In this post we focus on how we require the proof of authority that officers functioning within the private-law / statute-based courts of the STATE OF MICHIGAN / State of Michigan must have in order to rely on their claim to govern the rights and obligations of us sovereign people (those of us who are eligible and choose to operate the actual government of Michigan). We also focus on how we can remain protected by public law if we must acquire justice from such officers.
Public law overstands private law in all instances, because, in accordance with the 1776 Declaration of Independence, we Americans agree that we each possess God-endowed free will, and that we institute a form of government on the basis of our consent to be bound therein. Public law, also called natural law or moral law or the Laws of Nature’s God (as stated in the Decl. of Independence), originates from our Creator-imbued conscience – everyone’s unwritten knowing of right and wrong conduct – or in written form, the Ten Commandments as commonly accepted prohibitions that when observed ensure peaceful societal life.
Per the five-part first post on this site, and our government's structural History and at-a-glance graphic chart provided from the sidebar of this site, we’ve presented that Michigan is a public government, wherein the Public Law is enforced. And in contrast, the “STATE OF MICHIGAN” is a municipal corporation incorporated in the international commerce-law based Federal Reserve System (as is the STATE Of INDIANA, STATE OF FLORIDA, etc), and “the State of Michigan” is the conjunctive territorial component incorporated into the Federal Reserve System as the extension of the District of Columbia wherein that globalist System (being a Trust) exists. The sub-units of the latter two forms of society, meaning City, Township, and County, having corporate structure is proved, for example, per the 1963 CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN, Section 1: “Each organized county shall be a body corporate with powers and immunities provided by law”.
We have presented that to be subject to the private law of the STATE OF MICHIGAN, or a COUNTY, one must have “presence” and / or “domicile” therein at the time that an accusation against one is initiated by the service of it. Those are the legal terms that identify an individual’s contractual connection with that form of society. This fact is proved per the Michigan Court Rule that concerns how the courts acquire authority to render a judgment over a “defendant” – meaning one who has rights and obligations to defend therein. It is Court Rule 2.105 (J) (1) and (2), specifically pertaining to service of process (the claim) to a defendant. That Rule incorporates Michigan Complied Law/MCL 600.701, which states that the court’s jurisdiction [meaning, law-based authority] over a defendant requires the accused person to have had: “(1) Presence in the state at the time when process is served. (2) Domicile in the state at the time when process is served.” Of course “the state” within that court rule means STATE OF MICHIGAN / State of Michigan, and does not mean Michigan. The term “presence” does not merely mean one’s physical existence. It means also one’s transacting existence. The legislature of the State of Michigan establishes the rules of conduct, termed statutes, that police transacting individuals. Statutes are private laws that form corporate policy.
The Federal Reserve System’s court officers administrate the societal rights and obligations – being the Trust benefits – of persons who are subject to its proceedings. Officers do that by administering the individual trust vessel / account that central bankers established for singular people to be able to pledge their energy to the use of bankers and the bankers’ globalist controllers. That’s why all court related documents show the defendant’s and plaintiff’s name spelled in the all-capitalized style of the related trust account. The transacting party moves as the representative of his own energy placed in that account pertaining to the particular matter that concerns a portion of his energy; this is what’s called self-representation. Officers of the court simply act to transfer pledged human-energy between those trust accounts, according to which party prevails in his claim. The proceedings can also be understood as administrative law / trust-law proceedings. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN (meaning all of the people who pledge energy to central bankers) can be the plaintiff, and their representative is the elected prosecutor within the COUNTY where an alleged action took place involving the defendant. The means per which central bankers, actually per which attorneys acting for them, utilize the individual trust vessels established for people to be able to transact with them is detailed on page 8 of the “History Section B” link accessed from the sidebar of this site.
Importantly, we have also presented that in the world of international commerce – where the Federal Reserve System operates – a contract can be presumed to exist, especially a contract that benefits the central bankers’ agenda. Officers acting for or in the court system are taught, or are allowed to believe, that all people transact with them. But Court Rule 2.105 (J) clearly defines that a transacting relationship is established only from domicile or presence within a State of the Federal Reserve System. If neither condition exists, then such officer lacks authority to act on someone’s exercise of his or her social rights and obligations.
The transacting relationship of the parties is caused by the American people themselves. They create a Lien to exist on their energy (due to the consented-to existence of domicile or presence). The Lien people create is performance-based, so a guilty party must do something or refrain from doing something or must express performance in the medium of an awarded amount of money that circulates within the Federal Reserve System. The Lien is the underlying thing that the legal term “rem” refers to; “rem” means the action (the particular conflict) against the thing concerning real or personal property. We’ve introduced the term “rem” in the introduction of this website. The settlement of the conflict is termed the remedy. An action can also be brought "in personam", meaning it is about the underlying lien but is directed to a specific person. When the parties to an action that has been presumed to be valid first appear in court, the judge confirms that the parties act as trustees transacting their energy via the corresponding individual trust accounts. The confirmation proceeding is what bonds / secures (meaning, insures) the judicial relief – judgments and ORDER instruments – that will result. The relief is a benefit obtained from a court, being the means with which a right is enforced or a penalty is imposed. The judicial officer is tasked with providing the parties with their law-based benefit.
So, in the simplest terms, if the accused is not a transacting party within the Federal Reserve System, then no commerce-law based action can be approved by a prosecutor making a claim for THE PEOPLE (or, moved by an individual claimant himself or via his attorney). The prosecutor lacks the authority to do so. Authority cannot be confused with power. The prosecutor’s power to move an action comes from being an elected officer. The prosecutor is insured to move an action, but only singular people can give him authority over his or her social rights and obligations. People are subject only to the law under which each has freely consented to be bound.
The notice to a potential party about the initiation of an action within the commerce-law jurisdiction, whether being a Summons to appear or in the form of a law-enforcement officer’s charging document that a prosecutor receives for approving the arrest of the accused, shows the individual trust accounts (spelled in all capital letters) that are presumed to contain the pledged energy of the involved parties. It also shows the commerce-law jurisdiction street address as the place where service can occur to the accused, and the Date of Birth of the party(ies), which is the date established as the beginning of the social rights and obligations that people move within the Federal Reserve System (see page 8 of the “History Section B” linked on the sidebar of this site). If a Summons initiates the notice of a claim, the Clerk of the Court is the officer who issues the Summons document. That clerk is the temporary custodian of the individual trust vessels / accounts when an action is begun by the plaintiff, whoever the plaintiff is; the trust accounts are controlled at the federal level. The clerk assigns a number to a case established to house the action/conflict, and assigns a judge to dispose of the case. Published court rules govern the proceedings. During the proceedings, the judge acts as the ongoing administrator of the benefits that both the plaintiff and defendant enjoy within the Federal Reserve System, which benefits include some – but not all – provisions of the Bill of Rights. Within the Federal Reserve System, the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights are actually privileges recognized by the legislators of the State of Michigan, meaning, the privileges are subject to the needs of THE PEOPLE. All court proceedings begin on the commerce-side of the court system in the applicable COUNTY. At all times, the judge is acting to internally administrate the individual trust accounts that pertain to each party, in accordance with the private-law governing the action. The facts presented by the parties are judged as valid or not valid against the governing law.
How those of us who transact our energy within public law obtain justice within the private-law court system, when it’s necessary to do so, is best accomplished by providing prior Notice of our sovereign societal status to the federal-level Attorney General, respectfully instructing him to act to cause correction of the internal records of the Federal Reserve System. The Department of Justice acts on behalf of and legally instructs officers of the United States (the jurisdiction in league with foreign central bankers). The intent of our Notice is to end the presumption that we are transacting parties within that commerce-based jurisdiction. We can also provide notice about that event having occurred to the incorporated state-level AG and county-level prosecuting attorney and sheriff. The content of such Notice identifies that we exercise our right to energize national money instead of foreign currency (in accordance with the Federal Reserve Act’s Section 16), and that we are operating the extant government of a State in the Union as a participant in an assembly of people functioning under the Public Law; the assembly can initially be as few as two people, because one of the purposes is for the participants to hold one another to the governing law. The Notice also contains a certified copy of the Birth Certificate that identifies the individual trust vessel / account established for us, so the receiving officer can correct internal records. If we have minor children, we seek correction of the records pertaining to them. The Notice can also contain our claim upon certain physical land, since we steward land in sole right-of-soil dominion, and within that document we can include our record pertaining to our unique Creator-caused genesis (our origin) that occurs months prior to the secular birth registration that resulted in a Birth Certificate. The Notice can further include our claim on our private automobiles. Within this general Notice document, we make known that we choose to not renew any registrations that pertain to having domicile within the Federal Reserve System, and that we do not make use of a welfare benefit therein (which causes presence) – such registrations being as a resident, voter, driver, real property owner, or registrations applicable to a vehicle, pet, etc. Our Notice makes clear that if we must make use of an individual trust account created by a utility company or other public-service provider based within the Federal Reserve System, that we enjoy peaceful pass-through use of the account and during such contractual use our expressed energy remains in the monetary medium of national money of exchange.
The courts within the Federal Reserve System are such public-service providers. As is stated above, the judge’s duty to the public (THE PEOPLE) is to perform the service of correctly administrating the individual trust accounts of the parties to an action. Regarding a court-related situation, our general Notice about our sovereign status received by the federal-level Attorney General activates our right to rely on the entire Bill of Rights at all times, which rights link with the public-law based governmental Trust established by the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Therefore our Notice causes officers acting for or in the courts to recognize the “supreme Law of the Land” (see the federal constitution’s Article VI) as the law that protects us and governs their actions with respect to us and our private interests; the federal constitution is the fourth Organic Law pertaining to the structure of our original governmental Trust (see “History Section A” accessed from the sidebar of this site). As to our status, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act is a “Law” referenced in Article VI, because it’s a Law made in Pursuance of the Commerce clause in that constitution’s Article I. The fact that we operate neither domicile nor presence within the Federal Reserve System, and have given notice that we operate our private interests within Michigan’s public law government, requires court officers to provide us justice under public law. Because we enjoy peaceful pass-through use of the individual trust account established by central bankers – being an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between the Congress and bankers – a judicial officer must recognize that we use that pass-through right to merely convey the truth about a situation. This includes our presentment of our eye-witness testimony about a party to a private-law action in which we are not involved; in other words, in such situation we act in a charitable manner to aid justice.
Our general Notice to the federal Attorney General fulfills our public-law duty, even if that officer fails to correct the internal record and also fails to inquire about any portion of our Notice document that is unclear to him. Our Notice is liveried to him via Registered Mail, which is the public-law means of directly connecting with him – essentially being a communication conveyed (in a locked pouch via a USPS employee as messenger) from the hand of one Head of State (us) into the hand of another Head of State or his agent about a solemn matter to be addressed by the recipient.
The value of providing notice to a COUNTY prosecuting attorney about our Notice requiring record correction is that it forms our First Notice to the lower-level attorney. If that attorney (who perhaps ignores it) then initiates the approval of an action within the Federal Reserve System per which he claims we are a party, upon our initial realization of it we immediately issue a public-law demurrer to his attention; demurrer means “to object”. That’s a communication to him alerting him that his presentment of his claim to us lacks his inclusion of the fact-based documented proof of his authority to govern our energy. In other words, we give him due process notice in order for him to perfect his claim – that such claim exists. We can include with that communication to him a copy of the general Notice document about our preexisting sovereign status, as the Second Notice (or as our First Notice). If he then fails to provide us with the fact-based documented evidence he relies on to conclude that his claim exists against us, he goes into default, and in public law, default judgment nihil dicit (nihil dicit means “he says nothing”). We provide that final communication to him. The premise of our right is, if false claims are rebutted prior to the day and time to respond listed on a Summons or a charging document, the instrument and its presumptions cease to have any effect. If he does not withdraw his approval of his action, or does not withdraw the action if a court clerk has created a case housing it, then he’s acting without authority and he cannot invoke the court’s in personam jurisdiction over us, which means the judge lacks the authority to issue any judgment concerning our interests; we don't operate a persona, which mean a legal role.
When a judicial officer becomes aware that his court lacks the existence of a defendant (us, as a non-transacting body) to an action, the judge must notify the clerk of court that no action / case exists as the judge’s means of correctly administering the (EMPTY) individual trust account identified on the prosecutor’s paperwork. The means for us to notify an assigned judge about such situation is by directly providing the judge with notice in the form of a special correspondence – special, because we act from our sovereign status “Sui Juris”– informing him of our actual status and the prosecutor’s refusal to withdraw his action, and we require the judge to act sua sponte (“on his own”) to dispose of the non-existent action and case. In conjunction with our special act, we contract with the clerk of court, per an instruction communication to the clerk, informing the clerk to perform an eleemosynary (charitable) function by providing it to the assigned judge as a “special correspondence” from us. If the clerk insists on including it on the case’s Register of Actions, it should be noted as a special notice and motion from us in the capacity of Sui Juris Defendant-Intervenor, because our intent is to not file anything into the case, which would indicate our appearance in the action. We are intervening (which means no one is representing our private interests) to aid the assigned judge perform his commerce-law based function.
If we must utilize the court’s service as a plaintiff, which would mean our private interests had been harmed by a party who does transact in the commerce-law jurisdiction and is therefore subject to the judge’s judgments, we present our cause from our Sui Juris capacity. That begins with our contract with the clerk of court, exchanging our payment of national money for her assignment of a competent and impartial officer to preside over our cause. Our document detailing our cause would include our documentation of our sovereign status and clear notice that our rights and obligations are governed only by public law, while the offending party is governed by the applicable private law that controls his social conduct. We would appoint the assigned judge as our Trustee in Law, the Law being the supreme Law of the Land that governs his administration of the individual trust vessel / account that we identify we are moving “as to” in peaceful pass-through capacity, being either the trust name showing on the Birth Certificate or the version of that applicable to our bank account.
The last point we offer to our Readers is this. We must have a sense of our immortality to get over the fear of the power from which commerce-law jurisdiction officers can act. They can only exert authority over our own unencumbered God-endowed and constitutionally-protected sole and Soul authority over our private interests if we succumb to fearing that we will not prevail when we approach them in a peaceful and respectful manner with our use of facts and public law.
No comments:
Post a Comment