Administrative Law -- Administrative Remedies
by Anonymous
This is a compilation of notes I have taken over time, so it may be redundant in places, but a little redundancy is good for the learning process. We all know we are no longer under common law. The courts are not operating under common law because they are statutory courts enforcing statutes. When they removed common law, they had to give us a remedy, otherwise it would have been fraud. Statutes are Administrative. Statutes abrogate the common law. Statutes do not apply to everyone; they apply only to those persons who are named in the statute. "Anyone who... " "No person shall... " Every agency enforces its own code, and every chapter of the codes defines "who" is subject to the code, and if not, then go to the general definitions for the entire code and use that definition. Is a living man listed in the definition? Never that I have seen. So you are not subject to the code. This is where the administrative remedy comes into play.
Look up the code you are accused of violating, and go to the beginning of the chapter to find the name of the agency or department that administers the codes in that section. Send the Director a Request for an Adjudicative Hearing and a Declaratory Order from the agency to determine if you are the person named in the statute. Require the agency to make the determination that you are/are not subject to the codes, and make it in writing.
Do this as soon as you receive notice of a citation, or as soon as you receive a letter from an agency, or notice of an investigation, or an invitation to provide books and records, etc. Quote the definition of "person" found in the codes, and let them know you are a living man/woman.
Send them a copy of your Affidavit of Status showing you are a living man/woman, and a private man/woman.
Here is a sample definition of "person" found in RCW 46.04.405, "Person" includes every natural person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or organization." Do not be deceived by the use of "natural person" because when listed with other artificial entities, such as "firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or organization," the meaning of "natural person" takes on that of an artificial entity.
Pursuant to the legislative rules, a bill must be confined to one subject, and all items listed as the subject of said bill, must be of the same class or type. I do not see a living man listed in the above definition of "person." Therefore, the definition, if it were intended to apply to living men and women, violates the rule of statutory construction: Ejusdem generis. Of the same kind, class or nature.
In statutory construction, the "ejusdem generis rule" is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to the persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. Laws, 141; Cutshaw v. Denver , 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22; Ex parte Leland , 1 Nott & McC. (S.C.) 462; Spalding v. People , 172 Ill. 40, 49 N.E. 993.
As for federal law, Title 18 USC does not contain a definition of "person. " Therefore, I found a general definition of "person" in 1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise --
" the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; "
Your request for adjudicative hearing and declaratory order should go to the director of the agency involved. If it is a criminal prosecution, send your request to both the head prosecutor. If it is federal, the request should go to the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney handling the case.
If it is an IRS case, it should go to the IRS Commissioner and the agent involved, and for that I have a special request with explicit questions that will make the IRS back off. If it is an agency giving you threatening letters and demanding compliance, send the request to the director of the agency. If it is a traffic matter which is in court, send your request to the Director of the licensing agency and the prosecutor. They will not give you the hearing because you are not subject to the codes. They will not admit in writing you not subject to the codes because they do not want it on the record. They may say in a letter that you are subject to the codes (or they may ignore you totally), but that is not the result of an adjudicative hearing, and it is not a Declaratory Order. A response letter saying you are subject is not a legal determination. They are merely blowing smoke. They will spout off all kinds of things in a letter, and give all kinds of excuses for denying you the hearing, but if they do not give you a hearing and a legal determination order, they have denied you due process, and they have not finalized the administrative record. The only subject matter jurisdiction an administrative court has is to conduct a judicial review of the agency final determination. If you go before the court without exhausting your administrative remedies, the court will presume you have exhausted all your administrative remedies, and you are the person named in the code (or more properly, you are volunteering to act as surety/trustee for the legal fiction named on their court documents), and you are automatically guilty in most cases. So do your petition for adjudicative hearing and declaratory order before going to court, and then file an affidavit or declaration with the court stating you have "appeared" before the agency in writing, petitioned for the agency for a hearing, stating you will return to court if and when the agency due process proceedings are completed, should either party decide to appeal to the court for judicial review. If you don't exhaust your administrative remedies, the court will do whatever it wants to do. Now whose fault is that? Not the court's fault.
If you are out on bail, or if you are in jail, obviously you will have to take a different route and appear in court for the next hearing, whereupon you must demand the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All of the above should be done prior to any court hearing, but if you are already into the case when you get this information, just ask the judge for a continuance so you can exhaust your administrative remedies.
Normally, a judge will give you 30-60 days to do that. If the judge disagrees and thinks he can proceed without giving you the opportunity to exhaust your administrative remedies with the agency, you tell him he is denying you due process. The court loses all subject matter jurisdiction immediately upon a due process violation, and the matter must be dismissed. If the agency denies you the hearing, and they will, and you have told the court you will return after exhausting your administrative remedies, there appears to be no reason why you should return, as due process has been denied. If you are hauled into court after being denied the hearing, you must tell the judge you have been denied due process. I have read all kinds of examples of how the courts have rolled all over our rights, and how mean, wicked and ugly the court system is, but nobody seems to want to learn how to stop them with an administrative process. They are using Administrative Law so learn the rules of Administrative Law. You can’t go into an administrative court and demand common law rights.
Well, actually, you can reserve your rights to the common law, but you have to be adamant and not move off of it. Read your state's Administrative Procedures Act, and learn your remedies under administrative law. The government is operating under administrative law. Statutes often abrogate the common law. Many, many times, the statutes have no victim.
Therefore, the statute has to apply to the person it is being enforced against. No statute can be applied to someone who is not the subject of that statute. The court presumes everyone who comes before it, is named in the statute. The determination of whether or not you are named in the statute has to be made before you get to court, and nobody other than you is going to do that for you. Administrative law requires an administrative agency to enforce the statutes. If you are cited for violation of a code, there is an administrative agency behind it. Challenge the administrative agency to issue an order saying the code applies to you as a living man. Here is where you can use your Affidavit of Status. " This is me, and this is the definition in the code. I do not see me, a living man/woman, listed in the definition, so it is your responsibility to determine if I fall within the definition of 'person' subject to the code." That is the remedy the government gave us when they took away the common law that requires an injured party and a court proceeding at common law.
Use the remedy they gave you. File an affidavit into court saying you have been denied due process because you petitioned the agency for an adjudicative hearing and a declaratory order to determine if you are the person named in the statutes, and you were denied a hearing. The agency will deny you the hearing because 1) they can’t prove you are the person named in the statute, and 2) if you demand a copy of the international maritime contract, they can’t produce it.
However, it doesn't matter why you were denied, and they usually don’t even respond, so don't even mention the reason for denial in your affidavit of denial of due process. It doesn’t matter what excuse they give, or even if they don’t respond. If they deny you the hearing, you have been denied due process. Once an administrative hearing has been requested, it must be granted. If denied for any reason, you have been denied due process. One agency wrote back and said the hearing was denied because the definition of person in the statute was "self-explanatory." Then they said "All persons are subject to the code." They are correct, "all persons" are subject to the code, but I am not a "person" and it is clear the definition does not name a living man in the definition, but the agency has to make the determination, and put it on the agency record, that you either are, or are not the person named in the statute because the court must rule on the agency's record.
Therefore, self-explanatory or not, the record must be set, and the agency's refusal to give you the hearing and the declaratory order is a denial of due process, which can be used to your advantage. We want them to deny you the hearing. That is your go-free card, if you use it. The court cannot make an agency determination, so if you show up in court and don’t claim denial of due process, the court presumes the defendant has exhausted all his administrative remedies, and the court proceeds as if you are the "person" named in the code. Therefore, everyone before the court is presumed to be the person named in the statute and subject thereto, and no court has the right to make that determination because it is strictly an agency matter, and that appears to be how the courts are getting around the jurisdiction issue. The agency's denial of a hearing is their way of saying they do not want to enforce the statute, so the court should abide by the agency's decision. The denial of an adjudicative hearing and refusal to issue a declaratory order that you are the person named in the code, should be seen by the court as the agency’s withdrawal of it complaint. If the court takes it upon itself to determine whether the defendant is named in the statute, because the agency failed to do so, the court is violating due process, because that determination belongs to the agency, and if you are doing it properly, you will have already petitioned the agency and been denied before you get to court. A court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. The key is to ask the judge if he is sitting in a judicial capacity or an administrative capacity. It is your goal to get the judge to say he is sitting in a judicial capacity, and then he cannot make an agency ruling. Then you tell him your administrative remedies have not been exhausted, or if you have already been denied a hearing, you tell him due process has been denied.
(The truth, I believe, is all judges are administrative, but they will claim to be judicial, so that works to our advantage, so get an admission he is judicial, which is not difficult because they all imagine they are operating judicially, or want us to think so, because judges do not have immunity when operating in an administrative capacity, and they all want that immunity.) If you need time to petition the agency, tell the judge you need an additional 60-90 days to exhaust your administrative remedies. If he says no, he has just denied you due process. They usually are agreeable.
DO NOT enter a plea.
Tell the judge you don’t know how to plea until you have exhausted your administrative remedies. If or when you go back to court and inform the judge you have been denied due process, you absolutely do not want to enter a plea, and it is unlawful for the judge to enter a plea for you, especially after you have told him you have been denied due process. Once the judge has been informed due process has been denied, he should immediately dismiss the case.
You should prepare an affidavit outlining the fact you petitioned for an adjudicative hearing and a declaratory order to determine if you are the "person" named in the statute, and were denied due process, and therefore, you will not be returning to court. Then you don’t even have to go to the scheduled court hearing, unless you are on bail. Just file your affidavit. If the judge proceeds to trial after you file an affidavit and announce you have been denied due process, ask him for a certified copy of his oath and his bond, and call the office of Risk Management and the Insurance Commissioner and find out the name of the insurance company that insures the state employees bonds, and get the policy number. Judges are personally liable for acting without subject matter jurisdiction, but, apparently, they cannot be sued for monetary damages, except they are subject to a writ of mandamus. If this happens to you, and the judge proceeds without jurisdiction, you can sue the judge with a writ of mandamus, which is a totally new subject that I won’t cover here, but it should shut down the case, and you can claim a monetary damages. If people started doing this on a regular basis, the judges would immediately dismiss any case where it is proven due process has been denied.
It is our fault the judges are corrupt, because we are not keeping them honest. We have been operating in ignorance of the law forum they are using, and it is not just our fault because when asked about the nature and cause of the action, they just respond "Statutory," and that does not tell you anything of value. There are always damages you can come up with. If you are in jail, and you do this, and the judge will not dismiss after being informed the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, you are being damaged. Your liberty is being denied. Your reputation is being injured. Your family is being injured. There is loss of income. There is threat of physical harm and fear for your life. There is psychological damage. You have been caused to fear law enforcement officers. You don't have to complain about the court; you don't have to say "that's not me," or argue about a capitalized name, or any such thing. The judges and the agencies know you are the living man, but they require you to know how to operate in administrative law, and if you are ignorant of it, oh well...
Also, they presume we are all enemies of the state via the Trading With the Enemy Act, and, therefore, only entitled to a martial due process, but rather than trying to rebut that presumption, just require the agency to declare you are subject to the code, and when they fail, you have been denied due process. Use it. It works. Some judges are more stubborn than others. Some judges have immediately said "case dismissed," while others, in more corrupt areas, proceed with the trial, and must be taught a lesson. At your first appearance, hand the judge your Declaration which should say "I am not here to make a plea. My Administrative remedies have not been exhausted."
At no time should you ever enter a plea.
Your favorite words should be, "I do not consent," and "I do not understand. " If asked what you do not understand, just say, "I do not understand what I do not understand." Of course, continue to say "I have been denied due process, and I do not consent."
Do NOT ask the court to make the determination that you are the "person" named in the statute. One judge decided, that since the defendant complained he had been denied the hearing by the agency and had been denied due process, she would give him a hearing to determine if he was subject to the statutes. Do not allow this. If they schedule such a hearing, you say "I do not consent. Is it not the agency's responsibility to make that determination? I do not consent. Hasn't the agency already denied me due process? Can this court substitute its judgment for that of the agency?" The answer to that question has already been established by the courts. A court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
Remember, once due process has been denied, the court loses all subject matter jurisdiction, which means if the court does go to trial and enters a judgment, that judgment is VOID. Failure to provide discovery is an abrogation of due process of law. You are always entitled to see the original document, examine the evidence or any witness for that matter. Ask to see the final determination of the agency.
Under common law, it takes an affidavit of an injured party to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, but in administrative law, it requires a final determination of the agency on the record of the court to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
How can there be a final determination if there was never an agency hearing? Well, if you did not request the hearing, then the court presumes the information it has from the agency is the final determination. What about an agency that issues an order, without granting you the hearing, giving you an opportunity to appeal the order? This happened with the county dept. of animal control.
If you requested a hearing, and the agency issued an order without granting you a hearing, you had no opportunity to provide evidence, no opportunity to question their jurisdiction, they have no subject matter jurisdiction. They denied you due process. How can you appeal something you had nothing to do with in the first place? Administrative law requires the agency give you a hearing, and you have three opportunities to appeal their order within the agency before appealing it to the Superior Court, but if they did not grant you the hearing, you were denied due process. Also, you need findings of fact and conclusions of law in the declaratory order so there is something there for the court to review should you take it up on appeal to the court. If you are dealing with statutes, you are dealing with commerce issues, which are privileged activities. Subject matter jurisdiction is acquired under the 4th and 5th Amendments in common law, but under administrative statutes, subject matter jurisdiction is acquired by a final agency determination on the record of the court. If you waive the agency hearing, you are waiving your rights. On the other hand, subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even after conviction. Statutes are remedial in nature, and are enforced through civil contempt. The trial is about civil contempt. The DMV plays a trick by classifying all cars as commercial, same with driver license, but if you are not engaged in a privileged activity at the time of the citation, you are not exercising the privilege. It is okay to have the driver license, but you must make the agency prove you were actually involved in a commercial (regulated) activity at the time the citation was issued, such as hauling freight or passengers for hire. Habeas is administrative in nature. First, how was he charged? Statutory or by common law under the 4th and 5th amendments? Purpose of your request for an adjudicative hearing is to find your status before the agency.
How did I come under the purview of this agency? Where was the subject matter jurisdiction? Was I participating in a privileged activity? Was there an international maritime contract, and if so, where is it, what is it? Habeas can be brought up at any time. You can also do a petition to vacate void judgment. What is the difference between constitutional law and color of law and codes, etc.? Law must fall within constitutional protections, but our country has left the constitutional protections and gone to administrative law, which is not constitutional, except as it follows the guidelines of the constitutional protections. I know that is confusing. It is constitutional, but it isn't constitutional. By that, I mean there are constitutional protections in place, but the people are ignorant of them, and attorneys don't tell us about them or protect those constitutional rights, so for the most part, administrative law depends on the people volunteering to be subject to the codes. The courts are able to get convictions because, and ONLY because, the people are ignorant and just go along with the status quo. They hire attorneys instead of doing a few things they could easily do themselves.
Codes are color of law, as applied to living people, because they have the appearance of law, but they are not law. "As applied to me" is an important part of declaring a code to be merely color of law. I'll try to explain. Statutes are passed by the legislature (or congress), and then they are codified by the Law Revision Board. Often the codes do not read exactly the same as the statutes, so when charged with a code violation, go to the statute to see if the code reads the same as the statute -- especially the definition of who is subject to the code. The code is not the law; it is considered only to be "evidence of the law." When the code is applied to someone who is not defined as the person subject to the code, it is only color of law, as applied to that person. It is only law when it is applied to the person defined in the code. The problem for the government is there are no "people" defined in the codes, only artificial "persons."
Where people are concerned, the state only has the authority to regulate commerce, i.e., privileged activities, such as licensed activities, and transporting freight or passengers for hire. Where artificial entities are concerned, the state can regulate what it creates, i.e., government employees, government agencies, corporations, etc. I've yet to see a statute that names a living man or woman. The definition often includes "natural person" or "individual," but when included in a definition with a list of artificial entities, the term takes on the same class or nature as the artificial entities, thus it is just thrown in there to confuse us into volunteering to be subject to the code. Law involves an injured party. You cannot injure an artificial entity. You cannot injure the state. Real Law is tort law. A tort is an injury. If I hurt you, you can sue me. That is between two people where a damage is involved. It could be a physical injury and/or a property damage, such as a car accident, or just a property damage as if you ran your car into the side of someone's barn. It could be a trespass on someone's property. It could be injuries received in a fight, or some other accidental or intentional injury. Crimes such as assault and battery, trespass, theft and a multitude of other offenses used to be sued out between the parties, but then government got involved and passed statutes against such things, and the prosecutor got involved, and now it is a "crime against the state" -- according to their statutes, which, as I pointed out, do not apply to living people. If there is truly an injured party, it should be a civil matter between the parties, so the injured party has a remedy, even if you do not submit to the state's codes. The fact you are not named in, and therefore, not subject to the state's statutes, does not mean you are not liable for injuries you inflict on another. Remember how O.J. was sued civilly after being found not guilty in his criminal trial? There still exists a remedy to the injured parties. Under Scriptural law, if you stole, your punishment was to repay the injured party the value of three times what you stole. In some cases it was seven times the value of what you stole. You were indentured to the injured party until the debt was paid. There were no prisons. Families were not separated, devastated and made destitute by a state-run prison system. The court's so-called criminal subject matter jurisdiction can be invoked in two ways. It can be invoked by way of the 4th and 5th amendments to the constitution (and the state equivalents), which, by the way, was abandoned with the advent of administrative law. I am sure the current courts (since 1933) are not capable of providing a true common law prosecution, which requires an affidavit of an injured party to be placed on the record of the court, and common law requires money of substance, which we don’t have. Under administrative law, which is the current system of law in this nation, the court's subject matter jurisdiction is invoked by the agency's final determination filed on the record of the court. If you don't object to the agency, the court considers the agency's computer record to be the final determination. They don't tell you that, so you go into the court with some constitutional ideas, demanding an injured party and reserving all your rights, and none of that applies in their legislative/administrative courts. They are operating under the presumption you are subject to the codes, and because you did not demand an adjudicative hearing and a declaratory order from the agency to determine if you are, indeed, the person named in the codes, and you are not declaring that you have been denied due process of law because you were denied the requested hearing, you are presumed to be the person, and you are presumed to be voluntarily submitting to the codes and the court. You have no doubt heard that our consent is needed. That is how they get our consent. They don't need us to say we consent. It is by our actions, and our lack of actions, that consent is given. Our remedy lies in demanding the adjudicative hearing and declaratory order prior to seeing a courtroom, or shortly thereafter. Do not enter a plea. Tell the judge you have not had time to exhaust your administrative remedies, and the prosecution has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and you need more time before entering a plea. Tell the judge you don't have enough facts yet to enter a plea. You could also request a copy of the agency's final determination, as this is what the court's subject matter jurisdiction is based on. No determination, no subject matter jurisdiction. I also believe in saying "I do not consent." Make your actions and your words agree. We do have protections, but most of us have not learned how to use those protections. Administrative law is constitutional as long as it does not violate our right to due process of law. Unfortunately, people do not know that, and they don't know how to protect their due process rights. In conclusion, law is tort, and under the constitution certain rules must be followed to invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction, but the government changed law forms and went to administrative law, which involves statutes and a different means of invoking the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The statutes are then codified, and only apply to the persons named therein, making the statutes/codes only "color of law" (having an appearance of law, but not being real law as applied to living people), and you are not the person named, so if you are convicted under a statute/code, you are considered to have volunteered or consented, and that is why Justice Robert Bork said everyone in prison is there voluntarily. It is obvious they do not want us to know how to not volunteer. When you have an attorney, the court will not allow you to file things unless it comes from the attorney, and that's not going to happen. If you are intent on doing this, you will have to fire the attorney, and the court will not allow you to fire the attorney, so it becomes a battle. You will have to stand up to the judge. I'll share with you what one fellow did in court to get all charges dismissed. He was charged with DUI, domestic violence (his wife was with him, and she was scared), and probation violation. He had been in jail for a few weeks before I was called in. I did the administrative remedy, asking the prosecutor to verify he was the "person" named in the statutes." As expected, the prosecutor defaulted. I prepared a "Declaration of Denial of Due Process," which the court would not accept because he had a court-appointed attorney. He fired the attorney. The judge would not allow him to fire the attorney. He did exactly as I told him to do. Every time he went to court, he made the following statement: "I do not consent. I have been denied due process. I reserve my right to the common law and to equity. I am not the 'person' defined in government statutes as charged. I am not a party to any valid international maritime contract, and I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform to the terms of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. Furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. Any judge who fails to give proper remedy to this Living flesh and blood Man, is in dishonor of his Oaths to the constitutions."
The judge would not budge. She scheduled a trial date. I wrote a letter rogatory to the judge informing her I had firsthand knowledge his due process rights had been violated because I was the one who sent the request to the prosecutor, informed her that by refusing to allow him to fire the attorney she was also denying him due process by preventing him from using the defense of his own choosing, and reminded her that she was going to be held personally liable for any action taken without jurisdiction. She went all the way to the day of trial, and dismissed all the charges on the day of trial. She was hoping he would cave in and they could have the trial, but he held out to the very end. The court needs your consent to convict you, and they get it by your acquiescence, by your signature on their documents, by having an attorney, by arguing with them, and by participating in the trial. There are not very many newbies who can pull this off, so only do this if you have the stamina to endure to the end, and the understanding to refrain from consenting, because a good share of the outcome will depend on you. If you do not feel confident to do this, use their attorney and take your chances, and go to prison, because that is what will happen. This is a new process. In helping others, we have won on this issue pre-trial, and we have lost on this issue. For the most part, I believe the difference was in how the clients handled the matter in court, because I did the exact same paperwork. The guy who knew the most about his rights, thought he was smart enough to play their game. He told the judge he would accept the attorney as long as it did not violate any of his rights. The judge said it would not violate his rights. They lie. He thought he was in command, but he was not. He ran his mouth and argued with them, even though I told him not to say anything other than what I quoted above. The judge took it to trial and he was convicted. If you argue, or sign anything, you are consenting. Your actions speak louder than your words. There was another guy who lost his case. The court convicted him of speeding, driving with license suspended, no insurance, etc., but he did not participate, told the court they had no jurisdiction because of the denial of due process, and walked out and never went back – and while the court said they were issuing a bench warrant, they didn’t. If the court has no jurisdiction, you don’t have to show up there, unless you are in jail. They haven’t done a thing about it in four years, and the cop who issued the ticket knows where he lives and could arrest him at any time – if the court had actually issued a warrant. They know if they issue a warrant, they have acted without jurisdiction, so the court has done nothing against him, so it was a loss on paper, but a win in reality. Since the above was written, I have learned more about subject matter jurisdiction. I now know that administrative law is really admiralty. When you see "administrative," think admiralty. Statutes require "compelled performance" to the letter of the law, and they include fines and prison time. Any time compelled performance is involved, which includes fines and criminal penalties, it is an admiralty jurisdiction. An admiralty jurisdiction requires that an international maritime contract be placed into the record to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. They never do that, and defendants and their attorneys don’t know to demand it, so the courts are operating without jurisdiction, but nobody knows to call them on it. Admiralty also has a "savings to suitors" clause in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, meaning any time the common law will handle the situation, the defendant can reserve his right to the common law, but that right goes out the window because the defendants don't even know they are in an admiralty jurisdiction, because the judges violate the 6th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America by failing to inform the defendant of the nature of the jurisdiction, i.e., admiralty. The 6th Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment. When you do your administrative remedy with the prosecutor, you can also demand to know what the maritime international contract is that binds you to the plaintiff’s statutes. Produce the contract. When you get to court, demand to be informed of the nature of the jurisdiction. Administrative and admiralty are one and the same. They changed the name to disguise the admiralty nature, but it is the same thing with the same jurisdictional requirements. Demand to be presented with the international maritime contract so you can challenge its validity. Remember to be valid, a contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with full disclosure of what rights are being waived, and there must be consideration. There cannot be any valid contract without lawful money, and we don’t have lawful money, and that is why we no longer have a common law jurisdiction. For those who have not been to court yet, but merely received a summons in the mail or a traffic ticket on the side of the road, they can do an Abatement, provided they have not gone to court yet. Once you make an appearance in court, you lose the basis of an Abatement. Abatements work very well, and if the judge ignores the Abatement, then you can do a writ of mandamus against the judge.
Comment by Eileen
The author of this article appears to be putting the burden of proof on the individual to prove he is not subject to the codes, whereas, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof, unless we do something stupid to relieve him of his burden. It is not about residency, or the all caps name, or any other presumptions -- if we put the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The question should be, how did I become subject to your corporate codes? You can and should do a demand to the agency that is alleging you violated a code (be it the DMV, the DOL, Bldg. Dept., etc., or even the prosecutor) for an adjudicative hearing and declaratory order stating you are, indeed, the "person" defined in the code and therefore subject to the code. If it is any department but the prosecutor, they will back off and leave you alone, and if not, the next time they contact you, remind them they are in default and have failed to prove you are the "person" subject to their codes. They will eventually go away. If it is the prosecutor, he will proceed, and you have to tell the court you have been denied due process (because you requested the declaratory order and he failed to prove you are subject to the codes), and, therefore, the court has lost jurisdiction, because as soon as due process is violated, the court loses jurisdiction. Under administrative law, the judge can only get involved when there is a final agency determination before the court for "judicial review." In reality, the court is not trying you, it is merely reviewing the agency's final determination. How can there be a final determination before the court when there is still an open request for a determination before the agency? You, however, have to keep bringing the court back to its lack of jurisdiction, because judges have a tendency to ignore their lack of jurisdiction. It is up to us to demand that all elements of jurisdiction be placed on the record of the court, and a valid law (one to which the defendant is subject) is one of the elements of jurisdiction. No valid law, no jurisdiction. If the judge moves forward without proof of jurisdiction on the record, he is making himself personally liable. A court that enforces codes is reduced to a court of limited jurisdiction, which means all elements of jurisdiction must appear on the record, and if it does not appear there, it is presumed jurisdiction does not exist. So sue the judge with a writ of mandamus for proceeding without jurisdiction, and ask for monetary damages. If people started doing this, judges would start obeying the law. It is NOT about our status, it is about them obeying the law. The codes define the "person" who is subject, and those definitions never include the living man, and I don't care what labels they may have for us, make them prove it. I recommend we stay in the private, stop using their ZIP codes, stop using their labels, stop claiming to be a U.S. citizen under any situations, but regardless of that, make them prove you are the "person" subject to the codes. They can't do it, and they won't perjure themselves to do it. We lose because we don't know what to challenge, and when we do, we allow the judge to ignore our issues.
SPECIAL STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW
by David Robinson
Posted on March 19, 2018
You could take the Birth Certificate (Sea) and the Certificate of Live Birth (Land) to show the court that you have the right to stand on both the "Land" and the "Sea"
Then ask the Judge, show his Bond, his Oath, his Identification, to prove that he has the lawful right to sit behind the Bench (the Bank)
He will refuse to show his Bond because he doesn’t have the right to try a living man for he is acting as a Foreign Corporation (Corpse) having no real standing in Common Law meaning that he can be held liable for bringing false claims against a living man which means that he could be the one who loses his Dominion to the Mineral & Energy Wealth should he accept to show you his true self.
By all means, study the information and verify the massive amount of it that can be verified as what the "law" of man system is claiming upon you, but do not look for actual solutions to the problems created by the "law" of man system within the "law" of man system. The claims of the system are illegitimate by their very nature.
The entirety of this knowledge fall’s within the legal ("law") system created by man to deceive and control others. The "law" of man system aka government, statism "authority", is either illegitimate or redundant. The only legitimate law is natural law, a free name for which is natural principles, which goes hand in hand with true anarchy.
This is correct, but they will still often ignore your authority if you consent to be identified as a citizen, which includes being called "Mister" or "Miss" or "Mrs." or by any title whatsoever, and also if you fail to identify your own capacity as a private non-citizen national and don’t have a record of that political status.
THE 10 MAXIMS OF COMMERCIAL LAW
- A workman is worthy of his hire.
- All are equal under the law.
- In commerce, truth is sovereign.
- Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.
- An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
- An unrebutted affidavit becomes judgment in commerce.
- A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
- He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default.
- Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.
- A lien or claim can be satisfied only through
- rebuttal by counter-affidavit point by point;
- resolution by a jury; or
- payment or performance of the claim.