Court and records by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and it's MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA and supposed SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
BREIFED HEREIN No waiver to jurisdiction is applied
In the Constitutional Court of Calloway County of Kentucky State*
Before the Constitutional Circuit Court of Calloway County in Kentucky state*
Purported case number: 98-CR-00120*
PART 1 Continued matters of Factual Issue*
PART 2 The MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA:*
PART 3 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY OMPLIANCE*
NOTICE: Renee Maness is hereby added to the list of hostile witnesses for the defendant*
NOTICE: Randy Hutchins is hereby added to the list of hostile witnesses for the defendant.*
PART 4 MEMORANDUM AND GENERAL REFRENCE SECTION:*
A. The Constitutions*
A.1. The Thirteenth Amendment*
A.2. The Fourteenth Amendment*
A.3. Women and their place in society*
A.4. Back to Amendment XIII and XIV*
B. The United States verses United States*
B.1. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION*
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.*
Part 5 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND OTHER MATTERS*
Part 6 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT*
Part 7 FDR and the ensuing years, or the new Federalism*
Part 8 CONCLUSION*
Additional information and cases*
Certification of Mailings/delivery:*
Before the Constitutional Circuit Court of Calloway County in Kentucky state
Purported case number: 98-CR-00120
Maurice Edward, Brahier's (nemo me impune lacessit):
Notices and advisements to the court and or tribunal and its "OFFICERS" (if claimed and or present) (see RULES OF MILITARY COURT MARSHALL for necessity of; and, definition of: OFFICERS, and jurisdiction of: see also inclusions within the Constitutions for definition of Officers of government) and Mr. Dennis R. Foust (the possible judge)
Mark this well,
IN RE: COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY's supposed MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA submitted to COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY's own court as it is openly and notoriously listed in its heading: COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT, and the resulting supposed lawful ORDER TO SET HEARING issued by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY's own apparent judge in COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY(s) (own) CIRCUIT COURT
FACTS AND CONTINUED MATTERS FOR THE JURY, AS THEY WILL BE PRESENTED (though not strictly or solely limited hereby or hereto):
These factual issues have been previously and distinctly and succulently set forth upon the face of the record, by proper Notice and otherwise. Matters now rest within the realm of the jury should this colorable action continue.
In General: regarding these supposed lawful entries in the court which Maurice Edward, Brahier recently received, though addressed to some nom de guerre/misnomer, fictional, contrivance, created by the COURT and COMMONWEALTH.
PART 1 Continued matters of Factual Issue
A. The supposed judge (one of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY's own converted licensed attorneys) continues to display his apparent ready willingness to subvert the Constitution of the state and the united States and The United States. He continues to open this purported constitutional court for ready use by the unregistered foreign Agent (22 USC) of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Michael D. Ward. He appears to continue to fraudulently represent his authority to issue orders to and against the sovereign People of the state, in what apparently attempts to represent itself as the people's state and county and Circuit Court of constitutional nature. Further, he apparently makes himself a contributing party to the fact, of the continuing fraud and deception being perpetrated upon the people by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and its Agents and or OFFICERS. Unless he allows this only under guise of "all courts shall be open". It is time for him to clarify this and other matters.
B. This party (Michael D. Ward) has granted (or attempted to grant) himself another title of nobility. He now claims that somehow he is an HON (honorable) citizen, subject or noble. It is not unlike these Agent provocateurs to grant themselves these titles in complete disregard for this Constitutionally stated forbidden aspect. These parties regularly claim Honorable, Esquire, and other supposed titles of nobility and or imperial authority. It is clear, the self-inflated egos of these parties are abhorrent, obtrusive and completely without warrant. To be called honorable, one must earn such by clear showing, and rarely is such "self-proclaimed" by the one whom is honorable, as these people know (within themselves) they are honorable and need no constant false or outside re-enforcement, their actions and activities cause others to extend this courtesy (see grammatical Forms of Address for where and whom may use or claim HON or Honorable)(Of special note: Attorneys have laid claim to be Esquires (a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight, or, a candidate for knighthood serving as a shield bearer and attendant to a knight), a title of nobility: once a claim is made of nobility, the Constitutional rules and law governing nobility come into play: they may not hold Office, may not represent the People or the government: any party or person who has laid claim to being an Esquire or other noble, is forever bared from public Office. (See Section 9 para. 8( U.S. Const.)and generally who may hold Office (Citizens) and the requirements thereof: see also Kentucky Const., U.S.CT. reference: nobility; nobleman: titles)
Further, all these Agents and OFFICERS of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY have renounced their sovereignty and Citizenship within and under the State (and state) of Kentucky and within and under the (U)(u)nited States of America and come before any court or tribunals as AGENTS, and or OFFICERS, and subjects of the government(s) (citizens), and hence have no inherent and inalienable Rights, only strictly limited privileges and benefits, which can not exceed, demean, diminish, remove, hamper, harm, hinder or otherwise interfere with, Rights of the Citizens and or sovereign People.
C. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY has hundreds, if not thousands, of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ATTORNEYs/Agents/OFFICERS from which to draw a supposed "prosecutor" for this colorable action, it also has an ASS or two that are available within the county. It is clear that Michael D. Ward suffers from sort of delusional belief that he is needed; that COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY can not proceed with this colorable action without him, particularly when brought apparently before COMMONWEALH's own judge, and in COMMONWEALTH's own court, not apparently the State of Kentucky's court and the people's state Constitutional court. NOTE: Kentucky's courts apparently lost all semblance and authority of constitutionality when common-law was outlawed/removed. They became and are, apparently, "legislative" COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (insert corporate names) COURT(S), of Admiralty/Equity/ imperial((Kings Bench)Star Chamber)/military statute form, hence they have no constitutional authority to start with, only "legislated" "statute (corporate by-laws)" authority, and must always at the onset, openly and clearly show privilege and jurisdiction to attack, harm, hinder, delay, or otherwise, the people of non-subject (non-citizen/non-enfranchised person) status or they commit acts of aggression against and violate the Constitutional protections and Rights of these People. It is to no-ones benefit (save for a few select individuals, corporations, businesses, and limited others) to claim status as a citizen/subject anywhere (save possibly in a overseas nation, then one lays claim to Citizen status (not citizen)), as it removes the Constitutional protections and provisions and allows "statute benefits and privileges" (which may be removed, ignored or denied) granted by and through the corporate governments to be "the supreme ruling law".
D. As the Kentucky Constitution (new version) emphatically states:Sec. 9 "... the jury shall try the law and the fact,... as in other cases." and at Sec.7 "The ancient mode of trial by jury shall be held sacred, and the Right thereof remain inviolate,...", they (the jury) are the sole and only authority which has this Right. However, the judges of "legislative" COURTS have declared that they are the only "authority" who can try and rule on "law", in direct and open defiance and violation of the Constitutions. NO court or judge or legislature may create law, rule, or otherwise which removes this Constitutional protection and ancient Right of the jury and ancient mode of jury trials.(Kentucky Constitution at Sec.7 and Sec.9 and Sec.26: "new" version) The jury will be properly advised of this ancient mode of jury trials and what it actually entails, is allowed, and their responsibilities.
Michael D. Ward claims to have proceeded lawfully and purportedly constitutionally before the courts and Grand Juries. Michael D. Ward was informed (and through him and or the court, were all Agents of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (either directly or indirectly)), that the Grand Jury transcripts (and other documents and otherwise) were and are required for review by Maurice Edward, Brahier, and possibly the jury, since the onset of this colorable action, which COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY has instituted. Michael D. Ward has continuously and notoriously failed to supply these documents/records in direct and open defiance of the Constitutions, and the requirement that he do so.
It is readily apparent upon the face of the public record, that it is Michael D. Ward and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT who are obstructing justice (a matter of fact and law for the jury) and have delayed this colorable action (a matter of fact and law for the jury)(speedy resolution, 180 days), and have delayed appeal (a matter of fact and law for the jury) and have failed or refused to answer and comply with other issues (a matter of fact and law for the jury).
As will the judge be personally guilty of obstructing justice and otherwise (a matter of fact and law for the jury) should he fail to ensure the production of the evidence necessary for a supposed defense against this colorable action instituted by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and its Agents and or OFFICERS, by quashing this subpoena in open and notorious defiance of the Constitutions.
E. Michael D. Ward continues to apparently claim that somehow he is not required to produce records under certification of truthfulness and completeness, perhaps because he relies upon the facts: that both he and all present judges are ATTORNEYS; both he and the "judge" are or were members of KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION; and both have declared essential and or outRight allegiance to COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY as its licensed Agents; and both he and the judge are OFFICERS in and of the same apparent quasi-military/Kings Bench/equity/Admiralty COURT.
And apparently relying upon these factors, he appears to contend he is above the reach of Subpoena, a fundamental principle which can not be denied, particularly when applied against parties subject to them, as he is, as he has renounced all Rights, and accepted benefits and privileges of a subject of and Agent of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. He apparently believes he can not be brought to produce testimony (under threat of perjury) regarding trials, and proceedings, and other aspects which are relevant to any proceedings before the jury in this colorable action. He has no protection against this subpoena, he is not (presently) an Accused or defendant Citizen who could claim Fifth Amendment Right (a privilege in his case do to his subject/citizen status), and can not lay claim to anything that would preclude his appearance as hostile witness to make personal statements regarding the proceedings and other of the subpoena. (general reference see the Internationally renowned: California vs. Simpson)
Further, Michael D. Ward, is and was compelled to produce any and all evidence of possible benefit to any defendant whom is not at the mercy ((forma non compentis)(made the grievous error of hiring or requesting)) one of COMMONWEALTH's own licensed attorneys/agents/ OFFICERS (making them a ward or chattel or subject). Who may then fail to request and or review or present such evidence, and the defendant (not the attorney/agent/OFFICER, at least according to COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY) held at fault for this failure.
Maurice, the purported accused, who still gets this essential junk mail at his various addresses, is apparently still referred to by COMMONWEALTH and its Agents and OFFICERS, as some sort of misnomer/nom de guerre fictional contrivance of their creation. He is a non-bigoted, non-racist, non-sexually discriminative, white male (he only advises the court because of Supreme Court of The United States of America rulings and Federal Law and prior Kentucky Constitution and law concerning the issue of white male status being the only People and or Citizens) hence, he is a sovereign non citizen ((not an enfranchised person or subject, note specifically the small c), but possibly a Citizen if he so elects to bring this issue)) and is proceeding under his Constitutional authority to demand this information/records/ possible evidence and persons (and other) for review and possible presentation to the jury in his and their inherent and constitutional Right to access to and review of the facts of this colorable action/contrivance of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
F. Maurice need not burden himself by entering Agent provocateur/ OFFICER Michael D. Ward's Office or any other Office or establishment of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and possibly being subjected to any propaganda, threat, coercion, strong arm tactic, or other heinous and or openly unconstitutional criminal activities, and or other attempts to circumvent the Constitutions by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY or its Agents and or OFFICERS. As he has repeatedly demand and stated, he will not and does not and has not waive(d) his Rights, guarantees, and other, of the Constitutions, and he will not be attacked in any court or tribunal unless it is and has been fully based under and on and is bound by the Constitutions as they exist (plain meaning-not as interpreted) and these contracts with those who purport to govern, demand.
I continue solely under duress and coercion and threat of incarceration by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY in its debtor prisons, and, or, its indentured servants prisons, and, or, its Kings International Law (Admiralty/equity/statute) prisons. No purported judge or purported court/tribunal or Officer of government may act in direct and open defiance of these statements. To do so, brings any such parties as: immediately removable and prosecutable; as party to organized criminal activity, and removes any and all supposed protections and or privileges and or immunities which they might believe they enjoy.
PART 2 The MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA:
- Michael D. Ward will appear as hostile witness. And will produce the evidence/documents/records requested.
- Michael D. Ward states in COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MOTION at paragraph 2 "Secondly... . The Commonwealth has no relevant evidence in it's possession" hence COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and its supposed prosecutor have brought false and fraudulent accusation of one of the People and defrauded the Grand Jury and court. He has specifically stated he has no relevant evidence for trial or accusation, or, he has just committed perjury by falsely making such statement upon the official public record of the court.
- This self-inflated subject of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Michael D. Ward, also projects that he is a judge or jury, and has made rulings and findings concerning "evidence" and "fact".
- Michael D. Ward, in his third paragraph, then has the audacity to claim that a subpoena request proceeding from one of the People or Citizens "is unreasonable and oppressive upon the Commonwealth" to produce it's "public records" (para. 2 at "...sought by the defendant are of public record..."), which it must always do (produce its public records) under request of the People and or Citizens regardless of any proceedings before a court or tribunal, but particularly when it has sought criminal action against one of the People or Citizens.
- Government Officials are essentially always (with very limited exclusions) subject to subpoena, can always be brought or compelled by Subpoena by the People or Citizens or even citizens, this matter is essentially set in stone (see the internationally renowned: Jones vs. Clinton, note U.S.CT. rulings). Even the President of the United States is answerable and compellable, therefore this is tripe and deliberate falsehood by Michael D. Ward to claim or suggest he can not be subpoenaed. He is one of the lesser subjects of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
Therefore, this supposed motion is nothing more than a ploy and contrivance by Michael D. Ward.
PART 3 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY OMPLIANCE
Regarding the supposed SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE:
1. Maurice does appreciate these new elements of supposed "additional information". These now make all his subpoenaed materials completely and fully presentable to the jury and required during trial.
- URESA is a contrivance created within and by The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which proceeds under "International Law" and consists largely of Attorneys and other parties whom are directly connectable to the "judicial branch". These parties appear to create many supposed "LAWS", "STATUTES", and other, which are then prosecuted by and before other members of the "judicial branch". These parties, across the Nation, appear to form an organized partnership which directly receives financial benefit (through prosecution and enforcement by others of the Judicial Branches) from all the supposed laws, statutes, and other that it creates, ratifies, judges, and then prosecutes or defends.
- These parties have gone to great lengths to create "Universal Law" that at times apparently removes any protections which the State Constitutions and U.S. Constitution has provided. Apparently the Constitutions tend to get in the way of supposed "progress", "police powers of government", and of "government sponsored and supplied benefits and privileges". They are also directly related to the broad legalization (legislated law) of "International Law" into corporate government "Statutes" at the State/state level and destruction of the People's common-law (Constitutional Law). "International Law" is a foreign influence, it may not be used to control the People. It comes not at request of the People or through and under their authority, but supposedly by and through the "protection", "Health and Welfare", commerce, "government authority", aspects of the Constitutions applicable towards "subjects" (subject to the authority of the governments), and enfranchised citizens, corporations, businesses, contracts and other non-physical elements (not human), and strictly limited other.
2. Maurice also appreciates the "2.A. Certified copy of Calloway District Court's ruling...", which demands that the defendant be supplied with the record of that case for review by himself and the jury, of any factual failure and refusal to abide by law or Constitutions within that case by that judge and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY DISTRICT COURT. It is presently a Subpoenaed matter to the Clerk of Courts and is a matter of fact for review by the jury. This is also one of the reasons Leslie Furches is subpoenaed and must appear to explain her actions before a jury.
3. He also appreciates the inclusion of "Renee Manes, Probation and Parole Officer" as a witness for COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. He has some distinct questions he wishes to ask her about the treatment of the People received while under her "control", and other matters: she will therefore be added to the list of hostile witnesses for the supposed Accused/defendant and be available during the trial aspects of the case.
NOTICE: Renee Maness is hereby added to the list of hostile witnesses for the defendant
4. It will be interesting to cross-examine Randy Hutchens; to establish his character; to establish his reliability as a witness; to establish his background; to establish his credibility; to establish his knowledge of Law and various aspects and elements it entails, and other aspects and facts required for jury trials, in the jury's view as sworn testimony.
NOTICE: Randy Hutchins is hereby added to the list of hostile witnesses for the defendant.
5. To COMOMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Please bring as many "government Officers and officials" as you wish, the People do need more sworn testimony of your Agents and Officers on public records.
NOTICE: TO THE SUPPOSED JUDGE: Maurice will make and has made every attempt to follow the essential guidelines that the Supreme Court of The United States of America has sent forth. Should you exceed, disregard, or ignore these guidelines by overruling the supposed defendant's objections, dismissing or otherwise his requests or subpoenas, sustaining issues in what might appear to be active participation on behalf of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY or as their Agent, to included rulings on "evidence" or otherwise, it will be placed before the jury for review of the factual issues involved as it will be and is an essential factual element of the case.
8. The court is also directed towards this open admission by COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY that it did not have the evidence or produce the evidence or informational documents (such as the supposed URESA action) to establish jurisdictional basis for it's presentations to the Grand Jury, to a judge for an arrest warrant, and to originally establish the jurisdiction of the court (paragraph 2 of SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE: "The following additional information has been discovered..." verses it's original supposed "DISCOVERY" document) as was required.
Therefore, if this colorable action is to continue, it will be handled according to the true and proper rules and Law of the Constitutions.
PART 4 MEMORANDUM AND GENERAL REFRENCE SECTION:
This Court is herewith mandated to take judicial notice of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the republic of Kentucky state, and referenced cases presented hereon pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence Section 201, et. seq., and Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America (1787).
A. The Constitutions
(exerts from other cases)
Excluding "Indians not taxed", since they are not in consideration in this matter, we are left with two other classes defined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (U.S.Const.), they are, " Free persons" and "three-fifths of all others".
The term "three fifths of all others" referred to the Black slave population and all others of races other than "white" who could not and did not have Common-Law Private personship or Citizenship of one of the Several States (due to racial/sexual discrimination at the State and federal level) at the time the Constitution was adopted. (For an in-depth analysis of this fact see Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393; U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 39; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 74; Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 239; et.al.).
A.1. The Thirteenth Amendment
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, served only to abolish slavery within The United States and places and parties subject to the jurisdiction thereof. No other race other than white (supposedly) could claim common-law private personship and or Citizenship of one of the several States, who were afforded the protection of the Constitutions. (This is discussed in depth in Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra).
A.2. The Fourteenth Amendment
Following the decision in Dred Scott, supra, Congress allegedly enacted and ratified the so-called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America to afford "statutory private citizenship" status to those who were deemed excluded from this common-law status under the Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution. This event unfolds in detail in the case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments, with a very significant difference, which is of great importance to the instant matter. Such cases as the Slaughter House Cases, supra; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78; K. Tashiro v. Jordan, supra; among many others, all declared that under the law, "there is a clear distinction between a private citizen and Citizen of a State and a private citizen and Citizen of the United States.
A famous French Statesman, Fredrick Bastiat, noted in the early 1800's, that if freedom were to be destroyed in America, it would result from a question of slavery, and from the failure to equate all races and all humans as "equal". The supposed Accused is not responsible for the errors of the past, but elects not to dwell in length on this subject. However, the so-called 14th Amendment must now be discussed, and as abhorrent as it may sound, it is a matter of fact and law that this is the position intentional or unintentional, which forms the basis of the law which we live with today.
In brief, as a result of the 13th Amendment, the Supreme Court decided that the Union of States known as the United States of America was founded by "white" people, for "white" people, and only "white" people could enjoy the Rights, Privileges and Immunities afforded and protected by the Federal and State Constitutions. This fact is most eloquently set forth in Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, in saying that "...if a black nation were to adopt our Constitution verbatim, they would have the absolute Right to restrict the Right of private citizenship only to the black population if they chose to do so...."
To overcome the decision in Dred Scott, supra, the so- called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was allegedly ratified "At the point of a bayonet" and became part of the Constitution in 1868. However, an examination of the ratification by the several States shows various improper proceedings occurred which in effect nullifies the Amendment. "I doubt that there is a judge in full possession of all his faculties, would ever rule that the 14th Amendment was properly approved and adopted". State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266.
The supposedly Accused Common-Law Private person and or Citizen will not digress into an in-depth dissertation of the bogus ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment, because the only necessary point to be made is the so-called 14th Amendment had a profound affect upon the Union of these United States, and this effect continues to this date.
The Original Constitution for the United States of America (1787) refers to Common-Law Private Citizens and or "the People" of the several States in the Preamble; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, and in numerous other sections always with a capital "C" when referring to this class of Common-Law Private Citizen as a "Private Citizen of the United States". In contrast, the so-called 14th Amendment (and others) utilizes a small "c" to distinguish this class of private person whose status makes them subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as a statutory "private citizen of the United States" and or the State.
In law, each word and each use of the word, including the capitalization, or the lack of capitalization has a distinctive legal meaning. In this case, there never was the specific status of "private citizen of the United States" until the advent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27, which was the forerunner of the so- called 14th Amendment. (What the "United States" is, is discussed in the next section of this memorandum.)
What the so-called 14th Amendment did was give to all those residents who could not have "Common-Law Private personship/Citizenship" of one of the several States under the Constitution, because they were not "white", private citizenship in the Nation/state created in 1802 by Congress and named the United States (District of Columbia). The original Civil Rights Act of 1866, was not encompassing enough, so it was expanded in 1964, but the effect was the same, to grant to "private citizens of the United States", the equivalent Rights (which are in reality limited by various statutes and codes) of the Common-Law white Private persons/Citizens of the several States.
AMENDMENT XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Under the Constitutions, "...we the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority, because the "LAW" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual.
This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage. Note specifically the inclusion "person" in the above Section. It indicates distinctly that these new "citizens" now declared as persons, had the privileges and immunities of the "original People/Citizens" and the States must afford them the mirror image (privileges and immunities) of the inherent and inalienable Rights held by the People and or Citizens (see body of the Constitutions and Bill of Rights).
A.3. Women and their place in society
However the Courts and governments still refused to recognize that women were also equal, and People or Citizens, or citizens, forcing further Amendment XIX (1920) which placed women as citizens of United States, not the State and The United States- the People or Citizens. "The Right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (When the Courts and legislature review or proceed under Constitutional mandates or otherwise, they must do so under the doctrine of "plain meaning" (that which is stated) and congressional intent)
Making women unable to sit upon juries in which the People or Citizens are to be tried, they are not "peers", but "subjects" "citizens" "enfranchised persons" of United States.
We won't go into the fact that only Citizens or the People may hold (Constitutional) governmental Offices, represent the People and other, which the Courts have deliberately ignored, designed, or otherwise.
An Amendment was brought forth to correct even this discrepancy but was not ratified by the States (see records of Congress and elsewhere).
So regretfully, women are "subject to the jurisdiction of", and "citizens" solely of "United States". (This is not an indication of sexual bias but based upon sound reasoning (U.S.S.CT. rulings) and the present Constitutional Law, none of which I created.) Only "statute" "equity" law of United States supposedly allows them access.
In my opinion, they should bring class action against State and Federal government and demand their original Rights to be recognized as Citizens and the People, and remove their "subject" "citizen" status, since they have only benefits and privileges, not Rights. Which the government has used to essentially enslave them. They can not have State Rights or even full access to State benefits and privileges (its Statutes), as they are declared "citizens (subjects) of the United States", since not even the inclusion of "and of the State wherein they reside" was included (It was, in fact, deliberately excluded). They have instead specially created Statutes (based upon International Law) which the governments now claim apply to everyone.
The Supreme Court has declared that women have at least "qualified citizenship" status under the 14th Amendment, but that brings them as "special subjects"; again, not as Citizens or the People, since they where declared solely as citizens of United States, and not Citizens of The United States (of America) or the several States. The intent of Congress was clear, to make women subject to their rule. It appears, women have since been used by United States to further its designs within the States, instill International Law, and other questionable activities, such as removing State Rights and Rights of the People and Citizens. It is also reasonable to question why Attorneys representing women have not informed them of this or taken action to correct this misrepresentation or defrauding activity. (apparently they want women under equity jurisdiction and International Law, and benefits and privileges)
A.4. Back to Amendment XIII and XIV
The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments all ring with the same message, "These amendments did not change the status of Common-Law Private person/Citizenship of the white Private persons of one of the several States".
This goes to the crux of the controversy, because under the so-called 14th Amendment, private citizenship is a privilege, not a "Right". (See American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th Amendment to change the status of the Common-Law Private individuals and Citizens of the several States. (See People v. Washington, (1869) 36 C. 658, 661; French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324; Mackenzie v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297; et.al..
However, over the years the so-called 14th Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom through administrative regulation. How is this possible? The answer is self-evident to anyone who understands law. A "privilege" is regulatable to any degree, including revoking the privilege.
Since the statutory status of "private citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is one of privilege, and since the so-called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the Several States take measures to protect these new "subjects", both the Federal and State governments are mandated to protect ONLY these "private citizens of the United States". (See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43).
Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of private citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or revoked because it is a "privilege", and not a RIGHT. Here is where the basic fundamental concept of "self-government" turns into the King "governing the subjects". You can be called a "freeman", but that was a title of nobility granted by the King, to be really free encompasses a great deal more than grants of titles and privileges.
Over the years since 1787, since our forefathers would have rather fought than bow to involuntary servitude, the powers that be have slowly and carefully used the so-called 14th Amendment and the Social Security Act (and others) to render primary State Private Citizenship to extinction in the eyes of the courts. This class of Common-Law Private persons and or Citizens are not extinct yet, but it is simply being ignored, in order to maintain a revenue base.
Since the State of Kentucky has been mandated by the 14th Amendment to protect the statutory "private citizens of the United States", and since the People in general, have been falsely led to obtain "Social Security Numbers" as U.S. private citizens, the COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, under prompting of the Federal Government, has used the licensing and registration of vehicles and people under the "equal protection" clause for the "Public Welfare" to perpetuate a revenue enhancement and regulation scheme by promoting the fiction that the Common-Law "Private Citizen of a State of the union of several States" can be regulated to the same degree as statutory "private citizens of the United States".
It appears that both the State of Kentucky and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and the Federal government known as the "United States" are committing an act of misprision or fraud or other, upon the Common-Law State Private Citizens and People of the several States by perpetrating and perpetuating the "fiction of law" that everyone is a statutory "private citizen of the United States".
This allegation will now be discussed by an offer of proof of what exactly the "United States" means and is operating as.
B. The United States verses United States
There is a clear distinction between the meanings of "United States" and "United States of America". The people of America have been fraudulently and purposely misled to believe that use of those terms are completely synonymous.
In fact, in law, the term "United States of America" refers to the several States "United by and under the Constitution"; while the term "United States" refers to that geographical area defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution.
In 1802, "Congress Assembled" incorporated this geographical area known as the "United States". The "United States" is therefore a Nation/state separate and unique unto itself. Further, the "United States" is not a member of the "Union of States united by and under the Constitution", but it is bound by the Constitution to restrict its activities in dealing with the Several States and the Common-Law Private Citizens of the Several States. It has exclusive power to legislate and regulate the inhabitants of its geographical territory and its statutory "private citizens" under the so-called 14th Amendment (and others) wherever they are "resident" under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787).
The term "United States" has always referred to that geographical area defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and or to "Congress Assembled". The proof of this fact is found in the Articles of Confederation.
B.1. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress Assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the States of ... .
ARTICLE I. The title of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America"
ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and Right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress Assembled. (emphasis added)
NOTE: The term "UNITED STATES" as used therein refers expressly to "Congress Assembled" for the Several States which comprise the union of States.
As can readily be seen from the below quote, with three separate and distinct definitions for the term "United States", it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define the use of this term in law, and it is equally as necessary to separate and define who the law applies to when there are two classes of private (c)(C)itizenship existing side by side, with different Rights, privileges and immunities. Such a separate distinction is not made in the Internal Revenue Code, but Private individuals and Citizens (of Kentucky) are not anywhere defined in the Code, but are expressly omitted.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
"United States: this term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution"
The United States, when used in its territorial jurisdiction meaning, encompasses the territorial area defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and nothing more. In this respect, the United States is a foreign Nation to the States united by and under the Constitution, because the "United States" has never applied for admission to the Union of States known as The United States of America. Hence, statutory "private citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as found in the wording of the so-called 14th Amendment is a "private Act" rather than a public act, which designates a class of people unique to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories, and land ceded by the States to the foreign state/nation of the "United States" for forts, magazines, etc.
The District of Columbia is a corporation and is only defined as a state in its own codes and under International Law, just as is COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
The several States united by and under the Constitution are guaranteed a "Republican" (rule of law) form of government in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, however, the foreign creature created by Congress called the "United States" in its geographical meaning is a "legislative democracy" (majority rule) under International Law rather than the common-law.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every Right to legislate for its "private citizens" and to hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction both within and without its territorial boundaries, when legislative acts call for such effect. (See Cook v. Tait, supra).
As a foreign nation, under International law derived from Roman Civil Law, (See Kents Commentaries on American Law, Lecture 1.) it is perfectly legal for this nation (United States) to consider its people as "subjects" rather than the individual sovereigns, and the protection of the State and Federal Constitutions do not apply to these "subjects" unless there is specific statutory legislation granting some protection (e.g., The Civil Rights Act, voting Amendments, etc.). It also appears to explain why these "subjects" have such little respect and concern for the Constitutions and Rights of the People or Citizens/individuals at large. They are largely ignorant of law and constantly request new "benefits" and "privileges" be created for them.
Kentucky is a Republic, how does this International Law come into play in this Republic?
Part 5 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND OTHER MATTERS
Because only "white" people can hold primary Common-Law State Private Citizenship under the Constitution (per U.S.S.CT.), Congress created a different class of "private person (citizen)" and then legislated benefits, privileges and immunities which were intended to be mirror images of the Rights, Privileges and Immunities enjoyed (inherent and inalienable by nature) by the Common-Law Private persons and or Citizens/individuals of the several States. ("...we hold these truths to be self-evident...")
Unfortunately, the Nation/state of "United States" is a democracy and not a Republic, it is governed basically under International Law rather than the common-law, and its people hold private citizenship, and citizenship by "privilege" rather than by "Right". COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (which is not the State of Kentucky or Kentucky state) has attempted to follow the lead of United States. Declaring "democracy" as the method of government, and its "statutes" (International Law) as the supposed ruling Law. Such can not occur within the State or the Union. It is forbidden by the Constitutions.
These corporate governments have used the so-called 14th Amendment to commit "legal genocide" upon the class of Common Law Private individuals known as the Private Citizens and the People of the (S)(s)everal (S)(s)tates. This has been accomplished by the application of Social Security, through fraud, and through various other aspects, which is deception, misprision, and non-disclosure of material facts, for the simple purpose of reducing the Union of States to a people once again enslaved to government, and simply for the gathering of revenue for profit.
The "Social Security Act" is in fact a private act applying only to the territory of the "United States" in its limited capacity and its statutory "private citizens of the United States" under the so-called 14th Amendment. Yet, this act has been advertised and promoted throughout the Several States as being "mandatory upon the public in general" rather than a "private" act.
The effect, in law, is that, when a Common-Law Private Citizen or person of one of the several States applies for and receives a Social Security Number, they supposedly voluntarily surrender their primary Common-Law Private Citizenship of a State for that of a statutory "private citizen of the United States"
It is most interesting that any State may "naturalize" a non-private person, but today everyone is supposedly naturalized under the purview of the so-called 14th Amendment as "private citizen of the United States". The long term effect of this procedure is that the Common-Law White State Citizens/individuals (from which all governments get their authority and sovereignty) and the People (of the Constitutions) are an endangered species, on the verge of extinction, and only the "subject class private citizens" will survive to be ruled at the whim and passion of a jurisdiction which was not intended by our Founding Fathers as stated in the Constitutions.
Part 6 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment has a far reaching effect upon the several States of this Union, because Congress mandated that it would protect its new statutory "private citizens/persons", and that the States shall each guarantee to protect these special "private citizens".
This Nation was founded upon the fundamental principles of the common-law and self-government, with limited actual government. Statutes were known to the people, but they could not and did not invade their private lives, known ancient domestic civil matters, did not allow government to emplace law without the consent of the people, and did not allow government to enhance those civil statues to that of criminal. Those exact enhancements DID bring about such things as the downfall of the Roman Empire, The Magna Charta, creation of this nation, and the Bill of Rights.
In contrast, the "subjects" of the "United States" and "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" are considered to be in-capable of self-government, and in need of protection and regulation by those in supposed authority. Governments appear to always use "their" statutes to take control from the people, just as Hitler did through Executive Orders and creation of new "statutes".
The majority of statute law is civil and regulatory in nature, even when sanctions of a criminal nature are attached for alleged violations.
Among the Rights secured by the common-law in the Constitution in "criminal" cases are the Right to know the true and complete "nature and cause" of the accusation, to confront the accuser (a natural person), and to have both substantive and procedural due process accorded.
It is an apparent fact, that the Courts DO NOT: disclose the nature and cause of the accusation; afford "substantive" due process, and rarely produce a "corpus delicti" to prove damage or injury.
The final proof is that the Rights given to an accused in a COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY case are "civil rights", rather than Constitutional Rights. The COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COURT can hear a Constitutional question, but it cannot rule upon the merits of the question, because the Constitution does not apply in regulatory statutes. They are set in place to regulate and protect the statutory "private citizens/persons of the United States" who cannot and are not, given the Right of self-government.
The Constitution of the United States of America mandates that "counsel" be present at all phases of the proceedings. In contrast, the COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COURTS often conducts arraignment proceedings without either counsel for the defense or counsel for the prosecution being present. It rarely advises the People or Citizens of Grand Jury proceedings against them. And continuously coerces people before the Courts to accept its Agents/Officers as their representation, to place them as wards and "subjects" of the Courts and corporate government.
Part 7 FDR and the ensuing years, or the new Federalism
What the Courts will never fully admit to (or have never admitted to), is that during the terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, this country was placed in a state of emergency that has continued to this day. This state of emergency supposedly allows government the authority to exceed all limits placed upon it by the Constitutions. Among the Executive Orders FDR made were changes to the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT to the effect that the People and the States became enemies of the United States. The several States then became the conquered territories of United States.
During the 93rd Congress 1st Session of the United States Senate, the Special Committee on Termination of the National Emergency issued its first reports to Congress. What it found was that the People of the United States had "lived all their lives" under unconstitutional: powers of government; and, laws.
Beginning in the Roosevelt years, they traced a continued effort by Congress and the Presidents to "rule without concern for" the Constitutions.
What is notable is that the then Governors of the States (1933-194?) essentially ceded State sovereignty to United States, without the consent of the People. The People were never fully informed of what was occurring. The State legislatures apparently did, as they had to pass certain "Statute" laws to allow this to occur. The People were informed that it must be done to "save them and the nation.
What is also noticeable is that the Courts and judges, charged and mandated by the "then" laws and existing Constitutions, have never, apparently, provided their check and balance over these unconstitutional Acts and laws. In fact, they appear to have deliberately worked to further this unconstitutional activity by lending it the authority of law. This also makes the Courts not Constitutional in nature, but apparently military. Mockeries of justice.
Part 8 CONCLUSION
This court is proceeding under a jurisdiction that might be known to the Constitution, but is foreign to the intent of the Constitution unless applied to those individuals or entities who do not have common-law access by "Right" to the protection of the Constitutions.
Whether this jurisdiction be named International Law, Maritime Law, Legislative Equity, Statutory Law, or any other name, it is abusive and destructive of the common-law Rights protected for the Private Citizens/People of the (s)(S)everal States and mandated to be followed by the Constitutions of the Republic of Kentucky and of the United States of America.
The limit of Police Power and Legislative authority is reached when a statutory law derogates or destroys a Right protected by the Constitution for the Common-Law Private Citizen/"the People" of the several States who can claim these Rights.
I am a white male, Common-Law Private sovereign person or Citizen (if that is my wish), of sovereign The United States (of America), of the several sovereign States/states, and any State wherein I chose to reside. This declaration of status is made openly and notoriously on the record of these proceedings.
I, have never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, knowingly (after full disclosure) surrendered my original status as a Common-Law Private individual/Citizen of the Several States, to that of a so-called 14th Amendment Federal private citizen, subject to the jurisdiction of "United States" and "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY".
This Court is apparently proceeding in a legislative jurisdiction which allows a "civil" "statute" to be used as evidence and corpus delecti, of the Law in a "criminal proceeding", and affords only "civil rights" and "procedural due process" and the Right to be heard on the facts evidenced in the statute, rather than the Law.
It is now incumbent upon the Court to seat on the constitutional Law side of its jurisdiction (or to specifically and notoriously state on the public record that it has no jurisdiction based on , under, or by Constitutional common-law, the law of the People) and order the plaintiff to bring forth an offer of proof that the supposed Accused can be subjected to a jurisdiction which uses civil statutes as evidence of the law in criminal cases, refuses to afford all Constitutional Rights available to Accused in criminal matters, and practices procedural due process to the exclusion of substantive due process wherein only the "facts" and not the "facts and Law" are at issue.
Should the prosecution fail to bring forth proof that I have knowingly surrendered my original status as a Common-Law "Private individual or Citizen" for that of "legislative/regulatory equity/imperial "subject" or "enfranchised citizen"", then this court has no alternative but to dismiss this matter on its own motion in the interests of justice for being frivolous and meritless.
signature block removed
A Private individual of sovereignty, of the People
For further reference the Court and judge is directed towards:
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Stephens and Scheb, West Publishing 1993 (it has considerable Case reference in its Table of Cases); EHRLICH'S BLACKSTONE, Nouse Publishing Co. (exert from PREFACE: "Here you will find that it is not the law, but the internal sense of it, that makes the law. It consists of a body and a soul; the letter of the law is the body, and the sense and reason of the law is its soul. This law is the guardian of our natural and legal Rights."; and other such information on Law such as: http://www.law.cornell.edu/library/refdesk.html; http://www.usc.edu/dept/law-lib/legal/foreign.html;
http://www.fastsearch.com/law/;
http://library.whitehouse.gov/;
http://www.unsystem.org/index8.html;
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/;
http://www.centre.edu/web/library/indexes/;
Additional information and cases
"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)
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)
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
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
Certification of Mailings/delivery:
The undersigned signatory does state he has sent this document consisting of these (37) pages subtitled Notices and Advisement-Facts.doc via Priority Mail of the U.S.P.S. to Michael D. Ward at his listed address, at one copy, and two copies to the Court (one for return in the S.A.S.E. provided for such) also via Priority Mail, and elsewhere, on this nineteenth (19th) day of the (8th) month in the Nineteen Hundredth and Ninety-ninth year, Anno Domini.
signature block removed A Private individual of the People in sovereignty