The inspiration for the construction of this missive is that there are Foreign Agents upon our land from the Crown Temple B.A.R. Agent’s of the Middle Temple, one of the Four Inns on the Court, in CITY OF LONDON, also known as The Crown. These pirates who work for the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Banking Conglomerate have used a variety of different types uf fraud and treason to rob, enslave, kidnap, and murder our fellow countrymen so they can control us and use us for their pleasure and to take over the entire world. There are three connected corporations, VATICAN-Religious Control, CITY OF LONDON-Financial Control, and UNITED STATES-Military Control.

Herein is the simplest and shortest explanation that resembles a full-spectrum account for the anatomy of the deception and crimes against the people for the function required to succeed at human and child trafficking. This is done from BIRTH CERTIFICATE to DEATH CERTIFICATE, and every moment in between. The people are living under capture because of concealments, presumptions, lack of full and complete disclosure, ultimately by force.

The population has been so indoctrinated and beaten down, they’ve forgotten how to think like free and independent souls. They welcome their captors and masters so deeply, those who object to their enslavement, are held back and ridiculed by their peers. This compilation of information should serve the readers, aware and unaware. The intent is to free America, and Americans, Heart, Mind, and Soul

Willful Lack of Knowledge Can and Will Kill You

What is Capitis Diminutio?

How B.A.R. Attorners Attorn one’s status from a living man - :John-Henry: Doe To the DECEDENT - dying - or the DECEASED - JOHN HENRY DOE
The B.A.R. deals in DEBT with DEAD entities in all their Probate Courts
All their Courts are Probate Courts when they call out to the DEAD


Probate - the official proving of a will.
a verified copy of a will with a certificate as handed to the executors.

3rd person present: probates; past tense: probated; past participle: probated; gerund or present participle: probatingestablish the validity of a will.

Reprobate - (of God) to destine, consign, or condemn to eternal punishment in hell


Executor De Son Tort - A person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased person. One who attempts to act as executor without lawful authority. "One who assumes the office of executor, despite the lack of appointment to that position by the deceased or by the court, on the failure of the deceased to make such a selection, Meddling with the goods of the deceased is sufficient to render one an executor de son tort. An executor de son tort becomes liable to the rightful

representatives and other interested persons, to the extent of such assets as he has received less any proper payments he has made."

"Two principles are involved. The first is that no one should be permitted, by refraining from taking out probate or administration, to obtain possession of the deceased's property free from his liabilities. The second is that where a person does acts characteristic of an executor the natural inference to be drawn is that he is named as executor in a will which he has not yet proved; and third parties should be able to rely on this assumption.

"While it is true that the least intermeddling with an estate may be sufficient to result in a person being regarded as an executor de son tort, the conduct of the person must be indicative of an intention to usurp the functions or authority of an executor." If a stranger takes upon him to act as executor without any just authority (as, by intermeddling with the goods of the deceased, and many other transactions), he is called in law an executor of his own wrong, de son tort. 2 Blackstone, Comm. 507 ; 4 M'Cord, So. C. 286 ; 12 Conn. 213 ; 8 Miss. 437 ; 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 510 ; 3 Litt. Ky. 163. If a man kill the cattle of the testator, or take his goods to satisfy a debt, or collect money due him, or pay out such money, or carry on his business, or take possession of his house, etc., he becomes an executor de son tort.

But a stranger may perform many acts in relation to a testator's estate without be coming liable as executor de son tort. Such are locking up his goods for pi eseivatim, burying the deceased in a manner suitable to his fortune, paying for the funeral ex penses and those of the last sickness, making an inventory of his property to prevent loss or fraud solely, feeding his cattle, milking his cows,

repairing his house, etc. Such acts are held to be offices of kindness and charity. 19 Mo. 196 ; 28 N. H. 473. Nor does paying the debts of the deceased with one's own money make one an executor de son tort. 8 Rich. So. C. 29. As to what acts will ren der a person so liable, see Godolphin, Orpb. Leg. 91 ; 1 Dane, Abr. 561 ; Buller, Nisi P.48; Comyns, Dig. Administration (C 3); 8 Johns. N. Y. 426 ; 15' Serg. & R. Penn. 39 ; 26 Me. 361 ; 6 Blackf. Ind. 367.

An executor de son tort is liable only for such assets as come into his hands, and is not liable for not reducing assets to posses sion. 2 Rich. Eq. So. C. 247. And it has been held that he is only liable to the right ful administrator. 3 Barb. Ch. N. Y. 477. But see 9 Leigh, Va. 79 ; 2 M'Cord, So. C. 423, which imply that he is also liable to the heir at law. He cannot be sued except for fraud, and he must be sued as executor. 1 Brayt. Vt. 116 ; 11 Ired. No. C. 215 ; 3 Penn. St. 129 ; 5 J. J. Marsh. Ky. 170. But in general he is liable to all the trouble of an executorship, with none of its profits. And the law on this head seems to have been borrowed from the civil- law doctrine of pro hceredi gestio. See Heineccius, Antiq. Syn tagma, lib. 2, tit. 17, 16, p. 468.

An executor de son tort is an executor only for the purpose of being sued, and not for the purpose of suing. 11 Ired. No. C. 215. He is sued as if rightful executor. But if he defends as such he becomes thereby also an executor de son tort. Lawes, Plead. 190, note • 4 B. Monr. Ky. 136 ; 1 M'Cord, Ch. So. C. 318 ; 21 Miss. 688 ; 2 Harr. & J. Md. 435. When an executor de son tort takes out letters of administration, his acts are legal ized, and are to be viewed in the same light as if he had been rightful administrator when the goods came into his hands. 19 Mo. 196 ; 15 Mass. 325 ; 4 Harr. Del. 108 ; 8 Johns. N. Y. 126. But see, contra, 2 N. H. 475. A volun tary sale by an executor de son tort confers only the same title on the

purchaser that he himself bad. 6 Exch. 164 ; 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 145 ; 15 Jur. 63 ; 20 Ala. N. s. 587.

It is held that in regard to land no man can be an executor de son tort. 1 Root, Conn. 183 ; 7 Serg. & R. Penn. 192 ; 10 id. 144. In Arkansas it is said that there is no such thing as a technical executor de son tort. 17 Ark. 122, 129. Other recent cases on this subject are, 35 Me. 287 ; 15 N. H. 137 17 Mo. 91 ; 23 Miss. 544 ; 13 Ga. 478 ; 23Ala. N. s. 548 ; 25 id. 353 ; Bush. No. C. 399; 12 La.Ann. 245, 344.


“It is held that in regard to land no man can be an executor de son tort.” Land? Under Sea? In Admiralty - Maritime Law of the Sea? Salvage? Vessel? BIRTH/ BERTH CERTIFICATE? DECEDENT? Black footprints on the back? Touched land (the living baby) once? Presumed DEAD in the water? In the Sea of Lost Souls? The abandoned salvage, abandoned in it’s berth, the vessel, lost at sea, as a ship sits in it’s berth. The DECEDENT after 7 years is presumed DECEASED, probated. The DECEDENT and DECEASED created from the man who is still alive? How does one ATTORN the Estate of the living to the Estate of the DEAD then ATTORN the Estate of the DEAD to the Crown, under Admiralty - Maritime Law of the Sea? Capitis Diminutio Maxima by the Attorners/Brokers for the High Priest of Ba’al in the Black Robe of Saturn, who records fictions/fictitious events. ALL RISE they call out to the DEAD! The Administrator for the Bank-Rupt-Sea boards the Pirate Vessel to reap the abandoned Salvage of the Shipwrecked CORPSE-oration, JOHN HENRY DOE, while the living man stands there shackled and muted as the PERSON/CHILD/INFANT/U.S. citizen/DEBTOR/TAXPAYER/ Enemy of the State/Ward of the Court. The Attorner never told the “Client” that

after the APPEARANCE (DEAD SPIRITS APPEAR) has been “SUB-mitted” to the Tribunal, John-Henry becomes the incompetent imbecile, incapable of administrating his own Estate.

~~~~~ Attorners - Brokers

At·torn - Formally make or acknowledge a transfer of something. Transfer (something) to someone else.

SomeTHING? Or some One into SomeTHING then to someone and/or someTHING else? Transference of a living fact :John-Henry, into a corporate fiction JOHN HENRY DOE then to STATE OF...? While the Ordinary MAGIstrate posts BONDS against the Estate for profit? A Case is a CONFESSION where the WAGES of SIN/DEBT are paid to the BANK/BENCH.

“The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword”
The Knights have Esquires - Attorners - The Lowest Title of Nobility One Step Above Gentleman

Attorner - Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a-to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.

Attorn, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Esquire - A young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as an attendant to a knight. A candidate for knighthood, acting as attendant and shield-bearer for a knight; squire. A polite title appended to a man's name when no other title is used, typically in the address of a letter or other documents. An officer in charge of dressing and undressing the king, or helping the Knight on and off his horse and handing him his sword and shield. The lowest Title of Nobility.

Back to Feudalism - Slave who is owned - The “14th Amendment U.S. citizen” JOHN HENRY DOE - The RES-IDENT - The TENANT
Who may not own anything. A DEED is Color of Title, not a Title. The DEED is an abandonment. On the DEED is the TENANT, not Owner
One who has been attorned


In Roman law, a diminishing or abridgment of personality. Tills was a loss or

curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows: Capitis diminutio maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed

from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights. Capitis diminutio media. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights. Capitis diminutio minima. Tile lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 1G, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom. Law. (Black’s Law Dictionary)



Arthur Cristian Sunday, 10/26/2008 - 23:28

For purposes of understanding one's legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS -Capitis Diminutio Maxima- in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards & statements, loans, mortgages, speeding & parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as "To take advantage of - To use to ones own advantage."

Black’s Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows:

Capitis Diminutio - (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima - (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media - (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima - (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed

from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio - Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation. Capite - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

[The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner's manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.]

Due to the UK, Canada and the US being bankrupt countries, yes all these countries have been bankrupt for some time now; they all have currencies that are known as FIAT currency. In other words, all our money is worthless! There is no big Gold or Silver reserves to back it up, so look on any UK banknote and you will see the words, I promise to pay the bearer. It is a promissory note, nothing more. Worthless basically!

So when we are registered at birth, the government produces a corporation, a straw-man, by placing our name in all capitals. But why I hear you ask? Well as we are a bankrupt country (just waiting to go into an economic fold – exactly what is about to happen in the US) the government needs collateral to invest and to receive loans on, so we, the people, become slaves in bondage to be used as collateral with lenders.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that still doesn’t apply! Do not make the mistake of taking advice from anyone who studies, or has studied orthodox law, as they especially will not know this...they were kept well away from this deliberately. Police do NOT know that us and them are slaves in bondage, solicitors and lawyers do NOT know that them and us are slaves in bondage, and most government agents do NOT know either.

But the great thing is we don’t have to be. It is as easy as being knowledgeable, aware and then just politely declining their offered contract! [ Coerced Contracts? ]


The APPEARANCE of the Living and the Dying and the DEAD All in one body - CORPSE - CORPORATION

Scott vs. McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894)

U.S. Supreme Court
Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34 (1894) Scott v. McNeal
No. 890
Submitted October 23, 1893 Decided May 14, 1894
154 U.S. 34



A court of probate, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the probate of wills and the administration of estates of deceased persons, has no jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of the estate of a living person, and its orders, made after public notice, appointing an administrator of the estate of a person who is in fact alive, although he has been absent and not heard from for seven years, and licensing the administrator to sell his land for payment of his debts, are void, and the purchaser at the sale takes no title, as against him.

A judgment of the highest court of a state, by which the purchaser at an administrator's sale under order of a probate court, of land of a living person, who had no notice of its proceedings, is held to be entitled to the land as against him deprives him of his property without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and is reviewable by this Court on writ of error.
This was an action of ejectment, brought January 14, 1892, in the Superior Court of Thurston County in the State of Washington, by Moses H. Scott against John McNeal and Augustine McNeal to recover possession of a tract of land in that county.

Page 154 U. S. 35

At the trial it was conceded that the title in this land was in the plaintiff until 1888, and he testified that he entered into possession thereof, and made improvements thereon, and had never parted with the possession nor authorized any one to go upon the land; that he had demanded possession of the defendants, and they had withheld it from him, and that its rental value was $100 a year.

The defendants denied the plaintiff's title, and claimed title in themselves under a deed from an administrator of the plaintiff's estate, appointed in April, 1888, and in their answer alleged that in March, 1881, the plaintiff mysteriously disappeared from his place of abode, and without the knowledge of those with whom he had been accustomed to associate, and remained continuously away until July, 1891, and was generally believed by his former associates to be dead, and specifically alleged, and at the trial offered evidence tending to prove, the following facts:

On April 2, 1888, Mary Scott presented to the Probate Court of the County of Thurston, in the Territory of Washington, a petition for the appointment of R. H. Milroy as administrator of the estate of the plaintiff, alleging
"that one Moses H. Scott, heretofore a resident of the above-named county and territory, mysteriously disappeared some time during the month of March, 1881, and more than seven years ago; that careful inquiry made by relatives and friends of said Moses H. Scott at different times since his said disappearance, has failed to

give any trace or information of his whereabouts or any evidence that he is still living; that your petitioner verily believes that said Moses H. Scott is dead, and has been dead from the time of his said disappearance;"
that he was never married, and left no last will or testament yet heard of; that he left real estate in his own right in this county of the value of $600, more or less; that his heirs were three minor children of a deceased brother, and that the petitioner was a judgment creditor of Scott.
Notice of that petition was given by posting in three public places, as required by law, a notice, dated April 7, 1888, signed by the probate judge, and in these words: "In the Probate
Page 154 U. S. 36
Court of Thurston Count -- W. T. Mary Scott having filed in this Court a petition praying for the appointment of R. H. Milroy as administrator of the estate of Moses H. Scott, notice is hereby given that the hearing and consideration of said petition has been fixed for Friday, April 20, 1888 at 10 o'clock a.m. at the office of the undersigned."
At the time thus appointed, the probate court, after appointing a guardian ad litem for said minors and hearing witnesses, made an order by which,
"it duly appearing that said Moses H. Scott disappeared over seven years ago, and that since said time nothing has been heard or known of him by his relatives and acquaintances, and that said relatives and acquaintances believe him to be dead, and that his surroundings, when last seen (about eight years ago), and the circumstances of that time and immediately and shortly afterwards, were such as to give his relatives and acquaintances the belief that he was murdered at about that time, and it appearing that he has estate in this county; now therefore the court find that the said Moses H. Scott is dead to all legal intents and purposes, having died on or about March 25, 1888, and no objections having been filed or made to the

said petition of Mary Scott, and the guardian ad litem of the minor heirs herein consenting, it is ordered that said R. H. Milroy be appointed administrator of said estate, and that letters of guardianship issue to him upon his filing a good and sufficient bond in the sum of one thousand dollars."

Letters of administration were issued to Milroy, and he gave bond accordingly.
On July 16, 1888, the probate court, on the petition of Milroy as administrator, and after the usual notice, and with the consent of the guardian ad litem of said minors, made an order, authorizing Milroy as administrator to sell all Scott's real estate. Pursuant to this order, he sold by public auction the land now in question, for the price of $301.50, to Samuel C. Ward. On November 26, 1888, the probate court confirmed the sale, the land was conveyed to Ward, and the purchase money was received by Milroy, and was afterwards applied by him to the payment of a debt of Scott, secured by mortgage of the land.
Page 154 U. S. 37

On November 26, 1889, Ward conveyed this land by warranty deed to the defendants for a consideration paid of $800, and the defendants forthwith took and since retained possession of the land, and made valuable improvements thereon.
At the time of the offer of this evidence, the plaintiff objected to the admission of the proceedings in the probate court upon the ground that they were absolutely void because no administration on the estate of a live man could be valid, and the probate court had no jurisdiction to make the orders in question, and objected to the rest of the evidence as irrelevant and immaterial. But the court ruled that, the probate court having passed upon the sufficiency of the petition to give it jurisdiction, and having found that the law presumed Scott to be dead, its proceedings were not absolutely void, and therefore admitted the evidence objected to and directed a verdict for the defendants, which was returned by the jury, and

judgment rendered thereon. The plaintiff duly excepted to the rulings and instructions at the trial, and appealed to the supreme court of the state.
In that court, it was argued in his behalf "that to give effect to the probate proceedings under the circumstances would be to deprive him of his property without due process of law." But the court held the proceedings of the probate court to be valid, and therefore affirmed the judgment. 5 Wash. 309.

The plaintiff sued out this writ of error, and assigned for error that the probate proceedings, as regarded him and his estate, were without jurisdiction over the subject matter, and absolutely void, and that the judgment of the superior court, and the judgment of the supreme court of the state affirming that judgment, deprived him of his property without due process of law, and were contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Page 154 U. S. 38

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff formerly owned the land in question, and still owns it unless he has been deprived of it by a sale and conveyance, under order of the Probate Court of the County of Thurston and Territory of Washington by an administrator of his estate appointed by that court on April 20 upon a petition filed April 2, 1888. Page 154 U. S. 39

The form of the order appointing the administrator is peculiar. By that order, after reciting that the plaintiff disappeared more than seven years before, and had not since been seen or heard of by his relatives and acquaintances, and that the circumstances at and immediately after the time when he was last seen, about eight years ago, were such as to give them the belief that he was murdered about that time, the probate court finds that he "is dead to all legal intents and purposes,

having died on or about March 25, 1888" -- that is to say, not at the time of his supposed murder, seven or eight years before, but within a month before the filing of the petition for administration. The order also, after directing that Milroy be appointed administrator, purports to direct that "letters of guardianship" issue to him upon his giving bond, but this was evidently a clerical error in the order or in the record, for it appears that he received letters of administration and qualified under them.
The fundamental question in the case is whether letters of administration upon the estate of a person who is in fact alive have any validity or effect as against him.
By the law of England and America before the Declaration of Independence, and for almost a century afterwards, the absolute nullity of such letters was treated as beyond dispute.
In Allen v. Dundas, 3 T.R. 125, in 1789, in which the Court of King's Bench held that payment of a debt due to a deceased person to an executor who had obtained probate of a forged will discharged the debtor notwithstanding the probate was afterwards declared null and void, and administration granted to the next of kin, the decision went upon the ground that the probate, being a judicial act of the ecclesiastical court within its jurisdiction, could not, so long as it remained unrepealed, be impeached in the temporal courts. It was argued for the plaintiff that the case stood as if the creditor had not been dead, and had himself brought the action, in which case it was assumed on all hands that payment to an executor would be no defense. But the court clearly stated the essential distinction between the two cases. Mr. Justice Ashurst said:
"The case of a probate of a supposed will during the
Page 154 U. S. 40

life of the party may be distinguished from the present, because during his life, the ecclesiastical court has no jurisdiction, nor can they inquire who is his representative; but when the party is dead, it is within their jurisdiction."
And Mr. Justice Buller said:

"Then this case was compared to a probate of a supposed will of a living person; but in such a case, the ecclesiastical court have no jurisdiction, and the probate can have no effect; their jurisdiction is only to grant probates of the wills of dead persons. The distinction in this respect is this: if they have jurisdiction, their sentence, as long as it stands unrepealed, shall avail in all other places, but where they have no jurisdiction, their whole proceedings are a nullity."
3 T.R. 129, 130. And such is the law of England to this day. Williams on Executors (9th ed.) 478, 1795; Taylor on Ev. (8th ed.) §§ 1677, 1714.
In Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch 9, 12 U. S. 23, in 1814, this Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, said:
"To give the ordinary jurisdiction, a case in which, by law, letters of administration may issue must be brought before him. In the common case of intestacy, it is clear that letters of administration must be granted to some person by the ordinary, and though they should be granted to one not entitled by law, still the act is binding until annulled by the competent authority, because he had power to grant letters of administration in the case. But suppose administration to be granted on the estate of a person not really dead. The act, all will admit, is totally void. Yet the ordinary must always inquire and decide whether the person whose estate is to be committed to the care of others be dead or in life. It is a branch of every cause in which letters of administration issue. Yet the decision of the ordinary that the person on whose estate he acts is dead, if the fact be otherwise, does not invest the person he may appoint with the character or powers of an administrator. The case in truth was not one within his jurisdiction. It was not one in which he had a right

to deliberate. It was not committed to him by the law. And although one of the points occurs in all cases proper for his tribunal, yet that point cannot bring the subject within his jurisdiction."
See also Mutual Benefit

Page 154 U. S. 41
Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, 91 U. S. 243; Hegler v. Faulkner, 153 U. S. 109, 153 U. S. 118.
The same doctrine has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a series of cases beginning seventy years ago. McPherson v. Cunliff (1824), 11 S. & R. 422, 430; Peebles' Appeal (1826), 15 S. & R. 39, 42; Devlin v. Commonwealth (1882), 101 Penn.St. 273. In the last of those cases, it was held that a grant of letters of administration upon the estate of a person who, having been absent and unheard from for fifteen years, was presumed to be dead, but who, as it afterwards appeared, was in fact alive was absolutely void, and might be impeached collaterally.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in 1861, upon full consideration, held that an appointment of an administrator of a man who was in fact alive, but had been absent and not heard from for more than seven years, was void, and that payment to such an administrator was no bar to an action brought by the man on his return; and, in answer to the suggestion of counsel, that
"seven years' absence, upon leaving one's usual home or place of business, without being heard of, authorizes the judge of probate to treat the case as though the party were dead,"
the court said:
"The error consists in this, that those facts are only presumptive evidence of death, and may always be controlled by other evidence showing that the fact was otherwise. The only jurisdiction is over the estate of the dead man. When the

presumption arising from the absence of seven years is overthrown by the actual personal presence of the supposed dead man, it leaves no ground for sustaining the jurisdiction."
Jochumsen v. Suffolk Savings Bank, 3 Allen. 87, 96. See also Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 1, 13; Day v. Floyd, 130 Mass. 488, 489.

The Civil Code of Louisiana, in title 3, "Of Absentees," contains provisions for the appointment of a curator to take care of the property of any person who is absent from or resides out of the state without having left an attorney therein, and for the putting of his presumptive heirs into provisional possession after he has been absent and not heard from for five, or, if he has left an attorney, seven, years, or sooner if

Page 154 U. S. 42
there be strong presumption of his death, and for judicial sale, if necessary, of his movable or personal property, and safe investment of the proceeds; and, upon proof that he has not been heard from for ten years, and has left no known heirs, for sale of his whole property, and payment of the proceeds into the treasury of the state, as in the case of vacant successions; but neither the curator nor those in provisional possession can alienate or mortgage his immovables or real estate, and, if he returns at any time, he recovers his whole property, or the proceeds thereof, and a certain proportion of the annual revenues, depending upon the length of his absence. The main object of those provisions, as their careful regulations show, is to take possession of and preserve the property for the absent owner, not to deprive him of it upon an assumption that he is dead. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the appointment, by a court having jurisdiction of successions, of an administrator of the estate of a man represented to be dead, but who was in fact alive at the time of the appointment, was void, and that persons claiming land of his under a sale by such administrator under order of the court, followed by long

possession, could not hold the land against his heirs; and, speaking by Chief Justice Manning, said:
"The title of Hotchkiss as administrator is null, because he had no authority to make it, and the prescription pleaded does not validate it. It was not a sale, the informalities of which are cured by a certain lapse to time, and which becomes perfect through prescription; but it was void, because the court was without authority to order it. . . . It is urged on the part of the defendants that the decree of the court ordering the sale of the succession property should protect them, and as the court which thus ordered the sale had jurisdiction of successions, it was not for them to look beyond it. But that is assuming as true that which we know was not true. The owner was not dead. There was no succession."

And the court added that Chief Justice Marshall, in Griffith v. Frazier, above cited, disposed of that position. Burns v. Van Loan (1877), 29 La.Ann. 560, 563.
Page 154 U. S. 43

The absolute nullity of administration granted upon the estate of a living person has been directly adjudged or distinctly recognized in the courts of many other states. French v. Frazier (1932), 7 J. J. Marsh. 425, 427; State v. White (1846), 7 Iredell 116; Duncan v. Stewart (1854), 25 Ala. 408; Andrews v. Avory (1858), 14 Gratt. 229, 236; Moore v. Smith (1858), 11 Richardson 569; Morgan v. Dodge (1862), 44 N.H. 255, 259; Withers v. Patterson (1864), 27 Tex. 491, 497; Johnson v. Beazley (1877), 65 Mo. 250, 264; Melia v. Simmons (1878), 45 Wis. 334; D'Arusment v. Jones (1880) 4 Lea 251; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1882), 62 Cal. 60; Perry v. St. Joseph & Western Railroad (1882), 29 Kan. 420, 423; Thomas v. People (1883), 107 Ill. 517, in which the subject is fully and ably treated.

The only judicial opinions cited at the bar (except the judgment below in the present case) which tend to support the validity of letters of administration upon

the estate of a living person were delivered in the courts of New York and New Jersey within the last twenty years.
In Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, 63 N.Y. 460, in 1875, a bare majority of the Court of Appeals of New York decided that payment of a deposit in a savings institution to an administrator under letters of administration issued in the lifetime of the depositor was a good defense to an action by an administrator appointed after his death, upon the ground that the statutes of the State of New York made it the duty of the surrogate, when applied to for administration on the estate of any person, to try and determine the question whether he was alive or dead, and therefore his determination of that question was conclusive. That decision was much criticized as soon as it appeared, notably by Chief Justice Redfield in 15 Amer.Law Reg. (N.S.) 212. And in a subsequent case between the same parties in 1879, the same court unanimously reached a different conclusion, because evidence was produced that the surrogate never in fact considered the question of death, or had any evidence thereof, thus making the validity of the letters of administration to depend

Page 154 U. S. 44
not upon the question whether the man was dead, but upon the question whether the surrogate thought so. Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, 76 N.Y. 316. In Plume v. Howard Savings Institution, 46 N.J.L., 211, 230, in 1884, which was likewise an action to recover the amount of a deposit in a savings institution, the plaintiff had been appointed by the surrogate administrator of a man who, as the evidence tended to show, had neither drawn out any part of the deposit nor been heard from for more than twenty years; an inferior court certified to the Supreme Court of New Jersey the questions whether payment of the amount to the plaintiff would bar a recovery thereof by the depositor and whether the plaintiff was entitled

to recover, and that court, in giving judgment for the plaintiff, observed, by way of distinguishing the case from the authorities cited for the defendant, that
"in most if not all of such cases, it was affirmatively shown that the alleged decedent was actually alive at the time of the issuance of letters of administration, while in the present case there is no reason for even surmising such to have been the fact."

The grounds of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the case at bar, as stated in its opinion, were that the equities of the case appeared to be with the defendants; that the court was inclined to follow the case of Roderigas v. Institution, 63 N.Y. 460, and that, under the laws of the territory, the probate court, on an application for letters of administration, had authority to find the fact as to the death of the intestate, the court saying:

"Our statutes only authorize administration of the estates of deceased persons, and before granting letters of administration, the court must be satisfied by proof of the death of the intestate. The proceeding is substantially in rem, and all parties must be held to have received notice of the institution and pendency of such proceedings where notice is given as required by law. Section 1299 of the 1881 Code gave the probate court exclusive original jurisdiction in such matters and authorized such court to summon parties and witnesses and examine them touching any matter in controversy before

Page 154 U. S. 45
said court or in the exercise of its jurisdiction."
Such were the grounds upon which it was held that the plaintiff had not been deprived of his property without due process of law. 5 Wash. 309, 317-318.
After giving to the opinion of the supreme court of the state the respectful consideration to which it is entitled, we are unable to concur in its conclusion or in the reasons on which it is founded.

The Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, after other provisions which do not touch this case, ordains:
"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These prohibitions extend to all acts of the state, whether through its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 100 U. S. 318-319; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 346; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 103 U. S. 397. And the first one, as said by Chief Justice Waite in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 554, repeating the words of Mr. Justice Johnson in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 17 U. S. 244, was intended "to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice." Upon a writ of error to review the judgment of the highest court of a state upon the ground that the judgment was against a right claimed under the Constitution of the United States, this Court is no more bound by that court's construction of a statute of the territory or of the state, when the question is whether the statute provided for the notice required to constitute due process of law, than when the question is whether the statute created a contract which has been impaired by a subsequent law of the state, or whether the original liability created by the statute was such that a judgment upon it has not been given due faith and credit in the courts of another state. In every such case, this Court must decide for itself the true construction of the statute. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 146 U. S. 683-684; Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486, 153 U. S. 492-495.

Page 154 U. S. 46

No judgment of a court is due process of law if rendered without jurisdiction in the court or without notice to the party.
The words "due process of law," when applied to judicial proceedings, as was said by MR. JUSTICE FIELD, speaking for this Court,

"mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its Constitution -- that is, by the law of its creation -- to pass upon the subject matter of the suit, and if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state or his voluntary appearance."

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733.
Even a judgment in proceedings strictly in rem binds only those who could have made themselves parties to the proceedings, and who had notice, either actually or by the thing condemned being first seized into the custody of the court. The Mary, 9 Cranch 126, 13 U. S. 144; Hollingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Pet. 466, 29 U. S. 475; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 727. And such a judgment is wholly void if a fact essential to the jurisdiction of the court did not exist. The jurisdiction of a foreign court of admiralty, for instance, in some cases, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall,
"unquestionably depends as well on the state of the thing as on the constitution of the court. If by any means whatever a prize court should be induced to condemn, as prize of war, a vessel which was never captured, it could not be contended that this condemnation operated a change of property."
Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 8 U. S. 269. Upon the same principle, a decree condemning a vessel for unlawfully taking clams, in violation of a statute which authorized proceedings for her forfeiture in the county in which the seizure was

made, was held by this Court to be void, and not to protect the officer making the seizure from a suit by the owner of the vessel, in which it was proved that the seizure was not made in the same county, although the
Page 154 U. S. 47

decree of condemnation recited that it was. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457. The estate of a person supposed to be dead is not seized or taken into the custody of the court of probate upon the filing of a petition for administration, but only after and under the order granting that petition, and the adjudication of that court is not upon the question whether he is living or dead, but only upon the question whether and to whom letters of administration shall issue. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, 91 U. S. 243.

The local law on the subject, contained in the Code of 1881 of the Territory of Washington, in force at the time of the proceedings now in question, and since continued in force by article 27, section 2, of the constitution of the state, does not appear to us to warrant the conclusion that the probate court is authorized to conclusively decide, as against a living person, that he is dead, and his estate therefore subject to be administered and disposed of by the probate court.

On the contrary, that law, in its very terms, appears to us to recognize and assume the death of the owner to be a fundamental condition and prerequisite to the exercise by the probate court of jurisdiction to grant letters testamentary or of administration upon his estate, or to license any one to sell his lands for the payment of his debts. By § 1, the common law of England, so far as not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or with the local law, is made the rule of decision. In the light of the common law, the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred by § 1299 upon the probate court in the probate of wills and the granting of letters testamentary or of administration is limited to the estates of persons deceased, and the power conferred by that section to summon

and examine on oath, as parties or witnesses, executors, and administrators or other persons entrusted with or accountable for the "estate of any deceased person," and "any person touching any matter of controversy before said court or in the exercise of its jurisdiction," is equally limited. By § 1340, wills are to be proved and letters testamentary or of administration are to be granted in the county of

Page 154 U. S. 48
"which deceased was a resident," or in which "he may have died," or in which any part of his estate may be, "he having died out of the territory." By § 1388, administration of the estate of "a person dying intestate" is to be granted to relatives, next of kin, or creditors, in a certain order, with a proviso in case the person so entitled or interested neglect "for more than forty days after the death of the intestate" to apply for administration. By § 1389, an application for administration must "set forth the facts essential to giving the court jurisdiction of the case," and state "the names and places of residence of the heirs of the deceased, and that the deceased died without a will;" and, by § 1391, notice of such application is to be given by posting in three public places in the county where the court is held a notice "containing the name of the decedent," the name of the applicant, and the time of hearing. And, by §§ 1493 and 1494, a petition by an executor or administrator for the sale of real estate for the payment of debts must set forth
"the amount of the personal estate that has come to his hands, and how much, if any, remains undisposed of, a list and the amounts of the debts outstanding against the deceased, as far as the same can be ascertained, a description of all the real estate of which the testator or intestate died seized, the condition and value of the respective lots and portions, the names and ages of the devisees, if any, and of the heirs of the deceased,"

and must show that it is necessary to sell real estate "to pay the allowance to the family, the debts outstanding against the deceased, and the expenses of administration."
Under such a statute, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, as shown by the cases cited in the earlier part of this opinion, the jurisdiction of the court to which is committed the control and management of the estates of deceased persons, by whatever name it is called (ecclesiastical court, probate court, orphans' court, or court of the ordinary or the surrogate), does not exist or take effect before death. All proceedings of such courts in the probate of wills and the granting of administrations depend upon the fact that a person is dead, and are null and void if he is alive. Their jurisdiction

Page 154 U. S. 49
in this respect being limited to the estates of deceased persons, they have no jurisdiction whatever to administer and dispose of the estates of living persons of full age and sound mind or to determine that a living man is dead and thereupon undertake to dispose of his estate.
A court of probate must indeed inquire into and be satisfied of the fact of the death of the person whose will is sought to be proved or whose estate is sought to be administered, because, without that fact, the court has no jurisdiction over his estate, and not because its decision upon the question, whether he is living or dead can in any wise bind or estop him or deprive him, while alive, of the title or control of his property.
As the jurisdiction to issue letters of administration upon his estate rests upon the fact of his death, so the notice given before issuing such letters assumes that fact, and is addressed not to him, but to those who after his death may be interested in his estate as next of kin, legatees, creditors, or otherwise. Notice to them cannot be

notice to him, because all their interests are adverse to his. The whole thing, so far as he is concerned, is res inter alios acta.
Next of kin or legatees have no rights in the estate of a living person. His creditors indeed, may, upon proper proceedings, and due notice to him, in a court of law or of equity, have specific portions of his property applied in satisfaction of their debts. But neither creditors nor purchasers can acquire any rights in his property through the action of a court of probate, or of an administrator appointed by that court, dealing, without any notice to him, with his whole estate as if he were dead. The appointment by the probate court of an administrator of the estate of a living person, without notice to him, being without jurisdiction and wholly void as against him, all acts of the administrator, whether approved by that court or not, are equally void. The receipt of money by the administrator is no discharge of a debt, and a conveyance of property by the administrator passes no title.

The fact that a person has been absent and not heard from
Page 154 U. S. 50
for seven years may created such a presumption of his death as, if not overcome by other proof, is such prima facie evidence of his death that the probate court may assume him to be dead and appoint an administrator of his estate, and that such administrator may sue upon a debt due to him. But proof, under proper pleadings, even in a collateral suit, that he was alive at the time of the appointment of the administrator controls and overthrows the prima facie evidence of his death and establishes that the court had no jurisdiction and the administrator no authority, and he is not bound either by the order appointing the administrator or by a judgment in any suit brought by the administrator against a third person, because he was not a party to and had no notice of either.
In a case decided in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York in 1880, substantially like Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution,

as reported in 63 N.Y. 460, above cited, Judge Choate, in a learned and able opinion, held that letters of administration upon the estate of a living man, issued by the surrogate after judicially determining that he was dead, were null and void as against him; that payment of a debt to an administrator so appointed was no defense to an action by him against the debtor, and that to hold such administration to be valid against him would deprive him of his property without due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This Court concurs in the proposition there announced
"that it is not competent for a state, by a law declaring a judicial determination that a man is dead, made in his absence and without any notice to or process issued against him, conclusive for the purpose of divesting him of his property and of vesting it in an administrator for the benefit of his creditors and next of kin, either absolutely or in favor of those only who innocently deal with such administrator. The immediate and necessary effect of such a law is to deprive him of his property without any process of law whatever as against him, although it is done by process of law against other people, his next of kin, to whom notice is given. Such a statutory declaration of estoppel
Page 154 U. S. 51
by a judgment to which he is neither party nor privy, which has the immediate effect of divesting him of his property, is a direct violation of this constitutional guaranty."
Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 1 F. 641.
The defendants did not rely upon any statute of limitations, nor upon any statute allowing them for improvements made in good faith, but their sole reliance was upon a deed from an administrator, acting under the orders of a court which had no jurisdiction to appoint him or to confer any authority upon him as against the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


The Office of the Person
The Official State Office Known As “PERSON"

What happens when Attorners, Members of the B.A.R. hold positions in State Legislature? Every State House has an Office filled with B.A.R. Attorneys who serve the B.A.R. DEBT Collectors for the Bankruptcy under the International Monetary Fund - I.M.F. not the people. Here’s a description of part of the fraud they perpetrate by wording all the Bills and Resolutions for the Commercial Codes and Statutes they create.

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

Note however, the definitions statute does not list man or woman -- therefore they are excluded from all the statutes!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ... 3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...

Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE OF... statutes and laws?

There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in their 13th and 14th Amendments of the de facto U.S. on D.C. as of 1871, not to be mistaken for the Constitution of 1787-89.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment:
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.

You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person."

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears.”

The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

A resident is another STATE office holder.
All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons. Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office

holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs.

If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.

The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and

responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.

"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then

are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.

The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.

"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?”

Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign.

Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE “person."

Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See

also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.”

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).

The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.

I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance.

Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages

arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions.

It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.

You are not a "person" subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you.

The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices.

This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case:

"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." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way.”

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "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." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the

government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "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." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more

astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other.

Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:

Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.

This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control.


The “14th Amendment U.S. citizenship status”
The Denizen - Inhabitant - Occupant - Foreigner - Resident - Alien

A foreigner allowed certain rights in the adopted country.
An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether local, regional or national.
A person with rights between those of a citizen and a resident alien.
Free Negro, a non-slave black person in the United States, prior to the abolition of slavery.
Unassimilated Native American considered a citizen of a tribal domestic nation but not of the United States or any state.

The de facto U.S. Corporation on D.C. created a “citizenship” for the freed “black” slaves because they were never considered to be people, as were the “whites.”

Citizenship was unequivocally granted to African Americans in 1868 with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it would be almost another 100 years before African Americans were accorded full protection under the law and discrimination outlawed.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well. However, free blacks were accorded a quasi-citizenship in some northern states, being allowed to vote and hold property, but this gradually diminished after 1800. And contrary to what some might believe, free blacks endured significant racial discrimination in the North.If there was ever any doubt as to whether or not African Americans were entitled to citizenship, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights. That decision, however, only fueled the fire.

While the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did free the slaves in Southern states and many fought in the Union Army, it was the Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1864 that outlawed slavery throughout the United States; it did not, however, confer rights of citizenship.

Following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the “14th Amendment,” ratified in 1868, did grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but it did not end racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was intended to end segregation but was rarely enforced; and in 1883 the Act was

ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that state governments had no power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals and organizations, paving the way for Jim Crow laws and confining African Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Many of the provisions set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later restored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The “14th Amendment” was enacted to Grant Slaves Citizenship, or for illegals running to the border to have that baby in America. What was the intent of the Amendment? Restore Blacks to full citizenship that the original Constitution denied them or to all Hispanics to run for the border when they are 8 1/2 months pregnant to achieve citizenship for their baby? If people would actually look at the case decisions both the prevailing and the descending opinions, Americans would understand the law and it’s original intent.

In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach, to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore), many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and

thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of citizens (See Citizenship).

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2 reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15

The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect came in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the right to travel to and from the nation’s capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority’s narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial

action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas of state law (See Federalism).

“the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law.” Here the de facto U.S. Corporation and their slave running Crown Bankster owners and their Crown B.A.R. Attorners demonstrate clearly that U.S. citizens status was purely a creation of their Corporate fiction, therefore within their control. They can control only that which they create. Observe, U.S. citizens are a new type of property attorned to a new owner. “Freed” “Black” Slaves remain as slaves, with very limited privileges; “Civil Rights.”

Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment’s framers, the Supreme Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state-mandated racial segregation of railway cars did not violate the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (See Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court’s decisions sanctioning state- imposed segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor

v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of women to practice law or to vote.

Whites had the right to expatriate to escape the construct created to absorb all U.S. “persons” and this is demonstrated in the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, only one day before the official date for the U.S. Corporate “14th Amendment” on Sunday, July 28, 1868.

In applying the international rules of the law of nations: The persons who are participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system are in rebellion; not the ones that claim de jure status/nationality—one reason being the amendment was not lawfully ratified, see Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646.

The premise of expatriation, or terminating the national of the United States status, is valid due to the contrived Fourteenth Amendment. LB Bork, Illinois national

So to denounce any and all alleged contracts, presumed or otherwise, by choice or default, an oath purgatory and Declaration should be based upon the following:

One day before the horrific U.S. “14th Amendment” - Never Lawfully Ratified, became a spectacle or thumb in the eye of the Union of States, only to diminish the status of all our people, and to enslave them as DEBTORS in perpetuity, hence forhth known as the U.S. citizen, eventually cast as the Enemy of the State,

So be it, July 27, 1868

The Expatriation Act is legally referenced as Public Law, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224 (1868), and is as follows:

Article 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. This is a principle of the United Nations and declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. See Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.

The Right of Expatriation Declared

CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. PREAMBLE. RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN STATES. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and

whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed.

SECTION I. Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision

of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

SECTION II. Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

SECTION III. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868

You must understand that the several States are foreign to the United States. A good example of this can be found in Title 22 of the United States Code:

• FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE. Title 22 USC § 2659. State statutes to be procured. The Secretary of State shall procure from time to time such of the statutes of the several States as may not be in his office.

ERGO: The several states are “foreign” to the United States; hence, foreign state as used in the preamble of this act can be easily construed to mean the several states; and in the other sections can mean any foreign state in the world. Note that the ex- slaves are protected by the United States and carry United States nationality; the United States can, and has gone, into the several States of the Union and protected them.

The 21st Century U.S. person - The Enemy of the State

Today, in the days of the year 2017, well beyond 1868, the tragic error in maintaining the inferior status of subject or U.S. citizen, in these advanced times of financial disaster, is the truest form of political suicide. It’s soon to be five years beyond the One Hundred Year mark of full enslavement of the American people by the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank Conglomerate owned, fully metastasized malignancy, the Creature of Jeckyl Island, the Jesuit run FEDERAL RESERVE.

The totality of ruination perpetrated by these Banksters and their B.A.R. Attorners stands as a monument to glorify the Saturnalia celebration of death to all. The Satanic Jesuits loathe the notion of freedom and independence for mankind. Their gluttony is as perverse as there is. These Banksters and their puppet Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and control the lives of all American citizens/U.S. citizens.“

This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. U.S. has been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without most of the population knowing it.

According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (Now found in Title 50), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”.

On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effectremedies of uniform national application”.

This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution.

Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency.

12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes".

This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It was here that every American citizen/U.S. citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration.

According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, U.S. citizens have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens/U.S.

citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain.

This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why U.S. citizens no longer receive allodial freehold title to land. As enemies, U.S. citizens, property is no longer Theirs to have.

The only way U.S. citizens can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license.

All these Emergency Powers as amended by F.D.R. was initiated by the Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE. In doing so, they also stole all the gold.

On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6”.

Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans. Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency whereas;

"All Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed”.

Roosevelt, in the most repugnant act, did exactly as the unlawful, Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE instructed him. He acted so as to preevent U.S. citizens from getting their own gold, but since U.S. citizens are really slaves, he went on to order they all turn in their gold, therefore robbing them for his Jesuit Zionist Bankster Lords. At that time, and yet another artificially created Depression, the ignorant population accepted Roosevelt for multiple terms, turned in their gold, and then went to another world war fomented by the same Banking Cabal.

Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the de facto Constitution is automatically abolished. U.S. citizens are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. U.S. citizens are under a system of War Powers.

Stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as U.S. citizens are considered enemies of the state. What they have is not theirs under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine.

Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers.

For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation.

Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship.

State Of Emergency
The mission of State Of Emergency is to provide current event news, comments on the news and information on the declared state of emergency continually in effect since March 9, 1933. The citizens of the USA have been codified as the enemy of the Federal Government. The source for the proof of our status as the enemy of the government is found in Congressional Records, Senate Reports and the Federal Register (see page links). The emergency must be ended in order to restore Constitutional law.

“..."That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or

both . . .”

“As used in this subdivision, the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership, association or corporation.”

"During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person

engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed "

Documentation by one writer connects the origin of the Trading With the Enemy Act with events of March 27, 1861. "Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order" under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a, b): "Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1)" which amended the Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91).[2]

On March 27, 1861, "seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity," meaning that there is "no law." [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties.][3]

All U.S. citizens/persons as amended to the Trading With the Enemy Act, are the Enemies of the State. This is how and why the Police, FBI, and their Admiralty Courts enforce Commercial Bankruptcy Code upon U.S. citizens.

When we voluntarily or involuntarily entered their Military Courts of Justice, one will frequently hear the prosecutor or defense lawyer argue that: ‘Your comment or

actions are a belligerent response’ [or] ‘You are being combative.’ Key words to inform you that you or someone else, is about to be fleeced! Lawyers will even attempt to provoke you or your witness’s anger in the Court, just so you or they behave belligerently toward them and this is why they do that!

Under Regulation 840-10 of the Military Code and sections of the Administrative Procedures Act and the presence of that Military [gold fringed] Flag on display in the Courtroom, instantly creates a state of emergency meaning that, the moment a police officer stopped you in the exercise of your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the police officer became a belligerent! He is armed and you’re not! He displays a military rank and you’re a civilian and he has now delivered you into a Military Court of Justice with the intent to ‘pillage and plunder’ within the Admiralty jurisdiction of that Military Court, which is also known as ‘The Law of Prize and Captured Property,’ as defined under Title 10, sections 7651 to 7681 of the Code of Military Justice, March 25, 1862.

As mentioned before, The Reconstruction Act included and changed all state officials into having ‘federal foreign standing.’ The 14th amendment deliberately forced and kept them there and section 2 of the Lieber Code instructs that: ‘A victorious army seizes all money and movable property and holds it in trust,’ and this is exactly what the Corporate United States Government and State Governments did and continue to do because they now perceive themselves to be, ‘a victorious army.’

The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had

created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms, licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our persons into an appellation, which is a corporate fiction or strawman and identified us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and documents now reflect this appellation.

Again, these acts against the people are done by Foreign Agents, most of whom are completely maddened and obsessed as criminally insane thieves. They’re behaviour demonstrates no regard for others who wish to live. Their local servants here, meaning Police and other Municipal Agencies are completely uninformed and quite often, belligerent order takers who physically harm those who do know their rights. The following material should explain who and what they Codify and publish about themselves:

Title 22 U.S. Code (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.

Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.

22 C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations 92.12-92.31 FR Heading "Foreign Relationship" states that an oath is required to take office.

Title 8 U.S. Code 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is re- linquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every

public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state.

Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.

In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under defini- tion. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.

December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations as Congress relinquished every public office over to the U.N. Local governments, up to the president, fall under U.N. jurisdiction. Congress gave the U.N. the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States.

The Pan American treaty of December 26, 1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881 – (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress re- placed Statutes with international law, placing all states under international law.

As one can easily see, U.S. is a foreign and hostile Pirate Vessel docked at D.C. Their business to to rape and plunder this land and the people by force if necessary. Barack Obama signed NDAA into effect so that the Military can attack U.S. citizens should they decide and George H.W. Bush signed Noahide Law into effect

so under Martial Law, U.S. citizens can be killed and beheaded in FEMA Camps. They have profit to make at it. Every U.S. citizen has a very large Estate, which rightfully belongs to them, not the Banksters or their B.A.R. Attorners. The following information will shed some light on what they do when they drag the U.S. citizen/person/tax slave into mock Military Tribunals:

1099-OID Basic Explanation Of Theory

The State did not provide you with a check to pay the charges against you, so they are WITHHOLDING TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING so your charges continue on and you report that taxable income on a Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. All taxable income must be reported to the IRS. The Court still shows you owe the taxable income (the bill/bond amount) and that is the detainer they use to hold your body with.

One should have a 1040, 1099OID and 1096 filed for the bill or Bond amount. The taxable income withheld needs to be assessed on a Form 1040 to identify whose income they are withholding. Could it be that it ́s your income claimed?

If a 1040 is not filed, one is at the mercy of the Prosecutor using his public deferral, which is a set-off and that set-off is used to detain one and keep one under the jurisdiction of the court/jail. The only way one can zero the account/issue is to claim the taxable income being charged on the Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096.

If one does have a 1040, 1099 OID and 1096 filed one has now vouched for claim of Title. Now the State ́s [alledged] prosecutor needs to produce his individual Form 1040 tax return to vouch for the claim of title in fact. (He doesn ́t have one.)

It is the 1040 that is the ́Certificate of Title ́ to those who make claim to a ́Title ́ to something. If they don ́t have that 1040 they are withholding taxable income belonging to the person whose name is on the bill/bond. One needs to ask the Prosecutor if he is making a claim ex-officio or otherwise.

The Federal Tax Court is a court of “Record.” The 1040 filing is the "Record" and also the ́Certificate of Title ́ to the property in question. "One ́s BODY.” And considering that all crime is commercial (27 CFR § 72.11), <click here
one does need to settle the account and thereby ́balance ́ the books.

U.S. citizens don’t have gold, but they have hefty concealed Estates, so the Crown B.A.R. Agents post multiple BONDS against them, again using them as banks. These people have no regard for their fellow man, that is if these people are sane, which could easily be argues that they are not.

By now, one should sense that everything they thought about America, and the “Constitution” which was really a smoke and mirrors circus act to bind all States into being DEBTORS

Constitutor - civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

They look at people, not as “the people” but as livestock:
Statement by the Texan Edward Mandell House (1858-1938) who made secret missions to Europe and helped President Woodrow Wilson get elected:

"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits and beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”


All U.S. citizens are Chattel Property of the U.N./I.M.F. Banks Collateral and Substantive Assets for the Artificial Bankruptcy

The video and information in this section are to demonstrate the machinations by which the Foreign U.S. Corporation and their Foreign B.A.R. Agents use U.S. citizens’ Estates as banks to rob for the DEBT through the continuing criminal enterprise that they call the “Courts.” When they call “JOHN DOE!” They’re calling the Corporate Estate. They’re “probating” the living man as if he’s DEAD.

The IRS Owns You With PROOF - Biggest U.S. Cover Up - Sold at Birth

Crypto News - Published on Aug 11, 2017

This NOTICE is from a private non-citizen national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (21) under Common Law Jurisdiction. "U.S. adopted common laws of England with the constitution." See Caldwell v. Hill, 178 SE 383 (1934).
Any and all documents provided with my opinion cannot be construed as legal/ lawful advice in any manner, but for information purposes only. Any actions you take from the information provided is your sole responsibility; research the laws pertaining to your jurisdiction.

First, you need to remember that the original Republic of United States was a compact and alliance of the individual states; each state was recognized as a separate nation under international law. The original United States functioned similar to a chartered trade organization of member states, not as a 'country'.

This all changed when congressional representatives of the Southern states abandoned their posts in 1861, congress dissolved taking the Constitutional

republic of the United States with it; the Southern states signed the Articles of Confederation, which in effect split the 'country' into two separate organizations; the union and confederacy, with the people as shareholders.

After the civil war, under the Military Reconstruction Acts, a new United States corporation, which formed in 1871. Google: Organic Act of 1871; this can be also confirmed by referring to United States Code, Title 28, Chapter 176 under Federal Debt collection procedures.

Section 3002 (15) states that legal definition of “United States” means:
(A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Note that this legal definition does not include any reference to a constitutional republic, country, nation, compact of states, geographic area, or people!
The definition only refers to agencies and instrumentalities of the United States corporation.

The UNITED STATES corporation went bankrupt in 1933, resulting in establishing a federal bankruptcy trust; the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is the 'Public Trust', and all property of the UNITED STATES, which also applies to the 'states', are held in trust under bankruptcy law; this property includes all land, all real estate, and even the PEOPLE, are held as the collateral for the debt owed to international central bankers/ investors in the (BIS) Bank of International Settlements.

Proof From "State of the Nation" American-Water-and-Power-Alliance.pdf

Becoming a State National - Power of Attorney: bideG5Q7GBu_0ZHAo6HLlmhnyYlLee2YfMML14fBxQ/edit

Rights Claim (Filed with the County Clerk) 1pHDQPaqIW3T0X8bj5QiKGexPGiWzGVQi9wLgGSkex3Y/edit


Territory of Wyoming - 1876

As late as 1876, one of the many publications of Articles of Amendment to the Constitution. If you look carefully at the photograph at the bottom, you’ll see the original, authentic, lawfully ratified, and adopted Article XIII, the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which put into law that those persons, holding offices of profit or trust will cease to be a citizen and won’t be allowed to hold office, if they violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 in the body of the Constitution. A citizen is under the Constitution and under the people:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person

holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Here is the thirteenth and last, ever, Article of Amendment to the Constitution created of 1787-89. Article XIII:

Article XIII
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any

title of nobility or honour, 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."

Please observe, the de facto U.S. Corporate Constitution, almost identical to the original, has Articles added to the original; “Articles XIV and XV.”

After the Southern States Representatives, long after the original Constitution was breached and completely violated, the Coup D’Etat on the Foreign District of Columbia, spread to overlay States, in that the Republics were overthrown. For one example; Virginia, the Republic, was forced to sign onto the “14th Amendment” of 1868, which as demonstrated above, became the “14th” after the de facto U.S. deleted the original Article XIII as it created it’s own Constitution. It’s a Corporate Charter for a “government,” Foreign

Corporation, for and on D.C. So the example here is to demonstrate how Virginia, the State Republic was coerced into creating a Corporate Subsidiary/Franchise overlay STATE of the de facto U.S. Corporation called STATE OF VIRGINIA, irregardless of how else it’s known, Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia, etcetera...

In the photo at the bottom, the “amendment” for the freedom of the slaves and the “amendment” for citizenship were, or really would have been Articles XIV and XV, but in reality they’re not Articles of Amendment at all because they were not and could not have been lawfully ratified because they were added to a redacted, or defaced copy of the breached Constitution for the union of States.

Redact - for publication - censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes.

Deface - spoil the surface or appearance of (something), e.g., by drawing or writing on it; mar or disfigure.

If and whenever a copy of the Constitution is made available to observe, where photocopied or in print/text or otherwise, which includes more than thirteen Articles of Amendment, and does not include the Titles of Nobility Amendment, then it’s the de facto U.S. Corporate Charter, indstead of the Constitution of the 1700s. To reiterate the main point, there are two Constitutions, not a “deleted” Article of Amendment. It was not removed. The entire Constitution was taken out of publication. Evidence of such is found in the Archives from 2013 when New

Hampshire State Representative Stella Tremblay was the main sponsor for New Hampshire House Bill - NH HB638 - Year 201


There has been an obsessive and tireless effort by the Jesuit run B.A.R. Associations and other Crown loyalists since the War of 1812 and until now, to scour the countryside, archives, libraries, and offices to search and destroy and remove any hint of the existence of Article XIII. All B.A.R. Attorners are Foreign Agents: “...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...”

Truth and beauty explained by :Glenn-Winningham: House of Fearn in these excerpts from within his “BAR Member Affidavit – All BAR members are foreign agents of the Crown” Publicly Recorded at Pinal County Courthouse, Arizona foreign-agents-of-the-crown/


BAR Member Affidavit
(All BAR members are foreign agents of the Crown)

The purpose of this document is to establish the fact that all BAR members are foreign agents of the Vatican, and therefore enemy agents, but first we must establish that BAR members are all foreign agents of the Crown, and

  1. 1  the Crown is a corporation domiciled in the City of London, in England, and;

  2. 2  the Crown has nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth, because if it is Queen Elizabeth’s Crown, it will have an “ER” superimposed over it, which stands for “Elizabeth Regina”, and;

  3. 3  the City of London is foreign to the rest of England, just like the District of Columbia is foreign to the rest of the united States of America

“The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State of the Union.” In Re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 41 L.Ed. 287, and;

  1. 1  the City of London is a walled in part of downtown London, England, approximately two square miles, and there are 12 gates, and it contains the Imperial Parliament buildings, and

  2. 2  William the Conqueror conquered all of England, except for the City of London, and;

  3. 3  periodically they show the convening of the imperial parliament on television, and it is very “telling” about the nature of the City of London, because the Queen goes to one of the gates called “Temple BAR”, which is essentially a big oak door, with a one foot square small door in it, and both doors are closed, and the Queen beats on the door with her scepter, and the Lord Mayor of London (on the other side of the door) opens the small door and asks the Queen what she wants, and she has to get permission to enter the foreign territory of the City of London, and while she is in there she walks 2 steps behind the Lord Mayor of London, and with her head bowed, because she is not a sovereign in there, and;

  4. 4  there are four law schools in the City of London, and one of them is called Inns of Court, “INNS OF COURT – These are certain private

unincorporated associations, in the nature of collegiate houses, located

in London, and invested with the exclusive privilege of calling men to the bar;...” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition page 709. [emphasis added], and,

5 there is an American Inns of Court, and there are chapters in every state in

America, therefore all BAR members owe their allegiance to the Inns of Court, which is a foreign power, and further,

. The City of London, and the Crown are both owned and operated by the Vatican, as found in the Concession to the Pope (1213), in which King John agreed to pay tribute to the Vatican;
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that... offer and freely concede to... our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances,... As a sign, moreover, of this our own we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to render for them,... the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks-seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland...” Concessions to the Pope (1213),

~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~

They’re Not Judges They’re Bankruptcy Administrators

:John-Henry: Is Still Alive with an Estate. JOHN HENRY DOE is the Estate. The Crook in the Black Robe wants the Estate but he has no jurisdiction over it until you’re DEAD, so instead he coerces you into the Office of the Person.

Your Sovereignty

All men and women are born equal Sovereigns, endowed with Unalienable Rights, Responsibilities, and Credit (commercial energy). A baby is born as the sovereign Holder in Due Course of his/her private Estate – comprising his/her rights, body, soul, creations, real and intellectual properties.

Sovereign people living on the land can assemble to constitute a sovereign government “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the Common Law Jurisdiction - the “Law of the Land”. When sovereign people constitute a sovereign government using their “rights already existing” they are delegating their inherent powers to their de jure government and its agencies, via their oath-bound Public Servants. Such a sovereign government is established by a lawful constitution as a “body politic”, whereas a fictional corporation is established by legal incorporation as a “body corporate”. A sovereign government of the people has no jurisdiction over any living man or woman without their fully informed and freely given consent, subject to the “due process of law”.

But a government can register artificial legal “persons”, and thereby control its own “creatures of the State” with statutory contracts in the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction - the “Law of the Sea”. A man or woman who contracts with the State, freely or unwittingly, consents to “act” in a “public capacity” as an artificial legal “person” which is controlled by the issuing authority, the State. While such a government grants Privileges to artificial legal “persons”, it cannot grant any Privileges that living men and women do not already have as Unalienable Rights.

Your Unalienable Rights are only limited by your Common Law responsibility not to harm other living people, and by your Common Sense responsibility toward the living Earth, whose Natural Laws govern all Life.

Sovereignty resides in the People, whose Power is the source of Law.
“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. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” Woo Lee vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 1

“People are supreme, not the State.” Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.

“The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)

“The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route.” Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234.

“the government is but an agency to the State,” -- the State being the sovereign people.” State vs. Chase, 175 Minn, 259, 220 N.W. 951, 953.
"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these

original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief.” City of Dallas, et al. vs. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).

“A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the State. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage vs. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” American Communications Association vs. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442, (1950)

Any incorporated government in the international “Law of the Sea” is a foreign government.

A sovereign government cannot also be a corporation, because sovereignty is the source of law, and a corporation is a creation of law. While sovereign people, as the source of law, can create various legal fictions including artificial persons, corporations, companies, trusts, societies, foundations, and so on, a sovereign government and its sovereign agencies are by definition unincorporated.

But all Central Bank nations are incorporated, such that the de jure nations of the world are largely unoccupied by oath-keeping representatives of the sovereign people.

De jure Common Law Jurisdiction “Law of the Land” governments have been usurped by de facto Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction “Law of the Sea” interlopers, who are essentially private mercenaries administering fraudulent bankruptcies. Any incorporated government operating in the international “Law of the Sea” is foreign to the “Law of the Land”, and therefore it is a foreign government. Every

sovereign man and woman oppressed by an incorporated government is a victim of treason.


You are NOT DEAD!

No Administrative/Admiralty/Tribunal court has personal, or subject matter jurisdiction over any living being! None, whatsoever! ALL “DEFENDANTS” MUST BE DECEASED! Don’t be a “defendant”.
In all court cases, be it Municipal, County, District, State, or Federal Court, you merely need to request a Certified Copy of your DEATH CERTIFICATE, which they cannot produce!!

Failure to produce your DEATH CERTIFICATE, the case is null & void and must be dismissed with great prejudice, less the officers of the court be collaterally attacked & estopped, and charged with multiple counts of constructive & conversionary fraud! In their “legal terms,” these frauds are considered “MURDER!” Murder is a Capital Crime!

With the primary purpose of the State being to protect the lives & property of its inhabitants, all Law Enforcers, and particularly those US Marshals, Sheriffs, and Court Bailiffs, being State & US agents, their duty is to protect the lives and properties of every living being entering these Administrative/Admiralty/Tribunal Courts, against any & all officers of the court, as these officers are bearing false witness that the “DEFENDANTS” are deceased, when in fact, the Bailiff can witness, first-hand, that the “DEFENDANT” is alive & well! A Bailiff, then, can be asked to testify to this fact, as he is always under Oath to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.