expressed administrative hearing - by, clyde edward powell

7/31/2019 Expressed Administrative Hearing - By, Clyde Edward Powell

1/30

The Opening:

The Sixth Amendment of my Countrys Laws guarantees and mandates that I must understand the Nature and

Cause of this action before this matter can proceed one-step further. I am going to express my concerns and

factual knowledge of a lawful proceeding in my Country (United .States. of America), and this will make it

incumbent upon you to then either dissuade my concerns, totally agree to my determinations, or correct my

political beliefs with positive evidence. Positive evidence has been determined by Congress to be the certified

(verifiable) production of Public Record Documents. Then the Supreme Court in its time honored and never

disputed case of Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, declared that any proceeding as this must be

politically correct.

Your uniformly adopted Rule 301 of the Federal/STATE Rules of evidence states:

a presumption imposes on the party againstwhom it is directed the burden of going

forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption...

Rule 301, Federal/STATE Rules of Evidence;Judicial Conference of the United States;

(Your header page goes in the text box, as you want it to appear)

(From: ..)

(To: ..)

(Apostille Number: 123456789 {state})

(Issued By ex officio Secretary of State of the United States; Secretary of The State of {state}, a RepublicSelf-Authenticating; Rule 902(3), Federal Rules of Evidence

Proof of Official Record:Your rule 27 rules of Criminal Procedure/ Your Rule 44(a)(2), Rules of Civil ProcedureSuperior Proof of Official Record: Your Rule 44/1991 Amendments

(Date: .)

(Method of delivery: .)

(Re: Return of mis-delivered Documents and Expressed Administrative Hearing to Determine Party-in Errors liabiawfulness, true identities, lawful qualifications and constitutionality)


2/30

Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. (unstatutory) Appendix.

This confirms the previous paragraph, and only reaffirms our common belief that one must be proven guilty

beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that any presumptions made by you must be positively substantiated;

because I am making the presumption that your presumptions are null, void, and mute.

This will be concluded by the fairest and most equitable means possible, namely, by an easily answerable

Expressed Administrative Hearing with the likely possibility of a noticed and recorded Political Default. Law

will require all parties, to participate, and all parties will be expected and required to act in a fair, timely, andequitable manner.

This is basically a complete administrative investigation and administrative/equitable/political adjudication

These authorities will be separated, according to the supreme Law [Constitution for the United States of

America (1791 to Date)], so that there can be absolutely no claim of unfairness, not being even-handed, bias

etc. There will also not be allowed any claim of ignorance, or the despotic and tyrannical characteristic of non

response. But at all times, self-incrimination, another of the supreme Laws of my Country, will, also not be

tolerated.

This whole thing is basically a procedure where we will be assured that your actions, thus far, are qualified,

required, lawful, mandated, ministerial, recognizable, and documented. In addition, it will serve as anopportunity for you to justify and legitimize as I contend, all your questionable and unlawful actions and claims

It matters not how you may wish to identify this matter, as this Procedure has been determined by Congress

and the Supreme Court as being a lawful, constitutional Procedure.

I finally look forward to the res judicata (final) declaration that will conclude our Hearing and may render you

past, current, and future actions null and void. I can only see three possible and lawful resolutions to this

matter. First, a complete and total rebuttal of the presumptions that I hold concerning this matter: Second, an

out and out confession of disqualification and misconduct (not allowed, in my System of supreme Law), and

Third, contemptuous. Despotic, tyrannical, and/or self-preserving character of non-response.

The good news is that it does not matter which of these three possibilities are evidenced, we will still be able to

get a Final Res JudicataAdministrative/Political. determination and have it recorded. This will positively stand

as the final, jointly agreed, lawful, constitutional political determination of this matter.

To lead off this Administrative Political Investigation and Adjudication, we must first investigate my perceptions

beliefs, and facts as to this matter. I will make this statement, in affidavit form. I will not deal in my truth, but

will deal solely in lawful and political fact. As I am in and part of the United States of America, then it is easily

seen, that I must conform to the Laws of the United States of America. Many of my facts are based upon this

supreme System of Law, and if you are fully qualified in your Office(s), then you, too, must also similarly

conform. If not, then our hearing can be finally concluded at this point, because you can never force a foreign

System of Law on someone who is in another Country, and I can never expect to do the same to you. Wha

follows is my Affidavit of Fact.

Affidavit of Fact

As Mistaken Identity is politically a fatal flaw to any and all actions, I Affiant, am in good faith, returning you

documents so that you may properly deliver the same to the party(ies) that you have designated! as said

parties are definitely not me. Enclosed you will find the first two Witnesses of our joint Expressed

Administrative Hearing. These documents are Domestically (United States of America) and Internationally (33

UST 883) Certified and Registered; just ,the positive proofs that we are looking for. It is from these

2


3/30

indisputable identifications that we can easily determine that your documents were mistakenly and improperly

delivered. As a matter of good faith, they are being returned to you forthwith and before your time limits.

As a matter of Law, we wilt determine why there was a fatal error on your part in this matter. There must be

some reason for this grievous and damaging mistake. It is hoped that our joint Expressed Administrative

Hearing will expose from which this fatal error arose, and if there need to be any further correction (redress) on

your part; or, on the off chance of your mistaken continuation, assessment, application, and remuneration of

damages.

My enclosed Witnesses clearly show that I am and will be treated upon a diplomatic basis. And tha

Diplomatic Assaults (Enacted Public Law Title 18 U.S.C. 112) and Diplomatic Assaults by Mail (Enacted

Public Law Title 18 876) carry penalties of imprisonment and fines, especially if the perpetrator is armed in

any way.

This document will finally determine whether or not there is a lawful, equitable, and constitutional relationship

between us, who is Master and who is Servant (Sovereignty), who is lawful, who has, or has no Venue, etc. Al

this must be positively determined before this matter can move forward or even move at all, and therefore,

must be expunged completely from any and all Official Public Records, so that there will be no further errors.

Further:________________________________________________________________________________________

(This is where you insert yourAffidavit of Fact in the Expressed administrative Hearing)

Expressed Administrative Hearing:

This has, thus far, been the investigative and presumptive section of a lawful, constitutional, andcongressionally dictated Expressed Administrative Hearing. Congress in its Enacted Public Law Title 5 U.S.C

551-559 dictated statutorily the proper procedures and methods to administratively (politically) resolve anyand all acts of any Government authority, alleged or otherwise. In 551 they limited this procedure to theExecutive Branch alone, by not only excluding itself, the Legislative Branch, but, also, the Judicial BranchThere is also an excluding clause for territories, but since your moving party has not claimed territorialauthority, there is no need to reflect upon this part of the statute.

This was not to be the final word on the subject. In its landmark, time honored, and never disputed caseWong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, the Supreme Court stated:

The limitation of the Administrative Procedure Act to hearingsrequired by statute [will of the Legislature]

does not exempt hearings held by compulsion [Due Process]

but only those which administrative agencies may holdby regulation, rule, custom, or special dispensation.

They do not exempt hearings the requirement for whichhas been read into a statute by this Court

in order to save the statute from constitutional invalidity.[Emphasis mine]

Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 50; (1950).

The constitutional requirement of procedural due process of lawderives from the same source as Congress power to legislate

3


4/30

and, where applicable, permeates every valid enactment of that body.


In the case of all acts of Congress,such interpretation ought to be adopted as,

without doing violence to the import of the words used,will bring them into harmony with the Constitution.

The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 101Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 50; (1950).

In the present context these principles require timely and adequate notice detailing reasons ,

and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnessesand by presenting arguments and evidence.

These rights are important in cases challenged as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises

or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases.

Goldberg vs. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254.

But the difficulty with any argument premised on the propositionthat the statute does not require a hearing is that,

without such hearing, there would be no constitutional authority


It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago heldthat an antecedent statute must provide a hearing

Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50; (1950).

It is plain to see that any narrative in between this line of Supreme Court declarations would only diminish theiunderstanding. What is most obvious, is that Congress cannot make a statute that cannot be made the matteof an administrative hearing, and that was not explained clearly enough by Congress. As a matter of facCongress initially tried to limit hearings to only the Executive Branch, but that would allow an immunity fromconstitutional authority that can never exist for the other Branches. And as your misdelivered document usesone of Congress statutes, then it is correct and factual to conduct an administrative hearing upon whether thatstatute is the grant of authority for you and your alleged court to bring an action against me, a PrivateSentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America and The State of Missouri.

Of course, under the Separation of Powers Doctrine it is well established and well settled that I, as Head of

State (by Natural Birth), am the lawmaking authority for the United States of America and our System of Law,Private Law/supreme Law, and that System of Law is only applicable to my fellow Heads of State andourselves (Private Citizens). Whereas, the politically disconnected Public Law (U.S.C., C.F.R., etc.) can onlyat best, apply to the creatures (citizens) for which this System of Law was, is, and will be created.

When examining this alleged System of Law, i.e., that calling itself the IRC, and finding absolutely no grant ofauthority for its application to anything, especially in the Private Law, then I/We am/are therefore absolutelyimmune, by certified diplomatic status and Political Fact, from any and all of its claims, demands, jeopardiesand penalties. What is even more obvious, by Act of Congress (Enacted Public Law Title 1 U.S.C. 204Notes) is that Congress too has disconnected this unknown and foreign IRC from itself, its lawmaking authorityin the Public Law, and from its own creatures. So there really is not much that you, your alleged court, and al

4


5/30

others in concert can positively present to dissuade either Systems of Law from either recognizing anunfounded, non-granted, and unwarranted authority, or positively proving there to be some connectionbetween the Private Law and Public Law other than absolute severability.

What were the requirements read into (incorporated) this Act of Congress that would firstly insure the evil ofblended functionaries/commingling of duties could not occur, and then to insure a constitutional Due Processhearing? What follows is the Supreme Courts constitutionalization of Congress Administrative Procedure

Act.

The history of this Act discloses that it isremedial legislation which should be construed,

so far as its text permits, to give effect to its remedial purposeswhere the evils it is aimed at appear.

Of the several administrative evils sought to be cured or minimized,only two are particularly relevant to issues before us today.

One purpose was to introduce greater uniformity of procedureand standardization of administrative practice among the diverse agencies

whose customs had departed widely from each other.

More fundamental, however, was the purposeto curtail and change the practice ofembodying in one person or agencythe duties of prosecutor and judge.


Such blending of functions in one branch of the Governmentis the objectionable thing which the draftsmen of the Constitution

endeavored to prevent by providing for theseparation of governmental powers.

Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 39.

The Administrative Procedure Act did not go so far asto require a complete separation of investigating

and prosecuting functions from adjudicating functions.

But that the safeguards it did set up were intendedto ameliorate [to make or become better] the evils

from the commingling [blending] of functionsas exemplified here is beyond doubt.

(Criminal Definition)


When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one

Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50; (1950).

And, of course, an impartial decision maker is essential.

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133;Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45-46.

5


6/30

One can plainly see that blended functionaries were and are still a big concern of administrative judiciaauthorities. It is patently unfair and unlawful for the one who investigates to also adjudicate the same matterEven though impartiality still remains to be seen in your and your alleged courts case, this is in no way ahindrance to our Expressed Administrative Procedure Hearing now being conducted. The two duties are in noway commingled. I have accepted the challenge and duty of Administrative Investigator and respectfullydemand, according to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution that you, your alleged court, andall those in concert administratively adjudicate this matter, pursuant to congressional dictates. I have thereasonable expectation that your adjudication will be impartial, timely, and will be by production of positivedocumented evidence if it is in conflict with our adjudication. This is what is required by all parties in this

matter, and I am more than willing to accept not only this challenge of Administrative Investigator, but toaccept this duty as a matter of good Citizenship. I, therefore, know the resolution will be by joint agreemenand final.

The first evil eliminated is blended functionaries, but there were other procedures that the Supreme Courtexamined as well. Of the others, the first that should be mentioned is a basic, fundamental, and rudimentaryprinciple of Due Process, namely:

The fundamental requisite of due process of lawis the opportunity to be heard.

Grannis vs. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394.

The next constitutionalization deals with the meaningfulness of an administrative hearing. Congress hasdetermined the manner, and that is by production of verifiable Public Record Documents (verifiable positiveevidence). Just as we have delivered to the administrative judicial authority of this hearing domestic andinternationally authenticated, certified and registered Public Record Documents of the United States o

America which specifically identify and declare our true identities, a.k.a. trademarks/Common-Law copyrightsour rights as Private Citizens of the United States of America, the benefits, privileges, and immunities theretoetc.; those ingenious subterfuges and devices used to abrogate these political facts; and, finally a DamageClause for criminal/civil/maritime/commercial intentional misuse and/or conversion.

As to timeliness, it appears that this procedure is to be done in a very rapid manner as Congress Fair LendingAct demands a three day time limit and the congressionally adopted BAR-Card members Uniform Commercia

Code (U.C.C.) demands the same.

The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Armstrong vs. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552.

Continuing with this subject of meaningful, we must address the subjects of responsibility and fairness. It iswell settled and well established that when an alleged judicial authoritys claims/jurisdiction is put into questionit is mandatory, fair, and just to halt any and all proceedings until such time as the questioned authority canpositively prove its claim and its lawful grant of its authority. Sometimes there exists such an arrogantdespotic character with the alleging judicial authority that there is many that resists, and even become violentin the required lawful response. We must also consider the fear factor; there are those, according to our

investigation, that cannot positively prove their claims or jurisdictions. Of course this is the very purpose of thiswhole administrative matter, and those who lack the political basis and have that knowledge are fearful fromeither discovery of this fact (criminal activity) or their despotic wish to continue to hide it. It should bementioned that I as administrative investigator am in no way expecting that someone violate the Private Lawand incriminate themselves, as this is against the Law [See Fifth Amendment; Constitution for the UnitedStates of America (1791 to Date)]. In such a case, and because this administrative procedure is a finaadjudication, it is plain to see that a just decision will have been made by the administrative judicial authoritiesin this matter, and the rights of that administrative judicial authority will remain observed and protectedobviously at the expense of the equitable Clean Hands Doctrine.

6


7/30


8/30

the order for their being recorded is given;and whether inserted in the book or not, they are in law recorded.

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 161.

For example, the political qualifications of alleged countries, Public Servants, and judicial authorities will be amatter of verifiable Public Record. Those Records being surety bonded Public, timely, constitutionallyprescribed, procedurally proper, lawful Oaths/Affirmations of Office; Records of full compensations; Records oflifetime good Behavior tenures; etc. The Records that are being demanded are those that will show tha

either the moving party in this matter is a fellow Head of State in our properly administered, lawful Form ofGovernment, Country/Nation, and System of Law or merely a civilly dead body politic (incorporate). All thapositive proof will be contained in the Public Record, readily available, easily produced and easily verified.

It is the plain duty of the courts,regardless of their reviews of the wisdom or policy of the Act,

to construe this remedial legislation to eliminate,so far as it text permits, the practice it condemns.


This last Supreme Court declaration basically relates that the administrative procedure that will be followed is

that which can be positively proven by mandatory Public Record Document; and there will be no interferencesof any kind allowed, such as opinion (comity/discretion), further unsubstantiated/false claims, threat, duresscoercion, force, arms, extortion, etc. In other words all evidences and witnesses must be able to stand afactual, administrative cross-examination and either contaminations and/or corruptions will not be allowed, asthis is a pure, clean hands procedure (justified and equitable).

Statement of Venue:

In your Statement of Venue (scilicet, ss) you have written that your Plaintiff is the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA. Though this may appear that this may be an attempt to identify The United States of America, it isfatally flawed and is, in Nature, Fact, and Law, an attempted enlargement, by means of fictions, of your non-existent granted powers and authorities. In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguishedcase we learn:

The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Lawis of things done within the bodies of counties,

and its further enlargements, by means of fictions,can be considered only as ingenious subterfuges and devices,

to amplify their powers.

Justice Story; 1815De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398;

7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No. 1,776

(Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215).

We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable political doctrine. In order toclarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of noticing synonyms to those words that may not be easilyunderstood:

and its further enlargements (expansions),by means of fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions),

can be considered only asingenious (clever) subterfuges (concealments) and devices (schemes),

to amplify (exaggerate) their powers.

8


9/30

(Common-Language Clarification)

The parties in your Statement of Venue are as imaginary as you can get. There is no basis, fundamental, orrudimentary principle that can be found to substantiate any party listed in your Statement of Venue. It factuallyappears that your parties while using a limited source of letters of our common-language have no otherconnection. In our common-language, words manufactured such as your parties are manufactured are eitheacronyms or, more loosely, abbreviations. If it is your contention that the manufacturing of the wordsidentifying your parties are a part of our common-language, then this presumption is wholly debased, nullvoid, and corrupted beyond correction or remedy.

There have been many exhaustive studies made concerning this very matter, and the conclusive results ofthose studies have perfectly shown that such manufacturing as evidenced in your Statement of Venue areunprincipled, corrupted, fictitious, and, most likely, foreign. At the same time that you contend that youcorrupted manufactured parties exist, you also insist that their existence can only be represented by BAR-Cardmembers (American Bar Association/A.B.A.). This is defined as a Privy Council, whereas Amendment VI(Sixth Amendment/Article the eighth) guarantees a choice of Assistance of Counsel and not corrupted PrivyCouncil members.

Of course, you will probably contend that this is not a criminal matter, but that, too, is a falsehood. Thisalleged Court is trying to adjudicate a political question (proper party identification) and then to conceal suchan action as being a foreign, untranslatable CIVIL ACTION, and not being able to understand the Nature and

Cause of this unintelligible statement, we are left to presume once again. This appears to be, when taken inits best light, as a criminal administrative action, which according to the Science of Law (Politics) will be anembarrassment and politically criminal to the other Branches of Government if allowed to proceed. Morecommonly this is positive evidence of practicing Law from the bench, a.k.a. judicial discretion, judicial comitycomity, etc. This does not even identify those political crimes such as treason, sedition, piracy (InternationaIdentity Theft), privateering (commercialization of Identity Theft), trademark/copyright counterfeiting, etc. It is aguaranteed right that no one can incriminate themselves. In the spirit of justice and fairness, we must insistthat no one do such a thing and refrain from any further incriminations from the outset of this mandatedhearing.

As there is no grammatical authority, no printing standards authority, or even any legal/illegal authority toallow the manufacturing of your parties, then a declaration of Mistaken Identity is in order, which is, lawfully,

an Estoppel by Law to not only this action but any further action commenced under these non-existent, false,fictitious, and foreign identities.

True, Correct, Complete, and Not Misleading Identification:

Enclosed you will find documents that are the positive evidence of our exact and lawful identifications that areuniversally recognized, internationally and domestically authenticated, internationally and domesticallyregistered, internationally and domestically certified, and pursuant to your Federal/STATE Rules of CiviProcedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence these Public Record Documents of the United States of Americaare foreign, superiorly authenticated, Official Proof of Public Record Documents of the United States o

America.

These Official Public Record Documents of the United States of America are titled Act of State:

Act of state.

An act done by the sovereign power of a country,or by its delegate (fully qualified Public Servant/Officer),

within the limits of the power invested in him.

An act of state cannot be questioned or made the subjectof legal proceedings in a court of law.

9


10/30

Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398:Ricaud vs. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304:Oetjen vs. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297:

F. Palicio y Compania, S. A. vs. Brush, 389 U.S. 830;256 F. Supp. 481; 375 F.2d 1011:

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. pgs. 33-34.

This is obviously a political fact/question, or, in other words, a document pursuant to the science o

Government, Law, Justice, and Equity. Of course the proper administration of any and all sciences aredetermined by absolute (ultimate) facts that are universally (internationally) recognized. It is also a politicadoctrine that in a republican form of Government that because of the three separate Branches of Governmen(Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) there are not only a system of checks and balances, but that in thematter of political questions, that there can never be a need for Judicial review as the administrationassignment of authority, and legislative process have already been lawfully accomplished and factualized. Onthis point, all jurisdictions agree:

Political.

Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administrationof government, state or national.

Pertaining to, or incidental to, the exercise of the functions vested (owned)in those charged with the conduct of government;

relating to the management of affairs of state, as political theories;of or pertaining to exercise of rights and privileges or the influence by

which individuals of a state seek to determine or control its public policy;having to do with organization or action of

individuals, parties, or interests that seek tocontrol appointment or action of those who manage affairs of a state.

State ex rel. Maley vs. Civic Action Committee, 28 N.W.2d 467, 470;Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 1158.

More clarification is to be found in the following definition:

Political.

Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government.

Political rights are those which may be exercised inthe formation and administration of the government;

they are distinguished from civil rights, which are the rightswhich a man enjoys as regards other individuals,

and not in relation to the government.

A political cooperation is one which has principally forits object the administration of the government,

or to which the powers of government,or a part of such powers have been delegated.

Winspear vs. Dist. Tp., 37 Ia. 544;People vs. Morgan, 90 Ill. 563;

Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Pg. 2626.

10


11/30

Upon the face of these documents (Apostilles) it is evident that the Federal, et al. and, therefore, STATE, etal. courts have recognized these Official Proof of Foreign Public Record Documents by receiving the sameinto the Courts record, pursuant to Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137. Lets check this definitionfrom the perspective of our first common language dictionary.

Political,

Pertaining to policy, or to civil government and its administration.

Politicalmeasures or affairs are measures thatrespect the government of a nation or state.

So we say,politicalpower or authority;politicalwisdom;apoliticalscheme;politicalopinions.

A good prince is thepoliticalfather of his people.

The founders of a state and wise senators are also calledpoliticalfathers.

2.

Pertaining to a nation or state, or to nations or states,as distinguished from civilormunicipal;as in the phrase,politicaland civilrights,

the former comprehending rights that belong to a nation,or perhaps to a citizen as an individual of a nation;

and the latter comprehending the local rights of a corporation or any member of it.

3.

Public; derived from office or connection with government; aspoliticalcharacter.

Other synonyms to that which is a political question are organic, de jure, and, in our guaranteed republican

form of Government, constitutional (supreme Law, Common-Law, and Private Law). Anyone will suffesevere consequences if they should try to interfere, in any way, with this administration:

Political crime.

In general, any crime directly against the government; e.g. treason; sedition.

It includes any violent political disturbancewithout reference to a specific crime.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pgs. 1158-1159.

The enclosed Document is further titled Reaffirmation of Dual Citizenship. This, too, is an ultimate fact. TheConstitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date) in its further declaratory and restrictive clausesnamely the First Amendment administratively declares and restricts:

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Article the third; Amendment I;Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date).

11


12/30

One can easily see that it is a political fact as to the freedom of any Private Citizen in the pursuit of theirreligious establishment, and in the case of this Private Citizen, the established religion is one commonly knownas Christianity. The doctrines of its Divine Law clearly declare that this Private Citizen, by Natural Birth, in theVenue of the United States, is ultimately the Subject Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and its organic act isnoted in the Act of State. There is no need to have any further interpretations or clarifications in this matte(Christianity) as it is the Private Citizen, solely, that determines how this Divine and Constitutional AbsoluteRight will be practiced, determined, and executed.

There are many other matters that have the same outcome as the establishment of religion by a Private Citizen

and the unlawfulness of the establishment of a religion by the Government. This is a separation of powers; it istrue, but that separation is strictly based upon sovereignty.

The Conspiracy?

One of most disturbing aspects of this matter is the involvement of the alleged Department of Justice. Eventhough, more than likely, bribery, blackmail, violent extortion, etc. has probably been involved it is hard tobelieve that any authority purporting Justice would ultimately act in the manner that has been exposed in thismatter. It seems that this authority should be renamed as the Department of Criminal Injustice. When viewedin the light of fact and true Law, it is well known and well established, that those proclaiming status of U.S.

Attorney are merely false impersonators (See Enacted Positive Public Law Title 18 U.S.C. 912) as they arenot qualified for such a claim as all have Neglected their Office, a political crime.

There is another reason, that being that they are the previous Successor to the Alien Enemy Programs AlienProperty Custodian, which is the position that your moving party has assumed since 1968 (See E.O. 11281).

The history of the Alien Enemy Program is shrouded in deceit, despotism, tyranny, and treason. It startedhonorably enough, by seizing or restricting the economic assets of our congressionally declared enemies. Inthis Program there were basically three Officers: 1) Coordinator of Cultural and Economic Relations of the

American Republics; 2) Administrator of Export Control; and 3) Alien Property Custodian. Alien enemieswere listed, at that time, on a list labeled as Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals. On 8 July 1946 apresidential administrative (political) order was given to withdraw this list immediately (See 11 Fed. Reg. 7567).Unlike the Civil War where at the cessation of hostilities there was a presidential grant of amnesty and pardonfor all Southern Citizens was eventually honored by all authorities, with the help of the Supreme Court; thiswas not the case in July of 1946.

Following withdrawal on July 8, 1946, by the United States of the existing Proclaimed List of Certain BlockedNationals, the Department of State, on July 9, issued a press release, which read in part:

The Department of State (acting) with the concurrence of the Departments of Treasury (acting),Justice, and Commerce, announced on July 9, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List of Certain BlockedNationals, generally known as the American Black List. The withdrawal is to be effectiveimmediately. This measure was decided upon after extensive consultation with the British andCanadian Governments, which are taking similar action with respect to the British Statutory List andthe Canadian List of Specified Persons. The three lists have been virtually identical since shortly afterthe Proclaimed List came into existence on July 17, 1941. Other governments, including thoserecognizing the list or maintaining lists of their own, were informed in advance of the intendedmeasure.

The Proclaimed List named persons and companies, resident in areas outside of enemy control, whodirectly or indirectly rendered substantial aid to the enemy war machine. Those listed were denied theprivilege of trading with the United States.

Before V-E Day, the British, Canadian, and the U.S. Governments were in consultation with respect tothe continuation of the list after the conclusion of active hostilities. The Governments were in

12


13/30

agreement that it would be essential to continue the lists but that they should be reduced to a hardcore. Thus the Proclaimed List, when withdrawn, consisted of 5,887 names, representing asubstantial reduction from 15, 446 at its peak on July 28, 1944. These reductions resulted from boththe elimination of undesirable influences or interests in various listed firms and the deletion of the lessserious offenders.

The withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not in any way constitute a termination or slacking in theprogram for the permanent elimination of Axis external influences either in this Hemisphere or in theEastern Hemisphere. With respect to the other American republics, the program for the marshaling,

liquidation, vesting, and exportation or forced sale of Axis spearhead business enterprises is based onvarious inter-American resolutions, beginning with those adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Conference ofJanuary 1942, and the last of which was at the Mexico City Conference (Chapultepec) of February-March 1945. These resolutions and the programs to be executed pursuant to them are based on arecognition of the importance and urgency of eliminating Axis influences in this Hemisphere asessential to inter-American security. The Government of the United States is prepared to cooperatefully with the governments of the other [End Page 114.] American republics in carrying out the letterand spirit of these inter-American agreement.

The withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not necessarily affect other existing controls. Forexample, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not mean that accounts, where such exist, of allpersons formerly included in the list are now unfrozen in the United States. In certain cases, accounts

will continue to be blocked by reason of nationality. Similarly, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed Listdoes not imply that all former Proclaimed List nationals are regarded as satisfactory agents forAmerican business. However, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does represent an importantstep in the United States policy of freeing trade from wartime controls as soon as such action becomespossible.

XVBulletin, Department of State, No. 368, July 21, 1946, pgs. 112-113.

Attached to the above announcement was a memorandum describing the history and scope of the ProclaimedList. The memorandum is printed in XVBulletin, Department of State, No. 368, July 21, 1946, pgs. 113-114,118.

Digest of International Law; Volume 10; Alien Enemy; Pgs. 113-114;Marjorie M. /Whiteman, B.A., LL.B., M.P.L., J.S.D., LL.D.(HON)

Assistant Legal Advisor, the Department of State.

We have taken excepts from this Digest that show that there exists today a congressionally undeclaredeconomic war being conducted by the current Alien Enemy Program Officers against any and all Private,Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America, and because of the volume ofthese excerpts, we incorporate these excerpts from this Digest into this document as if written as an Exhibit.

Even though it may appear that this was a Program solely directed against Axis powers, much before thistime provisions were made by Executive Order, the exclusive lawmaker of this Program, to include all PrivateCitizens of the United States of America. How can one know for sure that one is considered as an Alien

Enemy? If one is having any property seized by the Alien Enemy Custodian, or is required to gain a licensefor any reason, who is being attacked by the Alien Property Custodian in United States courts, is listed uponthe new Proclaimed List of Blocked Nationals, U.S. (United States of America), etc. And, as your movingparty is the collector of all these, then it is safe to say that the Alien Property Custodian of the unlawful andunconstitutional Alien Enemy Program is presently your moving party.

Studying the history of these Alien Enemy Program Officers reveals that in 1946 the Secretary of Commercehad already succeeded the Office of Administrator of Export Control. The Secretary of State has assumed theCoordinator of Cultural and Economic Relations with the American Republics.

13


14/30

1 October 1948 the Attorney General was transferred the authority of the Alien Property Custodian as isevidenced in the cases of 255 F.2d 236 (1958), 170 F. Supp. 419 (1959), 299 F.2d 923, 301 F.2d 544 (1962)301 F.2d 546 (1962), etc. Attorney Generals Rogers and Kennedy claimed to be Successor to the AlienProperty Custodian. Further evidence is found in this Digest:

By Executive Order No. 11281, May 15, 1966, President Johnson stated that whereas, the functions ofvesting property under Trading with the Enemy Act and under section 202 of the International ClaimsSettlement Act [22 U.S.C. 1631 (a)] have been terminated, and that whereas the Office of AlienProperty would be abolished on or before June 30, 1966, the authority granted to the Attorney Genera

by Executive Order No. 9989 (supra) [above] with respect to property and interests blocked ootherwise restricted under Executive Order No. 8389 was thereby terminated and Executive Order No.9989 superceded, and the Secretary of the Treasury should thereafter be responsible foradministration of the controls exercisable under Executive Order No. 8389 with respect to any propertyor interests that remained blocked or restricted under Executive Order No. 8389.

31 Fed. Reg. 7215-7216;Digest of International Law; Volume 10; Alien Enemy; Pgs. 111;Marjorie M. /Whiteman, B.A., LL.B., M.P.L., J.S.D., LL.D.(HON)

Assistant Legal Advisor, the Department of State.

So your moving party, the assessment and collection arm of the Secretary of the Treasury from the foreign,

fictitious, non-existent Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; by and through its fraudulent and unconstitutionaAgreements with every fictional Federal, STATE, COUNTY, and CITY; under threat, duress, coercion, forceand arms to all Private Citizens; using violent extortions and bribery to illicit aid from false personating PublicServants; to prosecute an unrecognized, foreign, unconstitutional system of false laws; for illegitimatefraudulent, unlawful, and unwarranted collections of taxes (sic, revenues); while all the while having nosovereignty, no grant of authority and/or power, official capacity, no political basis and no venue whatsoever; isnow trying to force us who are knowledgeable to these political facts and our only response can be to presumethat there may be found clean hands in the Law amongst those of you who have been recruited into thisaberration.

We are also under the belief that the Clean Hands Doctrine may not be able to be honored by you, youralleged outlaw court and all those in concert, so we have taken the appropriate remedy to even rectify this

without you having to incriminate yourself.

Sovereignty:

Sovereignty determines power and authority of parties. There are many types of sovereignty doctrines, themost significant in this matter is the Doctrine called Master and Servant Relationship. In the BAR-Cardmembers publication, Corpus Juris, a.k.a. Corpus Juris Secundum/C.J.S., its 2000 edition has suddenlyfallen silent from well over fourteen hundred pages previously. As this profession has always done, it has triedto obfuscate its actions, and therefore, its intentions by means of fictions in ingenious subterfuges anddevices such an action as this is not surprising as truth and facts are the A.B.A.s fatal flaw.

In another of the BAR-Card members publications, namely the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) it hastried to amplify the powers of commerciality to include the Master and Servant Relationship to that of anotherdoctrine of commercial sovereignty, Principle and Agent Relationship. This is like comparing apples andoranges, as the former deals with Private Citizens and the latter imaginary/legal assumptions, but the mostimportant consideration is the lawful granting of power and authority. Fortunately, this is not a controversiasubject, as there have been many authorities, alleged or otherwise that have weighed in on this very matter ofsovereignty and its lawful practice.

Firstly, up until the formation of our Government, the previous forms of Government, sovereignty, was basedupon the authority assuming the right to write the superior Law. In most cases throughout history, thisauthority was a singular entity that usually embodied a self-proclaimed deity, royal birth, etc. There are many

14


15/30

instances of violent means being used to hold ones singular authority, and we call these dictatorships. RomanCanon Law is the mere replacement of these authorities by a legislative body. That is not the case of our formof Government. Rulers and Servant, or more commonly, Master(s) and Servant Relationship have replacedthis principle of ruler and subject relationship, in our Government.

In a landmark, time honored, and never disputed case, the Supreme Court declared:

Sovereignty.

in our republican forms of government the absolute sovereigntyof the nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation:

and the residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted]to any of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the state;

[Lawful Clarification]

Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096.

Absolute Sovereignty is known internationally as Head of State; anciently as Ruler, and relationally as MasterToday, there is little difference, as absolute sovereignty is still the absolute property of the Head of State-Ruler-Master of Government, and our Founding Fathers turned this upside down by having many Rulers and few

Subjects, and it has now universally recognized;

In international law a state is considered sovereignwhen it is organized for political purposes

and permanently occupies a fixed territory.

It must have an organized government capable of enforcing lawand be free from all external control.

A wandering tribe of savages, or nomads,or people united merely for commercial purposes

or under control of another state (United States of America) cannot be

considered as a sovereign state.

The fact of sovereignty is usually establishedby general recognition of other states,

and, until such recognition is universal (International),no community (United States, et al.) can be considered as sovereign.

(Constitutional Clarification)

Snow, Int. Law 19;Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Pg. 3096.

The United States, et al. does not possess any of the required sovereign characteristics. The first paragraph

clearly shows the inability of the United States, et al. of being capable of being a Body Politic. Its allegedjudicial branch is forbidden by definition from participating in the check and balance system of a trulyrepublican Form of Government. In Enacted Public Law Title 5 U.S.C. 551 even the alleged legislativebranch of the United States, et al. has declared that it is politically inept. This basically means that the allegedexecutive branch is left the task of politically dealing with the Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute SovereignCitizen of the United States of America or to positively show that the United States, et al. is, characteristicallyno political state (International), lawful Government, etc.

As to permanent territory, every square inch of the United States of America is surveyed and has perfect titleThese perfect titles (Land Patents) are perpetual to not only the initial Purchaser (Private Citizen), but to the

15


16/30

heirs and assigns of this purchaser, also, in perpetuity. According to the Supreme Court of the United Stateset al. this method of titling is free from any error and is permanent.

The second paragraph is even more obvious, the organized government of the United States, et al is nothingmore than a para-military police state. Much like that the Private Citizens of pre-World War 2 Germany had toface. To have the ability to enforce the law, first there must be a system of law to enforce. As was stated inone of the Supreme Courts landmark, time honored, and never disputed case:

For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles,

but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions,is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law,

but something indulged rather than allowed as a law.

1 Blackstones Commentaries 413,Sir William Blackstone;


Further substantiation can be found in the International Law for this militarization of and by the United States,et al.

For the purpose of ensuring, or, as the case may be,

strengthening the genuine link between a State and ships flying its flag,and in order to exercise effectively its jurisdiction and control over such shipsas well as with regard to administrative, technical, economic and social matters,

a flag State shall apply the provisions contained in this Convention.

Registration of Ships and Mortgages,United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships,

1986; Geneva, February 7, 1986Article 1, Objectives

This same objective is also restated in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So just what does the International Law of the Flag declare as to

the alleged Government of the United States, et al.?

The placing of a fringe on the national flag,the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union

are matters of detail not controlled by statute,but are within the discretion of the President

as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

34 Op. Att. Gen. 483,Department of Justice,

May 15, 1925.

Knowing this, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that all the alleged departments and agencies of thealleged Government of the United States, et al., their practices, their actions, etc. are all militaristic in Nature,Fact, and Law.

It would also be remiss if the full Tacit, International, Public, Notice concerning the International Law of the Flagwas not revealed. In the alleged Courts of the United States, et al. it is declared them to be not only militaryCommander-In-Chief, no law tribunals, but, also, maritime hypothecations (e.g. piracy, privateering, bottomrybonds, salvage, etc.).

Whereas, on the other hand, the United States of America is completely different, all the practices, proceduresprinciples, doctrines, Law, etc. are not only politically correct, but also universally recognized. By factually

16


17/30

describing the United States of America, and, then, noting the deficiencies of the United States, et al. we wilbe able to factually declare that one of the above is a Lawful, universally recognized, political Government, andthe other, by means of fictions, is merely a corrupt organization (RICO) of ingenious subterfuges and devicesfor the singular purpose of unlawfully and evilly extending their non-granted (arbitrary), unfounded, imperfectlytitled, and non-existent powers and authority militaristically and violently over Private Citizens of the UnitedStates of America.

United States of America.

4. In these matters, particularly in the limitationsput on the sovereignty of the states,

it has been sometimes said that the Constitution(s) executes itself.

This expression may be allowed;but with as much propriety these may be said

to be laws which the people have enacted themselves,and no laws of congress can either form, add to, or confirm them.

They are rights, privileges, or immunities which are granted by the people,and are beyond the power of congress or state legislatures;

and they require no law to give them force or efficiency.

It is obvious that no law can effect this immunity.

On these subjects all laws are purely nugarory [having no power],because they go beyond (falsely enlarged) or

fall short (not granted) of the provisions of the Constitution(s),that must always be appealed to.

An individual (Private Citizen) has just what that gives him,no less and no more.

It may be laid down as a universal rule,

admitting no exception that when the Constitution(s)establish a disability of immunity, a privilege or a right,these are precisely as that instrument has fixed them,

and can be neither augmented nor curtailedby any act or law either of congress or a state legislature.

[Politically Corrected]

Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1870.

Whereas, it can be said of the United States, et al., that it is a very unusual word in the Law. In Lawdictionaries, it does not appear until 1968 in Black' 4 h ed., page 1703. It was at this time that the SUPREMECOURT OF THE UNITED STATES interpreted this word to have multiple meanings (See Hooven & Allison Co.

vs. Evatt, U.S., Ohio, 324 U.S. 562).

For 181 years, United States meant nothing other than a respelling of united States (Declaration oIndependence) and United States (Articles of Confederation, Constitution for the United States of America(1791 to Date), and all State Republic Constitutions) which is, in Nature, Fact, and Law, the collection of theseparate state Republics, Treaty States, several States, our guaranteed Republics [see Article IV, 4 of theConstitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)] conveniently and commonly labeled thereto.

It has been by mere unlawful, violent, and criminal fictional enlargement, which gives the appearance oincluding the united States, the organic United States, the several States, etc., whereas, in actuality, Nature,Fact, and Law it is the non-sovereign, non-existent, untitled, unauthorized, politically criminal RICO

17


18/30

organization which goes by many disguises such as UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICASTATE OF ___, COUNTY OF ___, CITY OF ___, United States, Federal, National, etc. that is actually beingpurported and this, too, is void of any recognizable sovereignty. This entity has many aliases and must use vet armis (force and arms), dictatorially, and militaristically to enforce its beliefs, will, and demanded obedience(voluntary compliance) upon the true Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the UnitedStates of America, and such actions negate any claim of authority absolutely.

Its most popular fictional non-existent form is in a false corporate form and has taken the fictionalunauthorized, untranslatable, foreign name of UNITED STATES, et al. It is a parent corporation by its own

admission of bankruptcy through Commander-In-Chief Proclamation (Executive Orders), and therefore, civillydead.

Just as there is a defined and distinct hierarchy in Sovereignty, there also politically exists a hierarchy inSystems of Law. Specifically, a Hornbook which is a textbook of the science of Law declares and defines:

Anglo-American law has been separated into two main divisions

Public Law:

which has to do with the regulation of relationsbetween independent states and

between a state and its (Public) citizens

and:

Private Law:

which regulates the relations between the citizens of the state.[Emphasis and Clarification mine]

Handbook on Common Law Pleading, Page 8;Joseph H. Koffler, Professor of Law, New York Law School and

Alison Reppy, Late Dean and Professor of Law, New York Law School

West Publishing Co. (1984)

We are sure that this law school textbook, which, by the way, is authored by BAR-Card members, had as itsintent to obfuscate, but to merely illuminate those scientific facts about our System of Law. The law makingauthorities certainly agree with this basic, fundamental, and rudimentary principle as even Congress hasdeclared that it can only legislate, with the advice and consent of the Executive Branch, Public Law (P.L.).

The alleged charging document that we have received is infested with creatures calling themselves :IRC Well, Congress, in its very first code book (P.L.), declares:

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC)

was enacted in the form of a separate (disconnected) code (Lawful Definition)

Enacted Public Law Title 1 U.S.C. 204;Congressional Notations.

This sheds a very disturbing and corrupting light upon the self-proclaimed Department of Justice. It is apolitical fact that it is the supreme Law that we are held, and no other. Law science principles completelyagree. We are not liable to the Public Law, as we are the creators of the Public Law-Making authorities(Servants), so how could we possibly be liable to an alleged system of law that has been twice removed? Tobelieve such a thing is not only totally ridiculous, but smacks of communism, tyranny, and despotism. And this

18


19/30

is where the Department of Justice stands, trying to violently and maliciously apply a completely unknownsemblance of law to its own Masters and Absolute Sovereigns. What a blight upon the science of Law(politics) and Equity the Department of Justice has cast. But Political Crimes are not intended to be prettyand because of the abhorrence they inspired, the penalties that are to be applied are great, and most timesCapital.

In the next section, we will examine closely just who are these alleged authorities that are the moving party,the prosecutorial, the self-proclaimed judicial authority, etc. Just as we have shown in the claim to any formof governmental Sovereignty that the claimant must be fully qualified, and that is strictly a political matter.

Political Qualification:

Like Sovereignty, there is a hierarchy in Political Qualification. There are in fact different levels oQualifications, but the determining factor is the intentions of the official position. It is true that one purporting tohold a position in the Private Law must be fully qualified in order to settle and establish that claim. On theother hand one trying to enlarge their limited authority to Private Law parties and have not made themselvesfully qualified are ignored and if persistent are dealt with harshly for commission of political crimes. It is anextremely simple matter to check whether or not a propoundment is fully qualified.

In order for us to be lawfully able to proclaim ourselves to be Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute SovereignCitizens of the United States of America and The State of Colorado, a.k.a. Mater, Ruler, Head of State, I thePeople, etc. there is only one qualification that I must initially satisfy. That is simply that I have to show that have sustained a Natural Birth in the lawful Venue of the United States of America. Even though these samerights, privileges, and immunities of a Natural Borne Private Citizen are extended to anyone of a differentVenue, in this Case, there need be made no reference to this lawful practice.

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (See 23 UST 3227, Article 13, 1) a Law of theUnited States of America, when I have announced our arrival into any foreign authority, even those of fictionapropoundment, then from that point on, I lawfully enjoy absolute immunity from any and all actions commencedfrom any foreign authority, foreign system of law, and any service from any foreign official, civilly, criminally,and commercially. Our births were announced to the entire World, and therefore, by International Law, possess and enjoy absolute immunity, until deportation, from any foreign Government, law, or the officialsthereto.

Can it be shown that this is the case in this matter? Upon our natural births, the Government generateddocuments that announced all aspects of our natural births and then distributed them to all levels of itsGovernment as well as all financial and commercial authorities. The Government then made theannouncement of our arrivals to the World (International). It is demanded by 23 UST 3227, Article 13, 1 thatthere be one of two methods used to sustain absolute immunity in any foreign country (state), and theannouncement/notification of arrival is one of those. And it is obvious that this has already beenaccomplished, in our case, and there can be made no excuse or reason given to deny that we have notannounced our arrivals pursuant to both the International Law and the Laws of the United States of America.To either believe or act otherwise is defined, declared, settled, and established as being a perpetrator of apolitical crime, which carries with its conviction great and overwhelming jeopardies and penalties.

As to the production of the positive proof required to determine who and/or what foreign, I need only rely uponCongress and our Law Science Schools to factually determine this foreign political question. Congress hasdeclared in its Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. 1746 this fact of foreign designation. This Act has to dowith making required unsworn declarations either within (domestic) or without (foreign) the United States(et al.). The evidence is that Congress has determined that an unsworn declaration without the UnitedStates is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. This Act of Congressmakes no mention of any System of Law within the United States, et al., but there is mention of a System ofLaw without the United States, a.k.a. United States of America.

19


20/30

A source more to the point on this foreign matter is found, once again, in the textbooks of law schools. It isbelieved that every law student is required to purchase this book on the subject of citation. Citation isbasically where a form of shorthand is devised so that there is no need to write a law publications title, etc. inits entirety. This book has in blue pages given the abbreviations to all such publications, etc. within the

jurisdiction of the United States, et al. Also in blue pages are Tables that are lists of different subjects, e.gForeign Jurisdictions, Treaty Sources, etc. It is Table 11 (page 311) that is most interesting and revealingTable 11 is titled Geographical Terms. The first list is predominately the abbreviations for the States of theUnion. It may be surprising to many that these are not the all capital two letter abbreviations that were foundin the first set of blue pages listed as United States Jurisdictions of these same Abbreviations that are found

in the 2000 edition of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Style Manual, which liststhese as being the Postal Zones of the subcontracting financial institution (See Enacted Public Law Title 31)known as the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS). These abbreviations are in upper and lower caseand range from two to five letters in size, with a period at the end of each abbreviation: so much for thecommon misperception that the Union of States has either been militarily or commercially taken over.

The next list is a list of Australian states and Canadian provinces and territories, which is of little note in thismatter. It is the third and final list that is most helpful and informative in factually answering this foreignquestion. The third list is titled Foreign countries and regions. It is a rather extensive list that covers pages311 to 314. It is on page 314 that I find our answer to this foreign question. Lo and behold under the title oForeign countries and regions (that is to the United States, et al.) is to be found United States of Americaand its abbreviation U.S.

As this publication is purported to be in the initial library of every law student, and this revelation must beshown to be positive proof, an investigation to the source of these listings of abbreviations is necessary. Thetitle of this publication is The Bluebook in its Seventh Printing of its Seventeenth Edition and is Compiledby the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania LawReview, and The Yale Law Journal. Very prestigious publications, indeed! Why even the Supreme Couruses these publications as references in forming its opinions. I certainly do not feel qualified or knowledgeableto dispute this publications listings.

Therefore it has been positively proven that you, your alleged court, and your moving party are not even inthe same country that we are, which according to the International Law (Law of Nations) that if we are perfectlyplaced in our Venue which is not in dispute, then you, your alleged court, and your outlaw moving party are

desperately trying to commit the political crime of trying to enforce a foreign law upon a, not only foreign, butcompletely immune Private Citizens of a declared, defined, and expressed sovereign foreign Nation. In othewords, any law of the United States, et al., and most especially your outlaw, disconnected moving partycannot possibly be applicable to us as we are sovereign, foreign, and absolutely immune from any and alprocesses, procedures, and ingenious subterfuges and devices that you, your alleged court and your outlawmoving party and those in concert (DOJ, et al.) may wish to apply.

Under this heading of Political Qualification I have proven in Nature, Fact, and Law that we are to be affordedpolitical (diplomatic) immunity from all foreign authorities and are solely responsible to the Laws of the UnitedStates of America to which all that you are and all that you do and all that you claim is not only unfoundedunauthorized, unauthenticated, but is unlawful. Of course, you will be given customary, reasonable, andmeaningful opportunity to provide verifiable, positive evidence either equal to (meet) or greater than (rebut)

as is required by your own Rules of Evidence (Rule 301) and your own statute (no law), namely, EnactedPublic Law Title 5 U.S.C. 556 d, to the positive, politically factual evidence that we have lawfully presented..

We have positively proven that both ourselves and our Country, Government, and Law all are of lawful statusand at the same time I have also positively proven that the alleged country/government calling itself the UnitedStates, et al. has neither authority, power, grant, venue, or politically qualification. Fortunately for thisinvestigation, there are political (scientific) characteristics or, better said, qualifications that one can positivelyidentify a Country/Nation. I have already shown that our Country, The United States of America, was, is, andwill always be compliant to the scientific (political) principles and doctrines, but as a matter of Equity, you, youalleged outlaw court and all those in concert (i.e. DOJ, et al.) will be given timely, Public, lawful, meaningfuopportunity to either meet or rebut these, at this time, presumptions. This is certainly more than you, et al

20


21/30

have offered to us, but, if nothing else, I have already shown ourselves, our Country, and our Laws to be ofbetter character and lacking any corruptive activities.

In order for a Country/Nation to have Sovereignty as such, that Country/Nation must possess, absolutelycertain political characteristics. These characteristics are: 1) Universal (international) recognition; 2) It musoccupy a fixed territory (land mass); 3) Organized for political purposes only; 4) It must be capable of enforcinglaw; and 5) Free and independent from all external controls.

The United States of America completely and precisely fulfills all these characteristics/principles; whereas, your

purported country, United States, et al., has absolutely no qualifications of being a true and lawful country.For example, returning to your alleged Public Law (U.S.C.), specifically Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. 1746 (2), where its subject is authentification of unsworn statements, it is revealed in this statute that therecan be two different statements, those emanating outside the United States, et al. (Without) and thoseemanating inside the United States, et al. (Within). Outside the United States, et al. is defined by thisstatute as the United States of America and its Laws thereto. And as these Laws and this Country (UnitedStates of America) are universally recognized, then the political question of what qualifications are required foconstitution of a lawful Nation and lawful recognition of its Private Citizens thereto are ultimately answered, asthe foreign alleged country, the United States, et al. in its own undefined and non-existent (fictitious) lawrecognizes this superior sovereignty. It may seem strange that, according to this statute, that the foreignCountry of the United States of America has a recognized System of Law, but, at the same time, the UnitedStates, et al., a false personating Country has no recognized or declared System of Law. This goes, once

again, to what qualifications are required for absolute recognition of a universally recognized Country such asthe United States of America. The Laws of the United States of America are enforceable, whereas, the UnitedStates, et al. doesnt even have a politically recognized system of law to enforce. This explanation is alsouniversally recognized:

This Public Law/disconnected code (IRC) no-law system of law is better explained in the following SupremeCourt case that is landmark, time honored, and has been never disputed:

Military law is, in many respects,harsh law which is frequently cast

in very sweeping and vague terms.

Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 38

For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles,but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions,

is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law,but something indulged rather than allowed as a law.

1 Blackstones Commentaries 413, Sir William Blackstone.Reid vs Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 19.

Every extension of military jurisdiction is an encroachment

on the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and,more important, acts as a deprivation of the right to jury trial

and other treasured constitutional protections.


In this landmark, time honored, and never disputed case, the Supreme Court in its orbita dicta defined andrevealed exactly the meaning of the above statute commonly and historically known as a No Law System ofLaw, a.k.a. despotism, tyranny, fascism, communism, dictatorships, etc. Its officers, false personatorsdespots, etc. are, in this same case, defined as blended functionaries, which is a perfect description for theself-proclaimed officers of the para-military United States, et al. (e.g. judges determined to write the law

21


22/30

wandering, heavily armed thugs falsely and unlawfully assuming the duties of the Grand Jury and/oMagistrates, etc.).

Politically (administratively) this same Court called this characteristic an evil to be ameliorated(eliminated) (See Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33) and that is just what we as domestically andinternationally authenticated, certified, and registered Heads of State (Private, Sentient, Civilian, AbsoluteSovereign Citizen of the United States of America and The State of Colorado) are doing in a lawful, exhaustiveand forgiving manner.

Just as there are ultimate qualifications for authentification of a Country/Nation/state, there are alsoqualifications within our lawful and political Country/Nation for its Public Servants. In the United States o

America there are international (constitutional) qualifications for all members of the Government of the UnitedStates of America. Whether duly elected or appointed, all these qualifications are demanded and requiredbefore anyone can enter any Office, perform any duties, or receive any compensations. Without just one ofthese qualifications, then the one claiming any Office has neglected the same and has suffered anunrecoverable civil death, which not only results in immediate loss of said Office, but results in the inability toever again to make a Public Servant claim. There has never been a correction, remedy, etc. that can be usedto regain ones neglected Office. If, perchance, one does assume an Office they have neglected, or holdssuch a neglected Office by the efforts, obfuscations, or apathy of other Officers, then the political crimes thathave been committed by the neglecting party become the character and behavior of the enabling party.

The qualifications are as follows;

The members of the several State Legislatures,and all executive and judicial Officers,

both of the United States and of the several States,shall (peremptory mandate) be bound by Oath or Affirmation,

to support this Constitution[Constitution for The United States of America (1791 to Date)]

[Emphasis mine.]

Article VI, Clause 3;Constitution for The United States of America (1791 to Date).

Bound.

As an adjective, denotes the condition of being constrainedby the obligations of a bond, contract, covenant,

or other moral or legal obligation.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., pg. 186.

In other words, all those purporting to be Public Servants/Officers of our lawful Government will possess,before entering Office a surety bonded, Public, timely, constitutionally prescribed, procedurally proper, lawfulOath/Affirmation of Office to the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). And all those

who have not done this, Neglected their Office, are not and can never be that which they claim. In the Statesthere can be found no one who is truly and/or fully qualified, from alleged Governor to alleged Dog Catcher. Iis also well established and well settled that those authorities known as Committees, ConferencesIndependent Agencies, Councils, etc. all, too, have neglected their Office. Evidence of Neglect of Office andan unlawful assumption of said Office results in the political crimes of treason, sedition, piracy, etc. and thereceiving of compensations results in Embezzlement of the Public Money, Securities Fraud, etc.

Our System of Law realizes that the greatest amount of protection and harm can come from the same sourceand this evil and depredation would be embodied in the Office of a Judge if said Judge was not secured(personally and financially), assured (lawfully), and bound to the Laws of the United States of America. Thus:

22


23/30

This Constitution,[Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)]

and the Laws of the United States (Public Law)which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,under the Authority of the United States

(Article II, 2, Cl. 2)shall be the Supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby

Article VI, Clause 2;Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date).

This is a simple and easy counteraction to the possibility of corrupted Judges. Lawfully, therefore, a Judge noonly has to be fully qualified by a bonded oath/affirmation of fidelity to the Constitution, but must also make abonded oath/affirmation of fidelity with the Private Law, Public Law, and constitutionally limited InternationaLaw.

A judge must also be protected from outside pressures and/or influences. Hence:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,

shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,and shall, at stated Times,

receive for their Services a Compensation,which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article I, 1, Cl. 1;Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date).

Obviously, there has been no repealing Amendments to this supreme Law so it stands as read into thisdocument. Conclusively, there can be no contrary interpretation, i.e. legal/illegal, ingenious subterfugesand devices, etc. There have been some judicial interpretations to this subject, but it does not bode well fothis action or this alleged court.

In a case that was neither the customary military appeal nor a normally mishandled Private Citizens Petition oRedress, an acting Public Servant brought a complaint of constitutional malpractice against Congress. ThisPublic Servant actually was an inferior judicial authority in the only ordained and established inferior Court.

As another judicial authority from the split apart Court joined this complaint, the United States, et al. allegedjudicial authority could only answer questions that would expose every other judicial authority and clearly showthe void of any lawful judicial authority of any and all officers and courts of the alleged United States, et al.

As these petitioners were, in fact, judicial authorities in Courts that had just recently received diminishment intheir compensations by Congress, they reasoned that it would not be in good Behaviour to have their Courtsbe involved in any adjudication that could possibly lead to the restoration of their unencumberedcompensations. Therefore, their action started as a claim against the United States, et al. and it was the Courof Claims that then petitioned the Supreme Court to give its interpretation on two questions.

Upon this state of the record the Court of Claimscertified the following questions upon which it desires instructions,

under 3 (a) of the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 939:

ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 528-529.

I chose to handle these two questions individually for matters of consistency and clarification.

I. Does Section 1, Article III, of the Constitution of [for] the United Statesapply to the Supreme Court [and to the Court of Appeals]

23


24/30

of the District of Columbia andforbid a reduction of the compensations of the Justices thereof

during their [good Behavior] continuance in office?[Clarification and Correction Constitutional]

Court of Claims;ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 529.

This is exactly the question that we must asked all those who claim to be lawful, constitutional Public Servant

Judges, and, since it is a requirement of lawful record keeping to be able to certify and positively prove thisqualification, then we are required to in this document, constitutionally, congressionally, and judiciallyrespectfully demand certified (minimally) copies of such applicable records. This is even more demandingupon the answer given by the Supreme Court.

In accordance with that view the questions propounded are answered.

Question No. 1, Yes.

ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 551.

It is quite obvious from this answer, that all those proclaiming judicial authority will be treated in a constitutional

manner and if there is diminishment in compensation, then the one receiving such diminishment cannopossibly be considered as a domestic, constitutional, lawful judicial authority. What needs to be addressednow is whether there can be constituted any reason for diminishment in compensation of a lawful judiciaauthority, and this to was asked and answered.

II. Can the compensations of a Justice of theSupreme Court {or of the Court of Appeals} of the District of Columbia

be lawfully diminished during his [good Behavior] continuance in office?[Constitutional Correction]

{Clarification mine}

Court of Claims;


In accordance with that view the questions propounded are answered.

Question No. 2, no.


Obviously, this eliminates all possibilities of any ingenious subterfuges and devices, concepts of substantivecompliance, etc. from being applied to this absolute constitutional doctrine and principle. It even eliminatesthe anti-Christian belief of self-proclaimed immunity (See Satanic Doctrine of Deification).

In between the asking of these questions and their corresponding and unquestionable answers, there wasapproximately twenty pages of orbita dicta that this alleged Court used to explain and find basis for theianswer.

The basic question that needs to be answered in respect to proper judicial authority, once again, must go tothe question of the organic act. This alleged Courts organic act is commonly called the Judiciary Act o1789. It was at this time that Congress saw fit to legislate an act that could only be interpreted one wayThose who believe that this act ordained and established inferior constitutional Courts are mistaken; inorder for Congress to have such authority, it too must have been seated constitutionally. At the time, Congresshad neither Venue nor opportunity to take any constitutional action. There is a serious problem that ariseswhen examining opportunity as the custom of Congress is to adjourn unlawfully. As to Venue, Congress did

24


25/30

not constitutionally Accept the cessation of Virginia and Maryland until 1801. As everything must be timely inthe Law, it is obvious that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was never intended and could never be considered as thelawful authority for constitutional ordination and establishment of our constitutional judiciary. To believeotherwise, is to believe that Congress could lawfully perform duties, without first having a lawful Office toperform those duties from. There were no provisional grants of authority given to Congress ability to publiclylegislate, within constitutional limitations, on a provisional basis.

So can the intent of Congress be determined at this time? The Supreme Court certainly declared so:

It is not hard to justify this observation in respect of courts createdfor a purely provisional government to serve merely between events


The political fact is that the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) was proposed in 1787, and itwas not a popular idea as the Private Citizens were abhorrent of its lack of protection of the rights, propertiesprivileges, and immunities of the Private Citizens, and refused to ratify this Constitution in its original form. Sothe Union of States created further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the Constitution for the United Statesof America (1791). These further declaratory and restrictive clauses were transmitted to Congress andCongress adopted them just prior to its Judiciary Act of 1789. Approximately twenty-seven months later, theninth State finally ratified the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). Prior to this, many

States had promised to ratify if the further declaratory and restrictive clause were made part of theConstitution for the United States of America (1789). Finally, on approximately 15 December 1791 theConstitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date) was properly and lawfully ratified.

Are we to believe that Congress would unlawfully purport to do something unconstitutional and then applyduress, coercions, and threats with force and arms (vi et armis) to all those knowledgeable to the factual basisof the formation of our constitutional Government? This is to ridiculous to even consider. Congress saw twogreat events transpiring. They were a change in our Form of Government, and made provisions judicially tohandle these changes. All these provisions were not under the Constitution, but were in Nature, Fact, and Lawmade by the Articles of Confederation, the only lawful form of Government available to Congress, and thenupon Articles of Confederation Courts. To believe otherwise would be to believe that Congress was corruptedand, therefore, could never be constitutional.

To summarize, there exists scientific (political) qualifications that can be examined/tested to determine ifsomeone or something is purporting to be a Country, a Government and its Branches, Departments and

Agencies thereto, a Public Servant, a Court and a Judicial Authority. These qualifications are not based uponthe determination of opinion, Congressional Acts, A.B.A. opinions, judicial discretion, comity, violence (civil orcriminal), terrorism (domestic or foreign) or even force and arms. These qualifications are universallyrecognized and are a matter of Official Public Record. And it is those Records that must be shown to positivelyprove that all those involved (who touches) this matter are lawfully, politically, constitutionally, internationallyproperly and fully qualified, by positive, verifiable evidence. If this cannot be shown for all, then this action isfatally flawed and as a matter of Christian forgiveness will be forgotten and returned for correction, noinvolving us, and all those records created that do, fictitiously and unlawfully, involve us will be completelyexpunged to our possession.

We must now examine the lawful determinations concerning final adjudication, and, most especially, that of theseemingly routine non-response. The next Part deals directly with this matter.

Notice of Political Default (Final):

In an Administrative Hearing, an impartial decision is based upon an absolute, joint agreement, based upon thetrue Official Public Record, between the contending parties as both parties that are mandated to participate in

25


26/30

such an impartial decision. This is the Administrative Procedure and its basis is scientific (political) inaccordance with the Law and Government.

the decision makers conclusion must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing.

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. vs. PUC, 301 U.S. 292;United States vs. Abilene & S. R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288-289.

Of course, this final absolute, joint agreement can lawfully come in two forms, by Agreement/Declaration, or,sadly, by Agreement/Default. When it comes to this lawful, constitutional, and politically correct administrativeprocedure, there remains a strong possibility that the administrative judicial authority may, intentionally ootherwise, not respond, or will respond in an oblique/evasive, defaulting manner. Either response invokes thesame final adjudication. It is known that this has been an age-old problem. That is where someone osomething is required to respond to the questions of a superior authority, that they will either remain silent,which is lawful in the matter of self incrimination, or will try to divert the attention from the required matter bygoing off point or maybe believe themselves to have some form of non-existent immunity, or it may be merely amatter of arrogance, tyrannical and/or despotic character, especially if violence is offered. In this matter, therehas to be justification of present actions before a new subject can be examined. There is no exception, and asthe Administrative Investigator, I must inform the administrative judicial authority as to this problem and assurethe same that final adjudication will be obtained. In other words, there will be an answer to the administrative

(political) question, even