What will the judge do?
We have told the judge that the court
has no jurisdiction. To proceed without jurisdiction is as grave an
error as a court can commit.
"And
certainly an error in passing a judgment upon the merits in favor of
either party, in a case which it was not authorized to try, and over
which it had no jurisdiction, is as grave an error as a court can
commit." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393
Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that the State of
Louisiana can not bring a Citizen of the State of Louisiana into this
court. Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that there is no
valid admiralty lien on the vehicle. Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that the people
bringing the charges are frauds. Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that the Sovereign
Citizens of the State of Louisiana have been overthrown by armed
invasion and have been stripped of their rights as surely as Dred
Scott's ancestors. Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that the state which
conquered Louisiana had installed an occupational government composed
exclusively of citizens of the invading state. Then we proceeded to
prove it.
We told the judge that the
occupational government of the state which conquered Louisiana still
illegally controls Louisiana and is abusing their conquered subjects.
Then we proceeded to prove it.
We told the judge that we have a right
and a duty to put a stop to this. Then we proceeded to prove it.
These are all things that the judge
knows very well. You can't practice law without knowing these
things. Law just doesn't make any sense without this knowledge. It
was the problem that has plagued me all of my adult life. There have
been untold convictions over literally decades.
In a lifetime of repairing machines I
have learned one valuable lesson. If you can't find what's wrong,
it's one of your basic assumptions that is wrong. When I was forced
into the military I realized that I had no unalienable rights. I was
no more than a pawn in a kings game. My life, liberty and property
could be sacrificed at whim by a game of chance. When they seized my
vehicle. I realized that I didn't even have an equitable interest in
the vehicle. I started digging and found out that the only thing I
owned was the revocable permission to hold and to use their vehicle.
When I had been digging to find some
paper trail to who really owned the vehicle I discovered the
differences in citizenship. I had been taught, and the law books
confirmed that you go into court; comes now into court _______ a
citizen of the United States. The butchers' lawyer had made the same
mistake. The Supreme Court told me so.
Sure enough the first judge threw me
out of court. Comes now into court _______ a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana.
It was the same with the revelation
that the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana
is really a federal admiralty court. It has to be federal because
the constitution says that admiralty cases are federal jurisdiction.
It has to be an admiralty court because the lien the State claims on
the car is an admiralty lien. From the title you would think that it
is a parish (county to everyone else) court and State jurisdiction.
When no one from the state would
refute my claims, not even the attorney general and that's his job
plus I was required to notify him, that's what we pay him to do, I
started digging. This is when I found proof that he was not a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana.
The point is that I came upon this
story gradually. When you put all of the pieces together in one
lump, it sounds, I must confess, quite bazaar, even crazy. I knew
that the only way that I could get people to believe the story was to
get proof. I have been doing that.
Here we go again. Now we have a judge
that has had all of the information and proof put before him. The
proof is in a form that, I believe, anyone can understand.
Supporting documents have been provided and most are easily available
on the Internet to double check my supporting documents.
What will the judge do?
The object was to leave the judge as
few options as possible and force him to do one of them. It is his
job. It is what we pay him to do.
The options are expressed in the three
different orders. (It is common practice to write the orders for the
judge. He can either sign them, reject all or part of them or write
one of his own.)
The judge could say that he knew the
system was corrupt but that was the way he got it and he didn't
believe that he could do anything about it. ( Who knows? He could
have sworn an oath to his associates that if one of them told the
secret he would have his tongue ripped out and then be executed.)
Yet, here was this paper trying to put everything right and exposing
the corrupt system. This is his chance. He's going to jump all over
this and let the supreme Court straighten everything out.
This is not the outcome we are
expecting. But, it doesn't hurt to ask.
It has been our experience with the
26th Judicial District Court that they will do absolutely
nothing or they will return the paper saying that the timing was off
or some other contrived reason to keep it out of the record entirely.
Come 9 A.M. they will expect you there or it's the dungeon for you.
We can do anything to you and there isn't a thing you can do about
it.
Imagine, if you will, the referee at a
boxing match. One of the combatants comes and tells the referee that
the other fighter has brass knuckles in his glove. Does the referee
tell the fighter that he'll get a chance to complain within 90 days
after the fight is over? This is what the judge will be doing if he
does nothing. It is his job that he's not doing.
The next question that has to come to
mind is; Why is he doing nothing?
Can he not see that there are valid
arguments and points of law in dispute here?
Don't forget what the occupational
government told us. We don't care what you thought it meant. It
means what it says. You can see for yourself what it says.
"§4.
Unambiguous wording not to be disregarded
When the wording of a Section is clear and free of
ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the
pretext of pursuing its spirit." La R.S. 1:4
There is another question that can't
be ignored. Why is it that doctors of law can't show by what right
they are stopping you on the side of the road, giving you tickets,
extorting money from you and sometimes putting you in jail or forced
labor camps?
I started this with no driver's
license, no brake tag (inspection sticker,) no license plate, no
registration and no proof of insurance. I make no bones about it.
Yes, I had none of those things. I have supplied proof that I don't
need those things. How hard can it be to convict me? All they have
to do is prove that I needed those things. How hard can that be? They convict people every day.
It has been literally years. You can
see for yourself that I got to the Louisiana Supreme Court on the
22nd of January, 2007. How hard can it be? Who owns the
vehicle they took from me?
I claim that I own the vehicle. I
have done nothing wrong AND I CAN PROVE IT. The State of
Louisiana claims that they (whoever "they" really are) own the
vehicle. but refuse to show why they believe that. How hard can it
be for doctors of law? Who owns the vehicle? When you bring me into
traffic court are you really claiming that I am a citizen of another
state or an alien in the State of Louisiana? How hard of a question
is that for doctors of law? Are you or aren't you? Just answer the
question. Yes or No. What type of court am I in? Am I in a State
court or a federal admiralty court? These should not be considered
difficult questions to ask doctors of law. Am I to believe that the
judge doesn't know what type of court he is in?
It has to be obvious that the reason
we keep getting silence from the courts, judges and lawyers is that
we are absolutely correct. Every time you go into court for any
reason they are going to teach you the price of ignorance and laugh
at you because they know and you don't. Ten years in jail you stupid
subject. Thirty hours of community service you ignorant sap. How
dare you defy your Master. We conquered you fair and square.
If the judge does nothing, he is
admitting, in open court, to treason. He is, in effect, convicting
himself in his own court. We will add it to our list of paperwork.
Sooner or later, enough people will find out what has been going on
and it will end.
If we can't get justice we will get
evidence.
It also opens the door to a writ of
error on jurisdictional grounds. Dred Scott came to the Supreme
Court with a writ of error. How appropriate. We have tried the
judge. The Appeal court is jurisdictionally incompetent and biased.
There is only one court that can hear this, the Supreme Court. Will
enough people be watching that time? Who knows? We have no other
choice but to keep coming, the harassment isn't ending.
The second order covers this. It
let's the judge know, in no uncertain terms that his freedom is in
jeopardy. "As you would have others do unto you." We are
collecting evidence. Obviously we don't expect him to sign that one.
But, you never know.
We still don't know who the judge is
or what the case number is. If it one of the judges that we have
dealt with before, he will do nothing and Malinda is, by bond
obligation, required to appear on that day and time and they will try
and use the old, you came here voluntarily ploy. What's the problem? We're cheating fair and square.
It could be that I have to travel to
Shreveport again. If you are out that way, we sure could use some
witnesses. The last time the court thugs escorted me bodily from the
court building and told the guard at the door to put me in jail if I
tried to come back in. (I was always well mannered, I just refused
to leave her side of my own free will and absent any showing as to
why she was not allowed a trusted interpreter, flawed as he may be.
It would be a breach of my obligation to her.) Since they knew that
I was the interpreter, they supplied a Spanish / English interpreter.
Malinda does not speak Spanish and the interpreter did not speak
Legalese.
They also admitted, in open court,
that they were before the wrong judge and that an order had been
signs ordering the production of a bill of particulars answering the
questions we had asked. So, wrong judge, wrong court, wrong time. What's the problem? Let's continue.
I don't expect to have to travel to
Shreveport, but you never know. Don't tell me about law, boy, this
is my court. We still have a few tricks up our sleeves. Check back
soon to see the latest developments. (A writ of error is appropriate
on the 16th of June, 2009.) We're typing as fast as we
can. Please let us know if you would like to volunteer as a witness
and just write down what you see and hear. The truth will set us
free. Send information to the beacon at our parent site.
If you would like to show your
support, you could put your two bucks in.
Most of all. TELL SOMEONE.
Where are our fellow Sovereigns and sworn allies? The time to stand is nigh.
The third order is the legal one. It
is what the judge is supposed to do. It is possible that the judge
will send everything to the Supreme Court. It is possible that the
judge will see that it is just a matter of time before the jig is up
and prefer to go down in history as the solution rather than the
cover up. He could also tell his sworn associates: What was I to do.
I passed it. That's what they get the big bucks for. And, if
enough people are watching, we get our lives back. We won't even
have to change the office furniture. We just need to know the rules
and who the true Sovereigns are.
This is the outcome we will eventually
achieve. How soon is the only question.
ONE GAVEL BLOW WILL KNOCK THE
GOVERNMENT OFF OF OUR BACKS. After a short reorganization, we can
again become the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth. We won't
have to beat anyone into democracy. By our example, Sovereignty will
spread across the face of the earth. It is self-evident.
TOP
|
