Courts and Judges

Courts and Judges

Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

“When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326-

This tells us the judge is suppose to be looking out for our best interest, Not theirs, not the courts, Not the states, not the city, or counties and not the federal government best interest. Sadly today most if not all judges are looking out for all the above and not yours.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby… The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.

The word laws here means common law not statutes and codes. Any statute must be in harmony with the common law and any codes must be in harmony with statutes which are in turn in harmony with common law.

Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

What we will see is a judge is suppose to act as a magistrate when it comes to commercial law and a judge when it comes to common law and they are suppose to look out for your rights as a citizen so the commercial law is applied to corporations and not regular citizens going about their daily business in which case only common law applies. To unconstitutionally apply commercial law to the common people as if they were corporations is treason and a violation of oath of office. In today’s courts and for a price judges do not seem to have any problem with committing treason and fraud as well as racketeering and conspiracy and robing you.

To understand how the law is unconstitutionally applied in most cases see; Dismissticket.com
http://www.dismissticket.com/TheLaw.html

By constitutional common law courts you are innocent until proven guilty. By the court system of today admiralty/maritime courts, you are guilty until proven innocent these are unconstitutional.

NISI Prius courts.

Subject: NISI PRIUS COURT

“George H. Cullins” wrote:

> Black’s Law Dictionary defines Nisi Prius Courts as:
>
> “The nisi prius courts are such as are held for the trial of issues of fact
> before a jury and one presiding judge. In America the phrase was formerly
> used to denote the forum (whatever may be its statutory name) in which the
> cause was tried to a jury, as distinguished from the appellate court.”
>
> To me, that says the nisi prius court is a TRIAL COURT, which of course is
> where the FACTS of a case are discovered.
>
> Thornton says a nisi prius court is a “court of no record.” But a record
> is kept in a trial court
===============================================================================

Bill Thornton replies:

On the surface of it, your doubts are reasonable. I’ll do my best to
explain nisi prius courts, courts of record, and courts of no record.

First, the mere keeping of a record does not qualify any court to be a
court of record. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, contributes to
the confusion by listing only two of the four requirements for a court
to qualify as a court of record. If you want the full explanation, see
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm.

In California, all courts are named as courts of record. However, if in an
individual case they are not operated as courts of record, then they
don’t qualify as such. It takes more than a name to make a court of
record. Even though a court may be keeping a record, it is a court of
no record if it does not conform to the remaining three requirements for
a lawful court of record.

Black’s Law Dictionary’s omissions are subtle. But, if you look deep
enough, you can recombine the information and get to the real meaning of
terms such as “nisi prius”.

“Nisi prius” is a Latin term. Individually, the words mean thus:

“Prius” means “first.” For example, “Prius vitiis laboravimus, nunc
legibus” means “We labored first with vices, now with laws.” Quoted
from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.

“Nisi” means “unless.” Quoting from B.L.D., 5th Ed.: “The word is
often affixed as a kind of elliptical expression, to the words ‘rule,’
‘order,’ ‘decree,’ ‘judgment,’ or ‘confirmation,’ to indicate that the
adjudication spoken of is one which is to stand as valid and operative
unless the party affected by it shall appear and show cause against it,
or take some other appropriate step to avoid it or procure its
revocation.”

A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object to
something, then it means he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is a
procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and
therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to
the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedure
to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause.

A “nisi prius” procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agrees
UNLESS he objects.

A “nisi prius court” is a court which will proceed unless a party
objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first.

It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of
record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed
according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that
a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to
statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to
obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the
court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo
contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to
say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was
violated, not whether the common law was violated.

The dictionary does not lie in its definition of a nisi prius court.
But it does omit some important information. Namely, that it is a court
that has been set up by prior agreement assumed because when the three
statutory options [guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre] were presented
to the defendant he chose one. He thus failed to enforce his right to be
prosecuted in a court of record.

Once the agreement (as evidenced in the arraignment proceeding) has been
secured, the court proceeds under statutory authority. Now the court
ceases to be a court of record and becomes a court of no record by prior
lack of objection, i.e. by prior agreement implied by failure to object..

Naturally, after securing the agreement, a nisi prius court can move on
to examine the facts with a judge and jury, etc. etc.

George H. Cullins wrote:

> Mr. Thornton says that the murderers have entered into a contract to go
> outside the rules of the “codes” even though they don’t know it. Since a
> contract is an AGREEMENT between two or more people, how can a contract be
> made without the parties knowing about it.

Bill Thornton replies:

Yes. If the party never objects, then he must have agreed. Surely you
have heard of appeals that were lost because objection was not timely
made. The appellate court treats unopposed actions by the trial court
as if those actions were agreed to by the party who untimely objected.

George H. Cullins wrote:

> He says the Penal Codes are not the “law.” My understanding is that the law
> is the statutes (codes) plus the law made by appellate judges every time they
> make a decision. So if the Penal Code is not the law, what is?

Bill Thornton replies:

When the word “law” is used without qualification, then it means common
law. An “attorney at law” means one who practices common law
(notwithstanding the fact that modern attorneys are not trained about the
subject). An “attorney in equity” is one who practices before an equity
court. In the U.S. 99.99999% of all proceedings are in equity, which is
why the judges may take liberties.

Statutes are expressions of will from the legislature. To keep you
confused, they append the word “law” to it. Naturally, you are supposed
to then believe that statutory law is the same as and equal to common
law (it isn’t). Codes are nothing more than a collection of statutes
and other rules arranged by subject instead of being arranged by date.
Law beats statutes; statutes beat codes.

A judge exercises his discretion. Because he is authorized by the
statutes to exercise his discretion, most appeals of judges’ decisions
will fail. The appellate courts generally will not second guess a trial
court’s use of discretion.

In a court of record, a judge has no discretion. Discretion is reserved to
the independent tribunal.

Now back to where we started with jurisdiction.

The Judge… is not a Judge. They want to be and they will do everything to convince you that they are. But here are the facts on their true Standing.

There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)

The magistrate is suppose to be independent of the tribunal.. the judge… the sovereign … the king. The judge and magistrate are not suppose to be one and the same. so the magistrate does not mean anything other than what their job description is. the Magistrate administers the law.

What is a judge? A magistrate A public civil officer. A Magistrate and a Tribunal which is a judge are suppose to be independent of each other. All judges are listed as magistrates in the United States.

Black’s Law dictionary 4th Edition

MAGISTRATUS. Lat. In the civil law. A magistrate. Calvin.

A judicial officer who had the power of hearing and determining causes, but whose office properly was to inquire into matters of law, as distinguished from fact. Hallifax, Civil Law, b. 3, c. 8.
TRIBUNAL. The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice. The whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial court; the jurisdiction which the judges exercise.
See Foster v. Worcester, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 81.
The Magistrate administers and the Tribunal decides so when you are the sovereign you have your kingdom you get to decide.
This can only work if your a plaintiff because a defendant is subject to the court in order to be a plaintiff you do a counter claim no jurisdiction now your the plaintiff and the court is the defendant.

JURISDICTION

Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The U.C.C. doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the people or the Bill of Rights. It only deals with paper. U.C.C. §1-103.6 is your “recourse” from the U.C.C. into the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. It states that the Code (U.C.C.) must be in harmony with the Common Law, as follows:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law

“It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;

Apparent agency.

Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over (Defendant). Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1)?Defendants held out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at 282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such “holding out” by Defendants nor reliance on plaintiff’s part. The only evidence of “holding out” came from the affidavit submitted by Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation. However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground;

14. Although courts sometimes have used “apparent authority” and “apparent agency” interchangeably, the distinction is important. “Apparent agency creates an agency relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority of an actual agent.” Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not implicated.);

ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.

Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction”as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.

In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Court said: “The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.” Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).

The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old “justice of the peace” courts which were courts of “limited and special jurisdiction.” State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180 (1871).

Inferior tribunals are subject to the supervisory control (judicial powers), and must show affirmative proof on the face on the inferior tribunal record to sustain a conviction. “If the court is . . . of some special statutory jurisdiction it is as to such proceedings an inferior court, and not aided by presumption of jurisdiction.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or 198.

Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198. And;

The constitutional rule for inferior tribunals was set down by the Oregon Supreme Court in Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 1119 (1915), a case involving a justice court:” . . . the constitutional rule that justice courts are of limited jurisdiction. …their judgments must be sustained affirmatively by positive proof that they had jurisdiction of the cases they attempt to decide.” Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 119 (1915). And;

Even the de facto Constitution and the State Statutes will clearly show that the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY is vested Solely in the office of the Elected County Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor and/or Attorney General’s Office.

All so called Judges are in fact and law EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and that is why the so called JUDGE/ADMINISTRATOR CAN PRESUME TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST WHEN YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN THE AIRSPACE OF “THIS STATE” BEING ABOVE THE LAND OF “THE STATE!”THAT HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICITON.

ALL so called State Court’s are creatures of Statute created by the LEGISLATURE and are merely ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES which only have the authority or jurisdiction conferred by a Statute.

If you search carefully the Senate and House Bills and the 1st Legislative Enactment or Session Law creating the Superior Court’s in your State, you will find that it says right in your own law books, that ALL your so called State Superior Court’s are really LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS!

THE PEOPLE HAVE NO STATE JUDICIAL COURT’S AVALIABLE TODAY! “THIS STATE” is a de facto FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and by fraud in the inducement, presents itself as a de jure State, but in fact and law is NOT a State in Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the authority of the 1st Original Judiciary Act wherein the District of Columbia is a de facto for profit copyright private corporation.

“WHEREAS, THIS STATE” is a DE FACTO FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION under the NEW JUDICIARY ACT wherein the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA presumes Equal Footing as a de jure STATE.

The issue re the use of the terms of art by the legislative branch within the several states identifying? their legislative acts as in “this state” goes only to “Definitions” re the statute . . . should the act(s) not rise to malum se within “the state” and thereby give notice of a substantive connection to the subject matter as applying to some form of physical damage or substantive contact going to an actual controversy and a real party in interest . . . the statute has no mechanism granting authority to reach the Sovereign.? Capital crimes therefore are prosecuted by and through the substantive statute as being within “the state” when charged.

Generally in a court proceeding you may challenge the implied charging statute by noting: “The prosecution has apparently only defined the statute as appertaining in”THIS state”, however, it appears the prosecution has failed to charge (certified”) the statute as with in “THE state” of Oregon.”? This is why the avoidance to certify charging documents going to malum prohibitum . . . as there can be no verifiable charging documents issued and no real party in interest can come forward . . . whereas, the statutory prohibition is only defined.

Black’s Law dictionary 4th Edition

De facto court. One established, organized, and exercising its judicial functions under authority
of a statute apparently valid, though such statute may be in fact unconstitutional and may be afterwards so adjudged; or a court established and acting under the authority of a de facto government. 1 Bl. Judgm. § 173; In re Manning, 139 U.S. 504, 11 S.Ct. 624, 35 L.Ed. 264; Gildemeister V. Lindsay, 212 Mich, 299, 180 N.W. 633, 635.

Common Law
Order given by a principal to his agent in relation to the business of his agency.

So what we have is a magistrate A public civil officer. A Magistrate and a Tribunal which is a judge and his court, and are suppose to be independent of each other. All judges are listed as magistrates in the United States. They are impersonating a judge when they are in fact practicing administrative duties. They are suppose to be watchful for our rights committing treason running NISI PRIUS De Facto courts working in a conspiracy with other government agencies to defraud the people of rights and property for a price. A direct conflict of interest.

And since they are deemed to know the law and are accountable even if they did not know,

“Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority.” The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)

then they should already know when they stepped outside their authority,

“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957.

they cease to represent the government,

” An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp.94.

and they are immediately fired,

The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”

and they can not just switch hats and jump in and out of office, because they can never hold office again,

AM14.3/HO, IR No person shall hold office if he rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution (treason).

and congress is guilty of the same thing if they do not do their duty to uphold and support the constitution and impeach anyone including judges, which they are involved in the conspiracy with.

AM14.3/RD Congress shall impeach anyone who rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution.

Cooper v. Aaron, By Chief Justice Earl Warren
No state, legislator, executive or judicial officer can “War” against (or test the limitations of) the Constitution without violating their undertaking to support it (Breach of Oath/Contract, Treason??). The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal…no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. (Book, Our Nation’s Archive © 1999 pg 701)

and they are personally responsible and accountable for any actions taken.

“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

So when we get down to law in fact these judges and most officials are nothing more than impostors pretending to have some authority when in fact no authority exist violating their oath of office and engaged in a number of state and federal crimes.

Impostors! Our Shadow Government.
https://slydog1960.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/impostors-our-shadow-government/