[vc_row margin_top=”25″][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1705917857561{margin-bottom: 45px !important;}”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″]view/download as PDF[/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag css=”.vc_custom_1725121128405{padding-top: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=””]
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
[Law of Agency & Contract Law] [1] [2]
Greetings and salutations. With the term “You” and/or “Your” — spelled with a capital “Y” — meaning an individual who owes a debt to the United States [20 CFR § 422.402(2)] and/or, one who acts as an Agent/Employee of the State, I, as sovereign and One of “the People”, i: trust this private communiqué/notice finds You well and in good spirit. That said, we send this work authored by i: as Author, as a cordial reminder of the reality and lawfulness of things.
“I hate to give you a homework assignment but, it is we the People, those are the first three words of the Constitution, who are the sovereign in this country. And if you don’t care, it isn’t gonna happen. Nothing’s gonna change. But it is amazing what ordinary people can do to affect change”.
~ Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895 – 1986)
* * * * *
“Too Many Laws” says Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled an earlier decision that had established the “Chevron deference” [see: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo]. For precisely four (4) decades, this dogma required federal courts to defer to Federal agencies — namely “executive agencies” which, are “Government corporations” — for interpretations of ambiguous or broad statutes [i.e., 18 USC § 1752] with terms such as: “restricted building or grounds”, “anywhere the President or others are under Secret Service protection…” or, “…without lawful authority…”
The Chevron deference/doctrine was based on a 1984 (“Orwellian” year) ruling of a case called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that case, it was held that if Congress had not directly addressed a question, courts should uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was “reasonable”.
However, in the recent ruling, the Supreme Court quashed/killed this doctrine, emphasizing that courts should exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions, even when they are ambiguous. This decision is likely to have significant implications across various areas, from environmental regulation, healthcare and taxes, including the “dirty little secret” that in fact, ALL “court cases” are “taxable events”. [Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 61]
Essentially, this puts an end to the “legal industry’s” decades-long sleight of hand, duplicity, treachery, trickery and hence, infidelity which has been much akin to a “Perfidious Albion” with regard to being an alleged “Defender of the Faith” and in violation of the legal/contract Law Maxim of “Pact Sunt Servanda” (agreements made must be kept). [3]
Deference (or judicial deference), one of five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state or, what is often referred to as the “fourth branch of government” comprised of interest groups. Such as, the terroristic and criminalistic ADL, SPLC, BAR Associations, Police Benevolent Associations etc. It is essentially the independent administrative agencies of the United States government that have alleged regulatory and/or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control.
It is a principle of “judicial review” that rests in the context of administrative law. Deference applies when a federal court yields to an agency’s interpretation of either a statute
(i.e., Title 18 of the USC) that Congress instructed the agency (i.e., the DoJ, DHS, inferior “courts”) to administer or, a regulation promulgated by the agency. And, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing agency actions throughout history, including the: Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference.
However, the Trump administration was open about its desire to nominate judicial appointees who were, according to a March 2018 New York Times article, “devoted to a legal doctrine that challenges the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, — note not “enforce laws” — often without being subject to judicial oversight.”
The criteria were first applied when nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch’s opposition to the Chevron doctrine made him the model for Trump administration judicial appointments. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Chevron deference in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce decision, holding that federal courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
So, since June 28, 2024 (current Æra) when the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote killed a legal precedent — “legal” is NOT the same as “lawful” — called the “Chevron deference” that I, and those similarly situated and informed have attacked for a long time, I talked about the case of:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and how it relates to their “State [15 USC § 267] and their “ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES” and “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW”.
What is deference in the context of the administrative state?
Deference, or judicial deference, is a principle of judicial review in which a federal court yields to an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation. Note not “law” as statutes and regulations are in fact not the same as “law”. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing federal agency actions, including the Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auerdeference. Learn about State-level responses to deference here. Note State with a capital “S” is contradistinctive of state with a lowercase “s”.
Further, I have been studying and examining the impact(s) that it is indeed going to have on “situations/cases” involving “rights” and of course things such as: Malicious Prosecution and Civil Actions for Deprivation of Rights [42 USC § 1983], False or Misleading Representations [15 USC § 1692e], Validation of Debts [15 USC § 1692g], the so-called “Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States” [18 USC § 7], Obligations or Other Securities of the United States [18 USC § 8], Fictitious Obligations [18 USC § 514], Citizens as Pirates [18 USC § 1652], Abuse or Threatened Abuses of Law or Legal Process [22 USC § 7102 (1)], Jurisdiction and Venue [28 USC Part IV], the “Federal Question” [28 USC § 1331], Set-Offs [28 USC § 1503], Powers in Law and Equity [28 USC § 1585], Declaratory Judgements [28 USC Chapter 151], Civil Rights Cases [28 USC § 1443], “executed without the United States” [28 USC § 1746 (1)], the ideology of: “Aliens & Nationality” [8 USC § 1101], actions and “contracts” made under threat, duress, coercion, mistake, … other validating or invalidating cause [UCC § 1-103], the meaning of being Authorized Agent/Representative [UCC § 3-402(b)(1)] (NOT the same as “Registered Agent”), Territorial Applicability; Parties’ Power to Choose Applicable Law [UCC § 1-301], the Un-Clean-Handed and repugnant ideology of : “Vessels of the United States” through that “Resident” presumption/assumption of the “Enumeration at Birth” [SSA’s RM 10205.50], When a “Missing Person” Presumed “Dead” [SSA Rule 1721], etc.
Now of course, One must deeply grasp what specific “rights” — especially “Private Rights” [example: B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.] — have been violated so as One may make a presentment (“argument”)properly. Albeit, there is a very different “playing field” (i.e., “court”) now. The whole structure, the whole way to go about it has now changed due to the vitiation of this repugnant “Chevron deference” and the equally repugnant, tied-in BAR association’s ideology and practice of Stare Decisis and so-called “judicial/official immunity”.
NOTE: further info. regarding “Public” vs. “Private Rights”, here is a good article discussing the views of Justice Thomas: “Justice Thomas and the Public/Private Rights Distinction”
Private Rights: are those that could be considered a “basket of rights” that men and women can stand upon in their private capacity and can vindicate in court. They are contradistinctive in comparison to “Public Rights”. So, standing upon One’s private rights, One can show that they have “sustained or are in immediately danger of sustaining some direct injury“ distinct from “suffering in some indefinite way in common with people generally“. (communistic?) [Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923)]
Maxims of Law 77f: “No freeman shall be deprived of life, liberty or property but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land-that is by the common law.” C.L.M.
NOTE: International Admiralty/Maritime Law violates that Maxim as it is in the wrong place and thus, has no “jurisdiction” what so ever.
Now according to Professor Johnathan Turley, who is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism as well as a professor at George Washington University Law School: “Americans are ten (10) times more likely to wind up before an administrative judge than a real “judge”. That term “real judge” are his and Gorsuch’s words… and indeed, this Author’s as well!
SIDE NOTE: according to judges.org … “judges who believe they have no biases are dangerous”. Well, I would add to that “dangerous” aspect and include all men and women engaged in “Administrative Law” while calling themselves “honourable” and “judge”. Such as, those who were appointed by the divisiveness propagating man/administration called “Barak Husain Obama”. Those men and women who oversaw/see so-called “January 6 cases” with blatant biases as political hacks unlawfully denying men and women Due Process, the right to present themselves — not “re-present” themselves — in a lawful Article III court, etc.
So, the reason for all this is, previously, “the People” and their “Posterity”, were allegedly living under this Chevron case. And this was essentially a ruling where the Supreme Court said to the inferior so-called “courts”… “You can just interpret the law and then You can write the regulations and rulings and that will essentially be the law people have to follow”.
In that, if we look at how “they” wrote that 1984/Orwellian “ruling”, we see that there is/was a problem with that because they’ve been making massive, broad interpretations, creating literally thousands of so-called new “laws” out of thin air and they have been “Administering” all this through “Administrative Judges” and “Administrative Courts”. Pretty much just like the Federal Reserve creates fiat “money” they call Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs).
Well, the last time I checked, the IRS, FDA, DoJ/FBI, DHS, SSA, etc., and, all the STATE, COUNTY and local municipalities acting as franchises of the Unites States corporation out there… they do not get to write their own “laws” to “Administer”. And certainly, men and women wearing “mourning robes” working in inferior courts under Article I and II, do not get to create “law” based upon their fallible “opinions” and call it “Case Law” or Stare Decisis.
Basically, that Chevron deference effectively said anyone involved in this abhorrent and unlawful behavior, could simply defer to the agency for the corporation’s rules, regulations, codes and bylaws. Well, wait a minute. That’s like saying “let them write the laws”. And, that’s the problem with that whole approach to things. They cannot lawfully do so. They cannot just let agencies make up their own rules and interpretations. They must follow the law and the intents and purposes for which it was written and prescribed, i.e., their Constitution(s).
So, this Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) addressing the issue of administrative “courts” deferring to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer — even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently well, they must be clearly explained (i.e., Public Law 97-308 which allegedly authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish zones of protection for certain “PERSONS” protected by the United States Secret Service).
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
~ William J. Clinton (according to footnote 1,128 in the Starr report)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
Ultimately, this now throws it all back to either Congress to rewrite these “laws” — a whole lot of them — or, to the administrative “court”. Because again, they can’t just interpret that law and the actual intent and purpose thereof. Because, now there has to be an actual court ruling that is comprised of full Due Process, and the one and only “Form of Action” which is “Civil” [Rule 2 of FRCP] and not so-called “criminal” — as that has no lawfully prescribed “form” and is only a “technical” term and what is called “Words of Art” only relating to the “legal industry”.
Again, this means a civil proceeding and a “trial BY jury” which, in fact and in deed, is not one and the same as the Un-Clean-Handed [4] “jury trial” like from a so-called “D.C. jury pool”. This is all per the 6th Amendment as well as Article III, which talks about the “judicial power” extending to all cases, in law and equity — not “codes, statutes and regulations” — and the 7th Amendment in suits at common law of “the Constitution for the United States of America”, not “the U.S. Constitution”, this also includes the original 13th Amendment of 1810 (not the 1865 one) which amplified Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, and Section 10, Clause 1 covering “Titles of Nobility” as well as the 7thAmendment in suits at common law.
So, in other words, “Congress” is not the same as “United States of America in Congress Assembled” as in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, wherein there was a framework for “national government” already established. And of course, this is not the same as “Federal Government” or the corporate government which was established via the so-called “District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871”. Because, the seat of the “National government” was and still is actually at Quantico, Virginia which, a while back, I discovered the U.S. Army’s own website use to state this fact/truth (until I discovered it, and they changed it):
“Today, the Department of Army Criminal Investigation Division headquarters is located at Quantico, Virginia. Its position in the Army organization and its location at the seat of national government ensures that CID remains responsive to the Army’s needs”.
[see web.archive.org archive at: https://web.archive.org/web/20211125212356/https://www.cid.army.mil/history.html]
Now of course the “legal industry’s”, all the BAR association’s and Judge’s Association’s
“cry me a river” argument against it was… “this is going to burden the system and everyone will be overwhelmed… now that that the courts have to get involved in every decision”. Well, NO! That is simply a “frivolous argument” and nothing but classic Edward Bernaysian propaganda, that only works on the “plebs” of the proletariat and “general public” — not private men who know and assert their Natural/God-given and thus inalienable rights.
And, regarding the “individual”, over ANY established so-called “system”, or “man”, the living being/spirit, the creating/creative individual is always more important than any established style or system or any repugnant “Public Law”. And I stand with the famous quote of:
“I don’t believe in system, nor in method.
Now, without system, without method, what’s to teach”?
~ Bruce Lee as Li Tsung in Longstreet
Further, I have absolutely zero “Duty of Care” to write/writ in any “style” or perform for any “system” that is nothing more than a for-profit “legal INDUSTRY”. This stands regardless of what men and women acting as “judges” claim or demand. Because, just as Bruce Lee from a very young age was a “rebellious thinker” with a keen awareness that established systems restrict the full development of a man, I too have always possessed that gnosis and have lived by that factual and circumstantial reality.
So “no”, I have no “Duty of Care” to concern Oneself with some “system” that One is not a part of or, how it will allegedly be “burdened” or “overwhelmed”. It is simply none of our business nor of concern.
Now just like “they” sold the “public” the nefarious Zone Improvement Plan of 1963 (ZIP™) with rhetoric of “conveniency” and “expediency” and the… “enormous societal benefits obtained through the creation of the ZIP™ Code…” they also sold this filthy ideology of the Chevron deference to “benefit” and enrich them and not the people nor, the Posterity of the people as we find in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America.
expediency (n.): the quality of being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral; convenience: an act of political expediency.
The answer is further “no”, because Congress, with all their 89% “dual Citizenship Status” and BAR cards, now, they simply need to write clear decisions. And, there needs to be a lot fewer “laws”. Meaning, they must put the bulk of them in the rubbish bin where they belong as the bulk are in fact unlawful and repugnant to Natural/God’s Law.
Maxims of Law 64ff: “a court can only declare what the law is and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society”. [State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845)]
So, what are “Administrative Judges” and how might One encounter them? Well firstly, they play prosecutor and judge at the same time which, is not the same as what an Article III court/judge does. Further, if One is “regulated” like a good lil’ soldier-boy/slave — i.e., a good lil’ “United States citizen/Taxpayer” — One gets prosecuted by the agency through international Admiralty/Maritime law just as in a military/naval tribunal wherein these “courts” bring their tribunal and charges against One in “court” and do so in front of their own employees. Meaning, the so-called “judge”, the prosecutor and that “Public Defender” and even your so-called “private attorney”, they are in fact and in deed all on the same team/side. They are all ultimately serving the same entity/organization (i.e., the “Legal Industry”).
However, the key word therein is “if” (one is regulated) because, that means some people are not “regulated” due to the fact that they know what their “Private Rights” are.
Further, when these “Administrative Judges” simply want to extort money from One and perhaps close One’s business, take away the license and thus One’s livelihood because One dared defy their CovID tyranny and lies for example, they do that “civilly”. And if they want to punish a “bad Citizen” even harder, they do it “criminally”. We used to call them “Hearing Officers”, but now, these men and women like to play “dress up”, so they wear their black dresses called “mourning robes”. And that is not just my view. Justice Gorsuch has expressed the same exact factual reality himself!
Maxims of Law 64ff: “a court can only declare what the law is and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society”. [State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845)]
Maxims of Law 64ff: “an unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed”. [16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); and, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442]
So, a real/true “court’s” main role is to ensure that the Agency rules conform to the constitution and the Agency’s statutory powers. Now here’s the problem though. Every single statue must be made through the lens of the constitution and must be constitutional. So, when an Agency wants to take something away from a man well, the Agency cannot have power that goes against constitution(s). Because, every man must have due process of law, a “trial BY jury” consisting of a jury of their “peers” — which is another discrepancy — and, the courts are to be courts of law. That means the common law and not “statues”.
Thus, we must beg the question of… “why are the people being denied due process in these so-called “courts”? Well, in everything I do, I show the actual law to back it all up. I show what the law says and does NOT say and what the law says means everything. So, when we look at Due Process and how it does not happen in the fake “courts” here in America, the first thing we have to do is comprehend what is a “court” and what is not a “court”. Meaning, Administrative Law Agencies are NOT “courts”.
Now one of the crucial subjects in this work authored by i: as Author, is how Justice Gorsuch and a few of the other Supreme Court justices are now commenting on this repugnant and Un-Clean-Handed fraud that has all become beyond the pale in terms of the definition and meaning of “too much”. Not just a little too much, but way too much.
Now there are two (2) books I read a few years ago and they are:
- “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent“
by: Harvey Silverglate (2011), Alan M. Dershowitz (Foreword) and, - “Licensed to Lie“
by: Sidney Powell (2018)
LICENSE: in the law of contracts, a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.
~ Black’s Law 2nd Ed.
With these books, I really started getting on the “bandwagon” of… we can “argue” about whether One is the “straw man” — i.e., a weak or imaginary opposition, such as is an argument, an adversary/antagonist (a.k.a. “Satan” as found in Shmuel Alef 29:3-5 of the OJB) set up only to be easily confuted or, a “PERSON”/“Ens Legis” set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction [i.e., UCC § 9-102] — and whatever else, but regardless of that, the death-debt based “system” operates under a massive construct of corporate codes, statutes and bylaws that have grown so fast, One really cannot even track it.
And of course, there is always the question One must beg of, are they even “laws” let alone “lawful”? Are “they” all simply acting “extrajudicially” and outside of Due Process? Are they acting on their own “authority” which, when an agency like a so-called “court” makes up its own rules and follows them, that’s what they’re doing. They are acting “extrajudicially”. Well guess what? In effect, that is now shown as “unconstitutional” as per the SCOTUS.
Thus, when “they” want to simply cite a regulation, code, statute etc. or, one of their “Case Laws”, the problem is, it is all supposed to be interpreted if not clearly written. And no one can feign ignorance any longer and pretend that most of them are not clearly written.
For example, does anyone actually exist under the belief that the IRS code, with its 8,000 plus pages in six point font (e.g., IRS code in 6 point font) is clearly written for the everyday man to comprehend? Of course not! No one of reasonable mind and discernment would. So therefore, it is subject to a broad range of interpretations.
Well, guess what, they cannot, for example, take Title 27 regulations — that’s “regulations” and not “laws” — and then go and apply them to Title 26 actions. Because, each statute has its own set of regulations that should be implemented, but they’re not. Most of Title 26 regulations are not implemented. Which means, they are to be fully written out, then they are to be reviewed by Congress and then, they are put in the Federal Register. However, the fact remains that most of them are not even in there. This was never done. So, the “enforcement authority” is thus now called into question and can be challenged now.
This could apply to so-called “Child Protective Services” (CPS) where many of the CPS agents and their co-conspirators acting as “judges” and “attorneys” are well-documented pedophiles, that are trying to steal people’s sons and daughters. It could apply to so-called “probation officers” who are part of the scam of the “probating of a will” of the decedent estate/trust they are tapping for ill begotten gains and Unjust Enrichments made through the constructive surety cases and the certificates they create and hand to themselves as the “executors”.
It could also apply to the “traffic courts” and any local municipal court as they are in fact and indeed again, just administrative law agencies. They too, have been violating the law and the People’s rights by stealing their property (i.e., sons and daughters), time, resources, sweat equity, peace, tranquility, etc.
With this Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and the quashing if the Un-Clean-Handed Chevrondeferment/doctrine, the People now have the right to challenge this abhorrent practice that has gone on for far too long now. This is all a very big deal because before, it was much more difficult to do thanks to the corruption and the fictitious idea that there exists a law that says One “needs a license to practice law”.
Granted, it still stands that One must still make a reasonable and sound presentment (“argument”) and I suggest using this Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, if “they” insist on operating upon their numerous presumptions and assumptions and make demands for “Acceptance” and “Performance” based upon some alleged “contract” or “instrument” for their “transactional” business they are trying to force upon people even though a man has consistently and explicitly reserved all, never prejudiced, nor waived any of his rights as per their UCC § 1-308. Or, when some man acting as a “judge” states on the record that… “we are not going to be discussing the UCC here in this court today”. Really? Well show me the “law” that says that and shows it clearly and plainly. Is that You acting with an “extrajudicial opinion”? Or, when “they” want to say… “well, you need to have a license, you need to have this, you need to do that, you gotta follow this rule, these regulations”. Well, do You have jurisdiction to tell me that?
So, this is a way to challenge say, so-called “traffic court”. Can they really enforce it all? Even if One has or does NOT have a “license”? As, maybe One is “traveling” only with a passport instead of a “license” like I do as a lot of people do. But, if they want to say…“you need to have a license, you need to have this, you need to do that, you gotta follow this rule, these regulations”.
Well, OK, do You have jurisdiction to tell me that?
See, this is what is called a First Amendment “petition for redress of grievances”. It exists to correct the malfeasance associated with the administration of justice. Because, “they” have been administering their own “justice” for a long, long time. But now, they can no longer do that.
Now, this is not in any way, shape or form about totally “destroying the system” as, I, as a man am not here to destroy the system or throw the proverbial “baby out with the bathwater”. It is simply about i: as a man, as a non-domestic, non-United States citizen, non-resident, perpetually sojourning “in” the world and never “of” the world, operating and conducting our own private affairs without the United States [28 USC § 1746(1) & 8 USC § 1101] in jus personarum capacity [5] as the Authorized Agent — never surety — for the represented PERSON, which is ZIP™ exempt [DMM 602 1.3e]. It is about showing that the “legal industry” has gone way over its boundaries and has extended way beyond its “authority” and limits.
Even in the so-called coming 2024 “elections”, some actors/parties are talking about the “administrative state”, albeit, not nearly enough. But this administrative state which some call the “deep state” or whatever they want to call it, this is what we’re talking about. It is simply the “State”, spelled with the significant capital “S”, when it closes its doors and conducts meetings not open to transparency or “public view”. That is all the so-called “deep state” actually is. it is the “State” behind closed doors in private meetings.
It is this whole level of agencies with men and women calling themselves “government” that does not lawfully/constitutionally exist and never did. Yet, based upon systems of belief rather than gnosis and truth, it “magically” runs the whole system. Tet, it does not exist because, their “statutes” are not properly and fully implemented. And this fact and truth spans many Federal, State, county and municipal statutes.
So, when One keeps this mindset, and looks at their specially constructed surety cases, look for the defects in their “case”. Say, starting with their presumption and assumption of “jurisdiction” or, their presumption and assumption that one is a “resident” of wherever or especially, that One is a “United States citizen” or even a “Taxpayer”.
When One — a man or woman — possess the question of “jurisdiction”, of course “they”, and almost always the “judge” will always say “well, we have it” as he prosecutes from the bench. Always ignoring the fact that according to their own rules and procedures, the plaintiff/prosecutor must state the jurisdiction and venue on every pleading/presentment. Which, they almost never do. This is mostly because they know most people do not know what they are asking and how it all works.
This all requires a lot of study to attain foundational knowledge, and it takes a lot of work and time. All the while “they”, have unlimited resources at “their” disposal while the people, they are trying to simply live their lives in peace and tranquility. This is all, by their own definitions, “criminal” as well as “domestic terrorism” as it is clearly intended to intimidate and/or coerce a civilian population [see: 18 USC § 2331].
So, One must draft and file a proper presentment in demand format — not “motion” or “plea” — because, with this Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this new “case law” handed down by SCOTUS, there now exists an additional tool to use.
Keeping in mind that, everyone has a “legal issue” at some point because the people are drowning in statutes, codes and contracts, including bank debt, civil issues, or even “criminal matters”, a lot, if not most of them are created by federal agencies, and not by Congress.
So, while they may cite a congressional act, the “implementation” and “enforcement”
(i.e., the Code Federal Regulations) must be fully explained to “the people” so that it may be fully comprehensible as to what the actual law even says and what its intents and purposes are. This can be called “jurisprudence”.
Herein are an article that pertains to the subject matter herein:
From the Washington Post:
“Justice Neil Gorsuch says Americans getting ‘thwacked’ by too many laws”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/supreme-court-gorsuch-reagan-library/
“As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch sees it, an explosion in the complexity of the nation’s regulations…” — notice he is not saying “laws” but rather “regulations”. Well, regulations are “agency things” and not things that apply to men/women in their private capacity as the sovereigns of the nation. Regulations are for the Public Servants/employees only — “… is overburdening Americans and often trampling their rights and livelihoods.”
Now in that, while there are not many others, this is one thing I like about what Trump did wherein he pushed for supper constitutional oriented judges rather than political oriented. This is in accord to what the Constitution says. What the actual Law says. And mostly, in accord to the ultimate law which, is which is God-given, immutable and inalienable. And, all in accord with the Law of Nations as per the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” which is expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge:
ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered”.
~ Luke 11:52 (KJV)
So, to all BAR members and judges associations, woe unto you, for i: and those similarly situated and informed, we possess the gnōsis, that less than a century ago, the laws United States of America, again, not the same as the “laws of the United States” [28 USC § 1746], they could fit into a single book less than a century ago. But, since “ye hast taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered”, Justice Gorsuch states… “they now fill enough volumes to take up an entire shelf in his office”. That is precisely what he said during a recent conversation with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley.
Further, this article from the Washington Post — one of their “trusted” and “authoritative sources” — it goes on to mention the “Federal Register”. Well, that is where we find when and where “they” do actually fully implement law. Albeit, the fact remains that there are way more regulations that are actually in or even appear in the Federal Register.
Regardless of that there above, Justice Gorsuch goes on to say in this this article from the Washington Post … “The Federal Register listing government regulations is now about 60,000 pages, and the number of federal crimes has grown to roughly 5,000 by some estimates”. Yes. That is “60,000 pages”! Who has all that “memorized”?
Now, (Neil) Gorsuch has a new book out, and it is titled:
“Over Ruled: the Human Toll of Too Much Law” (2024).
I suggest that all the men and women out there that are similarly situated and informed go and look into it. And, I very much suggest all the men and women out there engaged in the “legal industry” receiving ill begotten gains and “Unjust Enrichments” — You know, when like Party “A” confers a benefit upon Party “B” without Party “A” receiving the proper restitution required by law — do so as well because, the days of Your “Administrative Law Agencies” is now at an end. Less ye wish to continue engaging in “domestic terrorism” and intend to continue intimidating and/or coercing the civilian population [see: 18 USC § 2331].
This is all about getting the “big picture” because, this book “Over Ruled: the Human Toll of Too Much Law” (and others) show how these agencies and these administrative law courts are going and have been going way beyond their authority and have been breaking the law.
Back to the article from the Washington Post … “Gorsuch said that ever-expanding system has created a Kafkaesque maze, where Americans sometimes violate rules and regulations [again, not the same as “laws”] they didn’t know existed, compliance has become overly onerous, and even regulators sometimes don’t know the laws they are tasked with enforcing”.
“I’ve been a judge now coming on 20 years,” he told the Reagan Library audience. “I’ve just seen so many cases come through my courtroom where ordinary Americans [note the use of “Americans” and not any repugnant term such as “United States citizen” or “Resident”]— decent, hardworking people who are trying to do their best — are just getting … thwacked by laws unexpectedly.”
Sound familiar? Well, we are on the same page with what Gorsuch is thinking and, I have no “Duty of Care” what any political hack or BAR member wants to believe. And this is really where One can put some focus and energies.
On a side note, in his book, Gorsuch talks about a commercial fisherman case in Florida recently where “they” put this company into bankruptcy and put this guy through hell, all because there was some “destruction of tangible objects” that were “impeding the federal investigation”. Well, who even knows what that sociopathic ideology is?
Regardless, and on the positive side, the guy ultimately won his case. But who wants to have to go through that? Who can handle the “lawfare” these sociopaths levy against the People constantly? Well now, we have a Supreme Court president to help us win these kind of cases.
That’s just a quick overview of the article and there are other sources/platforms the material can be found. But here is the “bottom line”. I recently heard that, during the “Reagan era”, there was something like 300 Federal statutes. But now there’s over 5,000. Therefore, One must beg the question of: “Who does that benefit — Cui Bono?”
Well for this Author, your truly, I practice a policy of: 1.) Absolute Candor and, 2.) Zero Tolerance for the Lie. Therefore, I shall never tolerate any feigning of ignorance or claiming “hurt feelings” or “bruised egos” that attempt to dissuade from the fact that it is the “legal industry” which, is comprised of all the BAR Associations, Judges Associations, the prison industrial complex, the “Police Benevolent Associations” etc.
Ask yourself “who writes these rules, regulations, codes and statutes? Well, plainly, it is the legal industry. Who “profits” from it all? The legal industry! Getting it?
Now for me, I do not have something against every lawyer that ever walked the earth. I have friends who are lawyers. They are friends I enjoy speaking with as they are very open minded and like talking about these things such as how the industry has gotten out of control because it is writing its own existence. It is writing its own script by creating more of these rules and regulations because, every time somebody else gets “brought in”, they need more lawyers, right? So, we are way out of we’re way out of balance.
John H. Bryan, Attorney at Law
Constitutional Law, Civil Rights Law, Liberty
Police Misconduct, Government Corruption,
theCiviRightsLawyer.com
https://www.youtube.com/@thecivilrightslawyer
Jonathan Gross, Attorney at Law
First Amendment Civil Rights Attorney
University of Baltimore School of Law
Baltimore, Maryland
So, while many like to say… “Ohh, I don’t trust the courts and they’re all corrupt criminals, they’re all whatever”. What I will be doing in my next phase, where we bring in the constitutional basis and really focus on using these materials to demand they comply with the burden of proof which is on them to prove their alleged “authority”. Because, it is not about not about “me”, or my “status” so much as it is about the burden of proof on them to prove their authority.
That “authority” must come from some law that’s implemented and clearly explained. And if it is not, then the court needs to interpret it. And therein lies the caveat for them. Because, they cannot do that. They really can’t. They’re using administrative tribunals to make law. They can’t do that. We have to understand there’s only three branches of government, not four, and they’re using a fourth branch of government that doesn’t exist. So, that’s the basis of the challenge.
Remember, they are violating constitutional rights when they do all these things. When they try to enforce these things against the people, they are administratively created by a tribunal and not actually implemented Congress or the legislature of the state. It may appear to, they may have written something, but they are almost always going beyond it with their own internal regulatory authorities. So, comprehend the difference between a “law” and “regulation”. Because “they”, are going off regulations to do things they do.
____________________________
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., D-U-N-S® number: 078615580 is simply a communistic, criminalistic, terrorist organization much akin to the SPLC, ADL, etc., which was founded on January 1, 1970 by New York–based lawyer — no lack of surprise — John H. Adams that peddles propagandistic, “misinformation” and climate fear porn and is comprised of lawyers, scientists, and campaigners that are on the frontlines every day waging fierce courtroom battles and hard-hitting campaigns…”
“on the frontlines”… “waging battles”… 😂
FIITNOTES:
[1] Law of Agency: is the common law doctrine controlling relationships between agents and principals. A principal-agent relationship is created when the agent is given authority to act for the principal. An agreement made by an agent is binding on the principal so long as the agreement was within the authority actually granted to the agent or reasonably perceived by a third party.
[2] contract: an agreement between parties, creating mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality. In some states, elements of consideration can be satisfied by a valid substitute. Possible remedies for breach of contract include general damages, consequential damages, reliance damages, and specific performance.
[3] Pacta Sunt Servanda: a Latin phrase that translates to “agreements must be kept” in English, is a fundamental principle in international law and contract law. This doctrine represents a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide, emphasizing the sanctity and enforceability of agreements. In this article, we will provide the best overview of Pacta Sunt Servanda by defining its meaning, exploring its definition, and discussing its significance.
[4] Clean Hands doctrine is based on the maxim of equity which states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_hands_doctrine
[5] jus personarum: the law of persons occupying special relations to one another (as parent and child, husband and wife, guardian and ward) or of persons with limited rights (as aliens, minors, slaves, incompetent or insane persons) ~ Merriam Webster
jus personarum: Rights of persons. Those rights which, in the civil law, belong to persons as such, or in their different characters and relations; as parents and children, masters and servants, etc. ~ Black’s Law 6th
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
