It is clear that Congress, as a [or any state] legislative body, exercise[s] two specie of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects : the other, an absolute, exclusive power... The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities [whether pursuant to a jurisdiction of Legislated Positive/Public law protecting natural persons and private state citizens, or the territory of Negative/Private law restraining and compelling agents and officers under contractual obligation for performance of duties and responsibilities while acting in a representative agency capacity ] was the law in question passed? (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)). “No legislative body or man can convey any authority or jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God in another. Because legislative powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited. Bouviers Law Dictionary p.2149 (1914). Reflected in the delegated powers enumerated in each of the several State Constitutions, Article 1 section 8 clause 14 of the National Constitution provides an absolute and unlimited delegated authority to both state and federal government To make Rules for the (1) Government and regulation of the (2) land and (3) naval forces,” in a civil and criminal admiralty maritime jurisdiction of law. Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits which the law making power has jurisdiction. (Sandberg v McDonald, 248 US 185, 39 S Ct 84, 63 L Ed 200). A private citizen, [is] as distinguished from such as belongs to the army and navy*[admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction]. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968, page 313 Civilian). ‘The general rule however at present, is, that the admiralty acts in rem and that no person can be subject to that jurisdiction, but by his consent, expressed by his entering in to a stipulation [in contract] ( Ramsey v. Allegrie, 12 Wall 611, p. 409) The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261); (a) A Statute is not a Law, (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), (b) nor is Code Law (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, (c) a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not Law, (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165),All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only...” (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2D 1344, 1348 (1985)) LEGISLATIVE NOTICE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY LACKING Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). “[T]he tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not plainly and unmistakably within the confines of the statute... Statutory policy and purpose are not constitutional substitutes for the requirement that the legislature [and plaintiff/prosecution] specify with reasonable certainty those individuals it desires to place under the interdict of the Act [by indictment or information charging an offense or violation]. (United States V Dotterweich 320 US 277; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)). All legislation is prima facia territorial and words having universal scope will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only every one subject to such [territorial] legislation, not that all the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. (American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347, 29 S Ct 511, 53 L Ed 826 (1909)). It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agencys enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him. (Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501( ) ) [S]tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether [creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal [government]. (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975) ). “The United States Supreme Court, [much less any inferior court of limited jurisdiction] cannot supply what Congress [or the legislatures of the several states] has studiously omitted in a statute.“ (Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. 360 U.S. 55, p. 55 475042/56451 (1959)). [T]he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. (United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95 (1985)). [N]o clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant (United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954)); Criminal statutes are not by implication given extraterritorial effect [or personum jurisdiction]. (United States v Flores, 289 US 137, 53 S Ct 580, 77 L Ed 1086). “A statute will not be presumed to have extraterritorial effect... outside the [territorial] jurisdiction of the legislature.. over persons residing outside the [territorial] jurisdiction of the legislature. (Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367). Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)). This admonition takes on a particular importance when the Court construes criminal laws. (United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 69 (1994)). The Accused Defendant, invoking privileges and immunity’s, protections and defenses of state citizenship at Art 4 sec 2 United States Constitution, appearing specially in his own natural person, a private citizen, civilian, free agent, and non enfranchised or incorporated person, holds no official title and is not under any contract for performance of commercial statutory obligations to state or federal government, or any franchise licensed by government, and owing no duty to government is therefore not subject to the limited territorial jurisdiction of the legislature or the limited statutory jurisdiction of the court. “As a prerequisite for presiding over a case, a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense and of the person of the defendant; that is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action.”( Malone v. Com. 20 S.W.3d 180 (2000)) B. Judicial Notice and Disclaimer Regarding Citizenship status With respect to certain laws enacted by congress or the state legislatures in the interest of justice for the benefit of all Americans : A benefit is not conferred on one who is unwilling to receive it; that is to say, no one can be compelled to accept a benefit against his consent. - Justinian Code. “Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit... A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit.“ (Bouviers Maxims of Law, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83 (1856). “No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent... (Invinto beneficium non datur) But if he does not dissent he will be considered as consenting.” (Vide Assent Dig. 50, 17, 69) The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944. “Anyone who voluntarily gives up his rights, gives up his free agency and admits to the jurisdiction of government [ territorial jurisidition of the legislature and the limited jurisdiction of its statutory courts] .” (Wickard V. Wilburn 317 U.S. 111 ( )). “A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear; contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver.” (Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 US 67 (1972)) Accused Defendant, a natural person and private citizen, revokes all power of attorney exercised, executor de son tort, by any public officers and waives all benefits and privileges of compelled performance in association with any disclosed or undisclosed express or implied adhesion contracts for liabilities, duties and obligations, all fines, fees, pains and penalties associated with agency or contract for corporate employment or status, appointment or election to public office or entitled status created by congress or the state legislatures and any associated representative capacity, and does not consent to trial before administrative hearing officer incompetent to receive grant of common law judicial authority or agency tribunal of limited or special statutory Jurisdiction to which he is not subject or subordinate to, being improperly before the court for all the reasons stated below as follows, for the protection of his constitutionally protected rights : Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. (Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)). A [natural] person may be a citizen of a state and not a [corperate person, or] citizen of the United States. (State ex rel Leche v Fowler, 41 La. Ann 380, 6 So. 602 (April 1889); Kemper v STATE, 138 SW 1025, 1043 (1911)). “Judicial power is the power to hear those matters that affect the life, liberty, or property of a citizen of the state.“ (Sapula v. Land 101 Okla. 22, 223 Pac. 640, 35 A.L.R. 872 ( )). [A] suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty, involving an american citizen [and not a corporate officer, agent, contractor or employee], inherently involve judicial determination and must come before an Article III court.” (Murrays Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855)). no grant for statute merchants*** “Absent required colloquy by magistrate judge, language printed on consent form was not sufficient to inform defendant of his rights under statute allowing defendant charged with misdemeanor to waive trial before district judge and to elect trial before magistrate judge, where the relevant portion of the consent form was three sentences long, and only one of the sentences addressed the defendants right to an Article III Judge.” U.S.C.A. Const. Art , sec. 1 etseq; 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3401(b); FRCrP 58(b)(2), (b)(3)(A), 18 U.S.C.A. U.S. v. Gochis 196 F.R.D. 519 (2000) There are two (2) classes of citizens under American law, never repealed, and “Federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III was being drafted.” (Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914) “Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia, and the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges at the legislative discretion of Congress.” (Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885)). Accused Defendant waives federal citizenship, and denies U.S. Citizenship, being immune and exempt from the current form of prosecution for at least the reasons stated below as follows : [T]he distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized...” (Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36,72,73,74 (1873)); There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle [state] citizen to the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State- ( K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, Reaffirmed 278 US 123). Every [state] citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people. (U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325 (1903)); Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others [party injured criminally by force, or civilly by contract] leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself. (Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60 (1887)). “The state citizen is immune from any and all government [legislation,] attacks and procedure, absent contract [or consent]. (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)). [E]very man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature [ do no harm, injury or damage to the life, liberty, or property of another]. He is not bound by any institutions [ unions, licensing boards, or any legislative democracy in state or federal government] formed by his fellowman without his consent [or contract]. (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. (1796)). The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. - Samuel Adams/ You [the people] have the rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. - John Adams, 2nd President of the united States of America. As a natural right, men may do anything their inclinations may suggest if it be not evil in its self, and in no way impairs the rights of others. ( In Re Newman 9 C, 502 (1858)). This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit … ( Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386 (1798)). “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from the Citizen of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.“ (U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)). Title 1, 5 , and 26 USC (terms and definitions) Define the US Citizen as a corporation and a vessel [title of enfranchised government worker, contractor, corporate trustee, agent, employee, or officer] of the [respective States or of the] United States. [T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not [ ] include [ ] rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the [absolute legislative] powers of [ ] government [to implement rules, regulations, and restrictions, statutory commercial obligations, duties and responsibilities with respect to the actions of those officially enTitled with that Privileged classification]. (Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455 ( ) ). “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, [and] as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a [state] Citizen of one of the several states.” (Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)) [T]he U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government [and their franchise territorial State courts] as an individual entity. (Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773). “Entity includes (incorperated) person(s), estate, trust, governmental unit.” (Bancruptcy Act Sub Sec 101(14)). An entity is there further defined as an “organization or being, that possesses separate existence for tax purposes; having an existence apart, such as a corporation in relation to its stockholders. A Juridical person is defined as an Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. (Blacks Law Dictionary). “The (14th) amendment (and U.S. Citizenship) referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery. (Bowlin v. Commonwealth 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29 (1867)). After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white men. . . .(N)one other than citizens of the United States [freed negros] were within the provisions of the Act [providing for U.S. citizenship]. (Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509 ( )). No white person born within the limits of the United States [three mile sq. in Washington D.C.]and subject to their jurisdiction... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country... (Van Valkenburg v Brown 43 Cal 43. 47 (1872)); ...the 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship. (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649.687,688 ( )) [I]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship [of state, replacing it with U.S. citizenship]. (Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)); ... The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared. (Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)). “Citizenship by birth is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts.“ (Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, 97 L.Ed. 146, 73 S.Ct. 135 (1952)). “[I]t is States province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens. (Roberts v Roberts 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381 (1947); Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300) By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage -arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states. (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855))
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:35:23 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015