Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
From someone on Skype:



Check this out.

from someone in my group.

"A member of our local group has a case in Ohio. He physically went to the Clerk's office at the Ohio Supreme Court. One of the clerks told him of one of the best kept secrets. Anyone in any state can appeal any order, judgment and or case directly from the lower court (county level) to the Supreme Court of the state. He has done it. Now, several here in North Carolina have done it as well.

"Addition to S.Sup.Ct. story:  That court is a true court of equity and or constitutional court. So, invoke rules of equity and in-camera hearing with sealed record."Attorneys must go through the Court of Appeals. But a live man can go direct to state S.Ct..  In NC there is no filing fee or other fees for the live man who appeals to S.Ct.. WOW !!  Our group has done this already. That is my thoughts on bypassing the rubber-stamped kangaroo court."  

our contact at the Ohio supreme court clerk's office says that the supreme court is just waiting for the people to wake up to this remedy.


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

rowanlefwyn
This post was updated on .
This is interesting. I just moved to Ohio in January (from Michigan where I was accomplishing a little but not much as I'd like due to wading through the veil of ignorance ) and noticed that getting things sorted out here is much easier than where I came from --at the BMV, at the court, filing UCC etc.  Doing things the right way seems to open more doors in Ohio instead of the doorman pretending he didn't hear you knocking.  

I asked for a legal title to my vehicle at the BMV (instead of the equity title) . Instead of pretending she didn't know what I was talking about or telling me a title is a title is a title I thought the clerk was going to come over the counter after me. They way she behaved made it plain she heard this all before but was hardly in any position to object.

I'd like to hear more about this group if you should have any more updates. I'm rather more on my old lonesome here in the cornfields.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
This has all been discussed on these forums before, just that no one ever expands on the discussions and from time to time I need to be reminded of the information within the website, but it appears I may have been a little mistaken regarding the use of the "appeals courts" ... so, to any of those that are offended by my stances earlier, now get to post and have me eat a little crow.

The CR(tm) process is used to show that there is no claim and the attorney has been "bearing false witness" to the Court in violation of his duties to the Court.

So, do not worry about the outcome, just concentrate on walking the path; the outcome will take care of itself.

Once you are done, it appears that one can take whatever order was issued and challenge it with the Supreme Court of the State and as such, would be where the Malachi 3:10 challenge comes into manifestation and where one can use the Verification of Complaint because it rebuts ALL the presumptions.

You can also dump a mandamus into the Federal Court to compel performance under 28 USC 1631, this is particularity effective when you KNOW the duties of the attorneys is to conserve the peace as their duty to the court outweighs the duty to their client.


The point of all of this is that once the CR(tm) "process" is complete, there are many ways to enforce the instrument (negotiate for settlement within the PROPER jurisdiction), not just one, just gotta use your god given imagination.

 
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Thus, and if I understand correctly, the "flow chart" for "Turnabout Process" should go something like this: Local Court/Attorney entertains action to liquidate interest (local court = prize court (Lieber Code Article 45)) ---> One initiates and completes the CR™ process ---> Plaintiff/Attorney Receives ORDER from Prize Court ---> ORDER (As Annex A) and “CR™ PROCESS” (AFV/RFV and CR™ as Annex B) is then brought into State Supreme Court under the Verification of Complaint (rebuts presumptions);

Now, Supreme Court should have to act because the Supreme Court both Licenses and Punishes attorneys and if the attorney cannot show proof of claim along with all the supporting facts and law relied upon, then the attorney is bearing false witness to the court thus engaged in a breach of the peace in violation of his FIRST duty to the Court and the judgment MUST be voided because “one cannot profit off one’s own wrong” and “no claim” = “no right” and “no right” = “wrong,” thus the Plaintiff cannot profit because the attorney subrogates the Plaintiff’s rights and defenses for the Client of the Attorney is a Ward of the Court and to allow the Plaintiff to retain the profit despite the “bearing of false witness” is akin allowing a breach in the peace thus the Court would be in violation of its Chartered Duty to conserve the peace.

And in accordance with the Declaration of Surrender within the Verification of Complaint, the Treasury should receive the usufructuary interest and one should receive the naked ownership which now allows for subrogation rights with respect to the Treasury which means now, one should be able to force the parties to settle an obligation using the AFV/RFV (ie: canceled debt-obligation = "paying" with 0 in the debt based system = CREDIT INSTRUMENT) for one underwrites the Treasury via the surrender of usufructuary interest and assignment of the reversion on the back end and if the attorney cannot provide proof of claim, then he made a FALSE CLAIM, not against me, I am 100% irrelevant; but against the TREASURY and what is the penalty of making a false claim against the Treasury (Storehouse)? (surety NOT for strangers, but for the Expansion of His Kingdom ... keep that in mind)

Is this akin to “stealing from God?”

And since the matter occurred during “commercial intercourse,” and when one capitulates without authority (cease to resist an opponent or an unwelcome demand); allowing that NAME to be used to launder securities, is called “barratry” or “trade in the sale of church or state appointments.”

Thus, without the Proof of Claim, the ORDER received from the court is an "exercise to profit from property not belonging to one" or USUFRUCT and under International Law, that interest is created upon the taking and the DUTY of the usufructuary is:

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them. 2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. 3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct. 4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent. 5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.

And now, the Attorney has a DUTY to the United States as usufruct of ITS property (ie: Treasury); "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is now turned around onto the Attorney for bearing the false witness as the result is just an exercise of the RIGHT to profit off the property (ie: time and energy) of another. (BUGS BUNNY now bound to Elmer J Fudd / ELMER J FUDD now bound to Bugs Bunny)

Which now means, the failure to provide the proof of claim is now “solicitation for prostitution” (ie: enticement to fornicate with the whore of Babylon) and under 27 USC 19.170-172, we find that we can release the “De-facto Surety” acquired by the CR™ and AFV/RFV “process” into the Treasury THRU the ATF as a “commercial crime” thus complete delivery to the Treasury of the sin for liquidation and since one has subrogation rights, one should be able to “compel action” by the Director of Such thru 28 USC 1631 (BTW: 28 USC 1631 is EXACTLY how the IRS “compels” people to produce books and records)

Now, one has accomplished one’s duty to protect (ie: serve) the host nation in a time of emergency; there is nothing to hinder him from defending it against pirates or robbers, against the ravages of an inundation, or the devastations of fire (Law of Nations, Book 2, Article 105), while at the same time observing one’s duties to one’s original nation by establishing one’s mission thru subduing the host nation by underwriting the same, thus effectively taking CONTROL of the Host Nation for "no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property exist ...  and that 'it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced' in those States 'until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established'" FOR "all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act (Reconstruction Acts), shall be null and void" FOR "any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same" AND "this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten States: the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act (ie: State Representatives WALKED out of Congress: ABANDONED the Republic)

(NOTE: The "civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act" is the Corporate United States: which is WHY the United States can "abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same" because those are the RIGHTS retained by the people within the Declaration of which are held in Trust under Article IV Section III Clause 2 of the US Constitution in order that a "nation of the people by the people and for the people does not perish from this Earth": It has all the characteristics and powers of a State government--legislative, judicial, and executive--and was in the full and lawful exercise of all these powers, except only that it was not entitled to representation as a State of the Union)

The military government (ie: Military United States) is created by the act" AND "both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress (ie: Republican form of Government). When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease" (ref: Attorney General Opinion regarding the Reconstruction Acts of 1867)

Therefore, the Corporate United States and the Military (Army) United States form the Democracy; the People within the states of the union: the Body of the "Church" and the Military (Navy) United States form the Republic. Right now, what "Church" do you think the people place their faith?

Thus, it is up to the people to re-establish the Civil Authority and Christ is the ONLY authority: the foundation of all else; Done in His NAME for His Glory and isn’t THAT our real purpose: to subdue the Earth in His Name for His Glory and there is no government EXCEPT his ordained government and the United States Treasury will be the Storehouse for that Government as Church and State consolidate (ie: Civil Authority will be His Church: Church of Philadelphia and the Military (United States) shall be subservient unto THAT Civil Authority as the LORD of Hosts and the "two distinct governments created by this act will cease to exist") and our Surrender then FILLS the “Storehouse with meat” (assets into the Treasury: The WORKS go into the Treasury) for you were commanded that to be perfect with Christ to “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me (Luke 18:22)” and the Storehouse is used to care for the poor and widows (ie: Bankrupt host nation (Law of Nations, Book 2 articles 104-105): “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked (1 John 2:6)”.

The Surrender makes the ALL CAP NAME = NAME of the LORD and “One comes in the NAME of the LORD” while at the same time ensuring that “From the beginning with God as my witness, and as One made in the true image of God, acknowledge blessings given by God, and do hereby repent all transgressions against God, waive all claims without God, and do hereby render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's in order Caesar be bound by covenant to render unto God's that which is God's" for one not surety for a Stranger, one is Surety for the Expansion of the Kingdom because that is one’s DUTY, thus one subrogates ALL claims for the Kingdom thru the ALL CAP NAME for now that NAME acts AS IF it were Christ (His NAME) because of the surrender which will now allow one to go forth and subdue the Earth in His NAME for His Glory and filling His Storehouse with WORKS.


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .




Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court: "... Under these powers, Congress was authorized-as it did in the Resolution-to establish, regulate and control the national currency and to make that currency legal tender money for all purposes, including payment of domestic dollar obligations with options for payment in foreign currencies. Whether it was 'wise and expedient' to do so was, under the Constitution, a determination to be made by the Congress."

Interesting Dissention in the Hayward case by Mr. Justice STONE: Thus, starting with a resolution avowedly directed at gold clauses, we are brought to the extraordinary conclusion that a promise to pay foreign currency is void if expressed in an instrument containing an alternative promise to pay in money of the United States whether of gold standard or not.

The argument is not persuasive, because it rests both upon a strained and unnatural construction of the resolution and upon an assumption that there was a Congressional policy to strike down provisions for the alternative discharge of dollar obligations by payment in foreign currency not tied to gold, which lends no support in the language of the Joint Resolution or its legislative history."


Therefore, "What Thing is being demanded for payment?" because this action of Congress left the United States with ONLY a foreign currency system and since that system operates on a mere promise to pay, the only thing you can do is accept and return for anything else, is not on-par.





The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual clearly defines the rules of grammar for recording of a proper noun in Chapter 3.3, Capitalization. “Proper nouns are capitalized [examples given] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, and Anglo-Saxon.” It further defines, in Chapter 11.7, that “Names of vessels are quoted in matter printed in other than lower case roman…[examples given are] LUSITANIA [or] LUSITANIA.” (hmmm ... maybe start writing "ALL CAP NAME IN QUOTES")

Black's Law Dictionary "Fictitious Name": "A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead." And, of course, go back to the Turnabout is ALWAYS Fair Play document as revisit GLOSS, GLOSSA, and DOG-LATIN

Gregg's Manual of English: "A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre."

Oxford Dictionary:

• "nom": Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.
• "Nom de guerre": War name. A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.
• "Guerre": War, and as a verb, to wage war.


Do we see what is occurring here?

Once you comprehend that war is declared when the someone initiates an action against that ALL CAP NAME (ie: debt collection), you can "secure the peace" and acheive Security of the Person if one begins operating AS IF that NAME is a vessel operating FOR the United States during this time of emergency (declaration of war: debt collection) to deliver the usufructuary and reversionary interests of all the WORKS done in the NAME under 12 USC 95a (2), because the NAME itself is what?

The indemnity receipt issued for an "Emergency foreign vessel acquisition; purchase or requisition of vessels lying idle in United States waters" under 50 U.S. Code § 196 (ie: Lieber Coder Article 38) ...

And then made that VESSEL an "enemy of the state" and a "decedent infant" (ie: presumption of death is a fiction of law) so the probate of the infant estate could occur and the Treasury could "experience the expectancy" to allow for payment of public debt, but since we did not know, our ignorance fueled the greed that resulted in the world we see today; our ignorance resulted in allowing "falsified bounty contracts" to pass thru the Treasury (ie: barratry), laundered thru the local prize courts.

And once you start operating under this "plea for peace" called 40 Stat 411 (12 USC 95a (2)), then anyone moving against that NAME without authority is now engaged in acts that both arrests a vessel while operating FOR the United States AND seizes the cargo destined for the same, thus STEALING from God, for all that was going to the Storehouse (Treasury) and 12 USC 95a (2) holds that NO person (VESSEL or otherwise) shall be held accountable in ANY court for anything done or omitted in good faith while relying on this statute and one will be known as a Son of God for one would then be a peacemaker.



From Bedazzled, 2000:

Devil (Elizabeth Hurely): Your last wish was a deal-breaker.
Elliot (Brendan Frasier): What?
Devil (Elizabeth Hurely): Nobody ever reads the contract. Article 147, paragraph 9, section 3: Selfless acts of redemption. It says, " If you commit one truly benevolent act, it voids the contract."
Elliot (Brendan Frasier): So I get to keep my soul?
Devil (Elizabeth Hurely): Yes, you get to keep your soul.
Elliot (Brendan Frasier): Yes! Yes! I get to keep my soul!
Devil (Elizabeth Hurely): On November 16th, I'll have done this for 6000 years. You're the first person to give away a wish. I hope it's not a trend. You won't tell anyone?
Elliot (Brendan Frasier): No, no, I promise. Nope. I don't get it, though. I mean, why are you being nice?
Devil (Elizabeth Hurely): Look, Elliot. I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. The whole " good and evil" thing-- You know, Him and me.It really comes down to you. You don't have to look hard for Heaven and Hell. They're here on Earth. You make the choice. And I guess you just made yours.


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
And I am going to put an end to the fiction of law thing right here, right now with one definition:

Anderson's Dictionary of Law 1893 – Fiction

That which is feigned; assumed; pretended. The legal assumption that is true which is or may be false; an assumption of an innocent and beneficial character, made to advance the ends of justice; An allegation in legal proceedings that does not accord with the actual facts; and which may therefore be contradicted for every purpose except to defeat the beneficial purpose for which the fiction is allowed.

Fictions of law are highly beneficial and useful; especially as "no fiction extends to work an injury:" the proper operation is to prevent mischief or remedy an inconvience that might result from a general rule. The maxim is, in fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas - in a fiction of law equity always subsists; a legal fiction is consistent with justice. But not admitted, where life, liberty, or personal safety is in jeopardy .... Fiction makes several corporations out of what is really one, in order to give each State control over the charters it grants.

And the natural defense mechanism is place is that one can not use this CR(tm) "process" to harm ANYONE because the second one does, that fiction of law ceases to "be admitted" and you are on the hook. You don't like it, don't use it. You did not create it, thus you can not kill it.

The Fiction belongs to the Treasury (Storehouse) of His Kingdom and is a VESSEL of such.

You are not the intended beneficiary, but you are a third party as surety for the expansion of His Kingdom, thus with Right of Subrogation:

one has been retained by a small Father and Son salvage operation to ensure their interests are accounted for and Resistance is futile

That damn simple.

Fight that, bitches .... Unleash all your HATRED of the Fiction of Law unto me ... Kill the VESSEL of equity; take your weapons and words of mass distraction, strike me down, and your journey towards the dark side will be completed ...

Each NAME is part of the Body of the State; just like each one of us is part of the Body of His Church: and the marriage ceremony draws near, you sure your lamps are filled with oil?

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Question , who would be the Plaintiff, the one who initiated the claim ( the attorney ) , Wilmington savings ( holder of note) or both? My quess is Wilmington because they contacted the attorney to initiate the Order.

I'm typing up the verification of complaint now to have it ready for the 13th of March . 30 days are up for answer to the final CR(tm) letter.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator
technically, neither are "plaintiffs"

The attorney is "contractor" by any and all definitions you wish to use ... contracting with Rshallmo in an attempt to falsify a bounty contract for "attorney fees" for which the "property" (in rem) in used as collateral and then sold back to the bank. This is why the banks "buy back" the properties.

But my question is why "Wilmington Savings" ... that "corporation" really has ZERO liability; it is a shell until someone ASUMES a position within it and then OPERATES the "corporation," which effectively kicks in "Pewee Coal" for that one "takes possession and operates control" which would be the CEO; Chief EXECUTOR of the "corporation" (a dead thing until it is "animated" by those of whom SERVE the Idol) ... go take a look at your legal section some Sunday. You will see that So-and-So ASSUMES the position of Whatever in some-corporation.

This is why I recommend people go on over to the "InPower Movement" website and watch video #1 ... liability is NOT with the Corporation, it is with the men and women who ASSUME charge of such and then use that thing to deny one's God given usufruct over this Earth by acting like money-changers, therefore, since the "golden rule" applies, then to deny one their God given usufruct, must mean the one denying wishes to be denied their usufruct and since it all boils down a "fart joke," the rule is "he who denied it, supplied it."
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

Rschallmo
 I did watch the video, and I thought that's the way I should have gone before I started typing up the verification of complaint. I wasn't sure on who to put in for the liability, but you gave me a better understanding that the liability is not with the corporation it is with the men and women.  So I guess I need to find out who the CEO is of Wilmington savings to put liability on him. Would I put attorney , clerk of Land court, CEO of Servicer , etc. anyone who got involved ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

iamsomedude
Administrator

a corporation does NOTHING without men and women to act on and for its behalf
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

Rschallmo
 I think at this point I'm going to go with the verification of complaint to the Supreme Court. I look at it this way, yeah we did find out about the notice of liability  but I would've had to go this route if we didn't find out about it.  This is all learning curve for me. I might as well go with what I feel comfortable with. In the meantime  i'll figure out the wording that I need to do on the notice of liability and get that ready. It's tough for me because I don't have a computer to print and save all this. It's all about having faith, right!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

liberated
get yourself a free drop box account so you can save your files to dropbox this way you have them saved and you can access them from anywhere, anytime. Just remember your user name and paswword
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Boris

 I finally have the verification of complaint typed up. I know that you mentioned That neither Wilmington savings or attorney are "plaintiffs". (When I sent the CR to the attorney's office I put attorney firm et., attn. Amy Nicole Azza, Esq. and any and all successors) Now that I know this would it be wise to put in the complaint the CEO Mark A. Turner's name on it ? Also, do I sent all originals to the Supreme Court?

Still no judgment yet.