The following article is long was filed as part of a defense by Mary using her law and yours. In no event did she break faith with the law of this land althouh she discusses the attackers corrupt system.
July 27, 2009
Mary Severance, One of the people in Colorado
1518 Saratoga Road
Pueblo, Colorado [81001]
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Pueblo Division
Civil Rights Division
720 N. Main Street, Suite 330
Pueblo, Colorado 81003
A VERIFIED COMPLAINT DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION
and FRAUD in
Pueblo and El Paso County(s), Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud
I.
I am the victim and My name is Mary Elizabeth Severance (hereinafter Mary Severance).
II.
Victimizers (Witnesses):
Person of Daniel C. Kogovsek, # 7566 Unqualified and improperly credentialed County Attorney for Pueblo County, Colorado, 215 West 10th Street, Room 312, Pueblo, Colorado 81003, 19-583-6630.
Valerie Haynes, # 25288, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Ass’t County Attorney for Pueblo County, 215 West 10th Street, Room 312, Pueblo, Colorado 81003, 19-583-6630.
Person of Richard C. Kaufman, # 8349, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.
Person of Leno Lipinisky DeOrlov, #13339, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.
Person of Timothy Odil, # 35771, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.
Person of David Brougham, #1950, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 112517th Street, Suite 600, Denver, Colordo 80202-2052, (303) 628-3327.
Person of Kirk Taylor, Unqualified and improperly credentialed county sheriff, 909 Court, Pueblo, Colorado, 81003 19) 583-6125.
Person of Gilbert Ortiz, Unqualified and improperly credentialed county clerk and recorder, 215 West 10th Street, First Floor, Pueblo, Colorado, (719) 583-6620.
Person of Jeffery Chostner, # 15769 Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto county commissioner, 215 West 10th Street, First Floor, Pueblo, Colorado, (719) 583-6620.
Person of Tom Jagger, # 24614, Unqualified and improperly credentialed City Attorney for Pueblo, Colorado, Thatcher Building, 503 N. Main Street, (719) 545-4412.
Person of Abel Tapia, Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto state senator for Pueblo county, 11 Judy’s Dream Lane, Unit A, 81005 (719) 546-2235.
Person of Dorothy Butcher, Unqualified and improperly credentialed former de facto state Representative for Pueblo county, 101 Encino Drive, Pueblo, Colorado 81005 ((719)561-2746.
Person of Jerry Pacheco, City Manager for the City of Pueblo, Unqualified and improperly credentialed One City Hall Place, Pueblo, Colorado 81003 (719) 553-2655.
Person of Barbara Vidmar, President for the City Counsel for the City of Pueblo, Unqualified and improperly credentialed One City Hall Place, Pueblo, Colorado 81003 (719) 553-2655.
Person of John Suthers, #8492 Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto A. G. for the State of Colorado, 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 866-4500.
Person of Richard Gonzales, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Director of the Department of Personnel Administration, 633 17th Street,Suite 1600, Denver,Colorado 8020, (303) 866-0000.
Person of Mary Mullarkey, # 5430, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Chief Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Gregory Hobbs,# 9 , Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Alex Martinez. # 7491, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Michael L. Bender, # 3479, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Nancy e. Rice, #6655, Unqualified and improperly credentialed ustice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Nathan B. Coats,# 8233, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Allison Eid, # 21163, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.
Person of Stephen Pelican, #3035, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge (Retired) P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-
Person of David Gilbert, # 13737, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448- 7524.
Person of Ronald Crowder# 8679, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-7737.
Person of David Prince , #20056, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-7504.
Person of Daniel May, #11379, Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto District Attorney for El Paso County Colorado, 105 E. Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.
Person of Robyn Cafasso #17116, Unqualified and improperly credentialed DDA for El Paso County, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.
Rebecca Greenberg # 39242 Unqualified and improperly credentialed DDA for El Paso
County, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.
Sheriff Terry Maketa, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 210 S. Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, (719) 520-7204.
Western Surety Insurance Company, Lea Neiburh, P.O. Box 5077, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57117, (605) 335-0357.
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) , Claims Adjuster, 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209, (303) 757-5475.
Colorado Counties Casualty and Properties (CAPP) Janet Grossnickle, Claims Adjuster,
800 Grant Street, Ste. 400, Denver, Colorado 80203, (800) 544-7868.
Quoting Daniel Webster, when he reminded our Forefathers:
“IF THIS CONSTITUTION BE PICKED AWAY BY PIECEMEAL, (PIECE BY PIECE), IT IS GONE AS EFFECTIVELY AS IF A MILITARY DESPOT HAD GRASPED IT , TRAMPLED IT UNDERFOOT, AND SCATTERED IT TO THE WINDS”
The below reference materials validates what Daniel Webster said in 1789 regarding the PIECEMEAL, TRAMPLING of the People’s law, the unanimous Declaration of Independence and its CREATED contact, the United States Constitution for America of 1789, and further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876, for its federal and/or state employees/public servants in America presently in 2009.
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of 1776 endowed man with certain unalienable Rights from the CREATOR. By its authority man CREATED the subordinate UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION of 1789 for its public servants and employees who volunteered to work of their own free will for the people. That contract has intentionally and willfully been PIECEMEAL eroded into the existing FRAUD in this nation. In order to attempt to prevent this PIECEMEAL erosion, Article VI in The United States Constitution clearly bound all public servants to this contract at the federal and state levels. All governments have to comply to the United States Constitution of 1789 by oath of office. The oath of office is based upon the Declaration of Independence to secure My unalienable Rights which have been and are presently being trampled under foot by the hired help, a/k/a public servants.
The Declaration of Independence was the original compact/contract which is the law for the People. The people’s law is based upon Nature’s Law and of Nature’s God. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. Quoting paragraph two “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted [CREATED] among Man, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Identifying Information about the Victim
The victim is Mary Severance and I live at 1518 Saratoga Road, Pueblo, Colorado. I am a senior Citizen, age 72, and with private , contract, natural, unalienable Rights—civil Rights. The United States Constitution for America is a civil contract designed to secure My unalienable Rights to Liberty and guaranteed domestic tranquility as per the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America of 1789. However, before I present public corruption in Pueblo county that has now extended it’s tentacles into the so-called judicial branch of government in El Paso County. I will provide a history of the FRAUD perpetrated upon the people in Colorado by the elected public officials—PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD in Colorado state.
I understand the law as well as contract law. As one of the people in Colorado, I have the highest contract status in this controversy with the ‘created persons’ regarding the self evident endowed unalienable Rights of Mary Severance. Congress did not create Me, one of the People in Colorado state, as proven in My self-evident exhibits the unanimous Declaration of Independence at 207012213, the United States Constitution at 20801224, and Colorado state Constitution at 208012205 as a matter of public record. My signature on these documents energized the contract. Absent the signature on the contracts, the law essentially had become a ‘dead hand’ documents when the last founding father signatory died. My signature on the contract energized it just like putting My signature on a check. A written check without a signature is lifeless. Apply the signature and instantly, the check comes to life. The same principle applies to the signature on the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution and the Colorado state Constitution. I now have the same place in history that the Founding Fathers had in 1789. I have the authority to enforce and/or drive all contract/compacts. As one of the Founding Fathers, I wrote the law, and I am “[T]he judicial power shall be vested in the United States [the people] in one supreme Court, and, inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Please refer the cross reference in Article 1, §8, Cl. 9 “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” See THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.) adjudicated “…The judiciary is the one department of government that may indict, try and convict for real or imaginary offenses against what it is pleased to term [*269] its "dignity." The court is not only "imperio in imperium," but it is "THE STATE" itself, the only higher tribunal being "THE PEOPLE."
History
1. The state of Colorado was created in 1876 which embodied the Enabling Act binding it to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The people ratified its constitution in 1876 and Colorado was admitted to the Union on August 1, 1876. It was accepted by President Grant in the self-evident exhibit 205201896 as a matter of public record. Colorado had four years of a constitutional republic. After that it has been PIECEMEAL eroded into the existing FRAUD in Colorado presently. Today, our constitutional Republic has been TRANSFORMED into a business that functions by UN-CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES and applied to the people which is FRAUD.
The Colorado constitution shall comport to the United States Constitution for America to all of its basic mandated contractual obligations. The Colorado constitution may expand its contract, but never be less than the mandates in the United States Constitution of 1789. The First Continental Congress placed great emphasis upon Article VI, the part of the contract that binds all public officials, elected or appointed to work for We the People as its public servant or employee.
2. The oath of office of all public officials must be a sworn and subscribed oath and recorded with the appropriate public official, usually the Secretary of State for some state public officers, like judges, district attorneys and mandated state legislators. The county clerk and recorder is used to record oath and bonds for county and other local public officials.
The oath of office was of such great importance that the Laws of the United States, Acts of the First Congress of the United States of 1789 prepared in I Stat. 23, Sec. 3 that (Sess. I, Ch. 2 ) mandating that all state legislators, executive, and judicial officers, elected or appointed shall take and subscribe their written oath of office with that responsibility being placed on the ‘person’ administering the oath of office. Colorado has had only one state legislator who has complied with this strict written and subscribed oath compliance since 1880. My self-evident exhibit 206090386 is a matter of public record provides proof that Colorado has NOT had a CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED AND CREDENTIALED LEGISLATURE since 1879. Everything they have done is NULL & VOID, but is “treated as” lawful, under “COLOR of LAW”, hoping no one will discover this FRAUD upon the people in Colorado.
3. Colorado’s law is that of general laws mandated in Article VI, §28 in the organic law of 1876. The gradual erosion of the constitutional mandate of use of general law started early in 1903 and has grown exponentially to the present day FRAUD using Statues to govern Colorado in violation of Article 5, §25, Article VI, § 1 in the organic law, and Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution for America. The oath of office states the intention of the subordinate United States Constitution which is to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” which means to secure unalienable Rights and to be bound to the security of the people’s unalienable Rights and other contractual mandates written in Articles 1 through 7. All state constitutions have to “secure unalienable Rights. Today’s public officials take an oath of office and apply their name to the contract. Do they know to what they have signed and bound themselves? The contract is used by the public officials when it is to their advantage; and, discarded and ignored when to their disadvantage and agenda. It is this problem that causes Me to write about this FRAUD that exists in Pueblo and El Paso County, Colorado, that changed the organic law of 1876 PIECEMEAL through the use of REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVE procedure. One of the worst things that happened early in Colorado’s history was the use of a REFERENDUM to create the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM procedure in Section 1 in Article 5 in Colorado’s contract of 1876. But, that doesn’t matter as long as the people do not discover the fraud. It is okay until exposed. Many changes occurred in the thirties, fifties and sixties into the nineties which has created the present day PUBLIC OFFICIALS CORRUPTION and FRAUD implemented in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s etc.
4. In 1933 the Colorado Bar Association approached Governor Edwin Johnson and volunteered to abolish the county courts which were constitutionally created by the Colorado Constitution contract “courts of record” as seen in the Civil Code of 1887, in Sec. 412 in the self evident exhibit Book 2939, page 3 of 5 in the Pueblo Clerk and Recorder’s department. The abolition was completed in 1962 by REFERENDUM in violation of Article 5, sec. 25. Knowing that Article VI , §1 in Colorado’s organic law and Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution cannot be abrogated, including the Enabling Act, the statutory courts operate FRAUD upon the people through use of statutes, knowing that law and equity rule. Statutes are now used on and for all infractions on the people in violation of the endowed and secured unalienable Rights.
5. Article VI in its entirety was abolished by REFERENDUM presenting to the people a purported constitutional amendment “Providing for the Reorganization of the Judicial Department “. United Securities, Inc. v Pantex, 53 P.2d 1935 reveals the truth of regulating the jurisdiction and duties of ‘justices of peace” in contrast to Article V, §25 by the general assembly by special laws (statutes) a FRAUD on the people. Regulating the practice in courts of justice (lawful courts of record) as stated in Sec. 412 in 1887 law is the basis of the created fiction. “Fictions arise in law, not law from fictions”. The vote was 64 Yes; 35 No. This REFERENDUM was NEVER ratified by Congress.
6. In 1936 by Initiative the people were asked by de facto general assembly to amend their state constitution to add the income tax by the wording on the initiative being “Amending revenue section of constitution principally by giving General Assembly power to provide for an income tax within limitations”. The people defeated this INITIATIVE 79 %; NO, 20% yes.
7. In 1962 by REFERENDUM the income tax question was presented to the people to define by law the income upon which income taxes may be levied under section 17 of Article X. It passed 53%; 46% rejected. This REFERENDUM was NEVER presented to Congress for ratification. The income tax is unlawful and illegal.
8. In 1935 the Bar Association absent authority for its existence in Article 5, sec. 25 started codification of the general laws into statutes used exclusively today in the legislatively created statutory courts operating as a business and trading on all Wall Street. Making money on public money is a felony in Article X, sec.13.
9. On January 22, 1937, the non-constitutional legislature adopted The Declaration of INTERDEPENDENCE was adopted thus creating a step towards the created democracy in 1967.
10. In 1946, Article VII (Suffrage and Elections) §8, the non-constitutional legislature, without any delegated authority by use of a REFERENDUM starting taking the election procedure out of the hands of the people with of paper ballot replaced with voting machines. Is this “warring on the constitution commonly termed treason? The vote was 56 Yes; 43% NO. This REFERENDUM was never ratified by Congress.
11. In 1910 the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM procedure was brought before the people for its approval or rejection by REFERENDUM. The vote was 76% Yes; 23% No. This REFERENDUM was never ratified by Congress.
12. In 1980 use of a REFERENDUM to alter Article 5, §1 with “An amendment to Articles V and XIX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concerning the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM process, and providing that an elector must be registered in order to sign a petition for an initiated or referred measure and that the proposed initiative measures shall be submitted to the legislative research and drafting offices of the General Assembly for review and comment at a meeting open to the public before a ballot title is fixed was approved by the voters. This was approved 60 % yes; 39 % No. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
13. In 1966, control by the People of judge selection was presented in an “Amendment to Article VI of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concerning the Judicial Department, and providing for the selection tenure, removal or retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of Other Courts of the State of Colorado” by INITIATIVE was approved by a vote of 52% to 47% NO. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
14. In 1966, by REFERENDUM, an Amendment to Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, by the addition of a new section 22, providing that executive and administrative offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive department of the state government shall be allocated to not to exceed twenty departments, with certain exceptions.” Approval was 69% to 30% No. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
15. In 1967 another piecemeal transition of the Republic into a Democracy started with transferring the various departments from the Colorado state Constitution into what will become known as the Administrative Reorganization Act in 1968. Title 24-1-101 C.R.S. created a state government within a government in contrast to Article IV, §3 of the USC quoting “ New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but, NO NEW State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State * * *without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”. This piecemeal transition of the Republic into a Democracy violates Article IV, § 4 quoting “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion ,,,” The self evident exhibit 205201896 documents the transition of the organic state constitution into a statutory created state government is presented as a matter of public record. (emphasis added is mine) This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress
16. In 1984 by INITIATIVE “An amendment to Articles IV, XIV, XX, and XXI of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, providing that a person must be a registered elector in order to vote for state elected executive officers, to vote for removal of a county seat, to vote on the striking off of county territory, to sign a petition for or to vote on county home rule, to vote on the formation, merger, election of members of governing bodies, and the functions of service authorities, to vote on a franchise relating to any street, alley or public place of a home rule city, to sign a petition for or to vote on municipal home rule, to sign a petition for or to vote on recall of state and local elective public officers, and applying to registered electors the percentage for determining the number of signatures on home rule petitions.” This was approved 72% Yes; 27% NO. The “qualified elector, status of the people, would soon become a statutory “eligible elector” and lose its authority/status in 1991. The 10th Circuit has ruled against “registering” in Davidson v Campbell along with Duprey v Anderson by the Colorado Supreme Court . Registering to vote is an adjunct. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
17. In 1996 by REFERENDUM “An amendment to article XIV of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the office of county sheriff, and, in connection therewith, authorizing the general assembly to establish qualifications for the office of county sheriff.” This was approved by 56% to 43% No. The county sheriff no longer acts on behalf of the people, but answers to the Reorganized “STATE” government of 1968”. He functions by STATUTE, not the organic law of the State of Colorado of 1876. The sheriff’s oath of office comes into question. He says he “will faithfully perform the duties of his office” which means to secure the people’s unalienable Rights, BUT operates against the people by STATUTE . The county sheriff is constitutionally bonded to and by the People in the general laws of 1877, but since 1994, to a surety company. Is there a conflict of interest? This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
18. I have presented the FRAUD and PUBLIC CORRUPTION and PIECEMEAL ALTERATIONS, not ratified by Congress to the organic law of 1876. I ask each reader does this translate into what has been adjudicated as WARRING on the constitution in COOPER v AARON, 358 U.S. 1 quoting “Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has state that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violation his undertaking to support it: See also IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200 (1888); U.S. v WILL, 449 U.S. 200, 26, (1980); COHENS v VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. (1821).”
Do these actions equate to conspiracy? Have public officials created false and fraudulent writings—such as their oath of office— defined in Title 18 sec. 1001? The oath of office is genuine. Has the public official’s signature on his oath of office stated that it is a forgery with material misstatements on it like to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” meaning to secure My unalienable Rights” then attack Me without My consent because of the Sheriff’s allegiance to a STATUTE and his codified position in 1996 by REFERENDUM in contrast to the demands of the oath of office to defend and support the organic law in Colorado of 1876? Does his signed oath of office admit to perjury or false swearing? Does enforcement of the signed oath of offices in this instant case of DANIEL H. MAY, D.A., ROBYN CAFASSO, D.D.A., Judge CROWDER, Judge GILBERT, and Judge PRINCE need to be reviewed and action taken by the FBI since the United States Constitution has been willfully violated for failure to be bound to the protection of My unalienable Rights by these ‘persons’ and other Articles to which they are bound to obey? Sheriff TERRY MAKETA is also in this mix even though I do not have his oath of office. It is on file with the local county clerk and recorder along with his bond to “secure the people’s unalienable Rights’? One cannot serve two masters. Quoting in part, SCHEUER V. RHODES, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
“Intentional misuse of that authority for personal gain is fraud. Intentional misuse of that authority which causes a deprivation of liberty or right is a criminal act. When a judge, acting with power possessed by virtue of his/her employment with the state, commits fraud against a citizen, does that judge then have a right to immunity? Is a judge above the law? According to the U.S. Supreme Court: "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
The ‘justice’ courts rely on the sheriff to enforce ORDERS UNENFORCEABLE by the rendering judge. Quoting in part Blitz v Moran 17 Colo. App. 253; 67 P. 1020; 1902,
“ Section 11 of article 6 of our constitution provides as follows: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all [civil] cases, both at law and in equity." The foregoing provision is made the subject of an elaborate argument. It is said that by conferring jurisdiction in all [civil] cases in equity upon the district courts, the constitution invested those courts with all the powers inherent in, and incident to, courts of equity, among which is the power to appoint officers to carry out their decrees; and that the legislature is without authority to adopt a code of practice which would divest them of any of their inherent powers. We are not sure that we understand exactly what counsel mean; but we assume that they intend to say that by virtue of the foregoing constitutional provision, all the powers which the court of chancery gathered to, and consolidated in, itself, during the long period of evolution of English jurisprudence, inhere in our district courts. We think such [*261] conclusion entirely unwarranted. Jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution, but concerning [***12] the manner of its exercise, nothing is said. In cases of equitable cognizance, the district court may adjudicate and determine the claims of parties before it, and decree the proper relief; and, in doing so, it exercises the jurisdiction which the constitution confers. The constitution simply invests the court with the jurisdiction; it NOWHERE prescribes the PROCEDURE to be resorted to for the purpose of SECURING the DESIRED RELIEF, or PROVIDES THE MACHINERY by MEANS OF WHICH THE COURT'S DECREE MAY BE ENFORCED. Section 1 of article 5 of the constitution vests the legislative power in the general assembly, and its authority to enact legislation is limited only by the provisions of the constitution. While it may not impair the constitutional jurisdiction of the court, it is not inhibited from providing a mode of procedure in conformity with which the jurisdiction may be made effective. The general assembly has given us a code of practice, which NOWHERE undertakes to DISTURB the JURISDICTION VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, but which does prescribe the method by which the jurisdiction may be asserted. Our courts have no prescriptive powers. Their powers are derived solely from the constitution [***13] and the statutes, and their inherent powers are those only which are necessary to render their expressed powers effective, and enable them to exercise their jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the law has provided an officer to execute their processes, writs and orders, the appointment by them of another officer to perform the same duty, is not necessary for the purpose of rendering any expressed power effective, and is, therefore, outside of any inherent power. In other words, the “justice court’s” ORDERS are UNENFORCEABLE except by the use of the sheriff unlawfully and in violation of his oath of office to “secure My unalienable Rights”. I have been subjected to this unconstitutional action twice by Sheriff MAKETA and without a Fourth Amendment warrant.
THE PROBLEM BEGAN WHEN I WAS DENIED SUFFERAGE
I wanted to vote by the constitutional provision in My contract in Article VII in the Colorado state Constitution of 1876; and, I was discriminated against by the unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney, DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK in conjunction with CHRIS MUNOZ, then Clerk and Recorder in 2006. Both conspired and decided to throw out My vote and refused to count it because I refused to register to vote. Registration to vote has been adjudicated in Campbell v Davidson , 99-1257, “…In Colorado Project-Common Cause v Anderson, 495 P.2d 220, 222 (Colo. 1972) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the act of registration is “not a qualification but a mechanical adjunct to the elective process” for the elector. Quoting, Dupery v Anderson, 518 P.2d 807, 808 (Colo. 1974)( en banc) (“Registering to vote”). The basic qualifications to be a voter pertain to citizenship, age and residence. All electors who possess these qualifications "shall be qualified to vote at all elections." Registering to vote does not come within the ambit of a constitutional qualification to vote. In Benson v. Gillespie, 62 Colo. 206, 161 P. 295 (1916), it was held that those laws requiring registration do not limit the right of suffrage or add to the constitutional [***4] qualifications of voters. It was also held therein that the laws requiring registration merely prescribe a procedure by which frauds may be prevented [**809] and mistakes avoided on the day of election. More recently, in Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972), this court quoted with approval from Benson "that registration is not a qualification but a mechanical adjunct to the election process which enables election officials to determine that the prospective voter has the qualification to vote on election day." It is our view that whether initial registration or registration after purging is involved, it is not a qualification to vote. It is merely an administrative process designed to facilitate rather than complicate participation in the election process.
I filed a complaint under the jurisdiction of Article VII in the common law document known as the Colorado Constitution of 1876, against those who won the election. I knew from My research, the election is NOT constitutional based on the fact of required ‘registration’ and the codification of the election procedure disallowed in Article V, §25 wherein the general assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases “…the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting”. The first thing codified in Volume 1 of the C.R.S. is the election procedure—a special statutory procedure.
On January 18, 2007, I recorded in the public record the “judgment by default for failure to answer or otherwise plead”, on January 18, 2007, against five ‘persons’. My self-evident exhibit is recorded at 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 as a matter of public record. I convened My court a “constitutional court of record” as per the standards in INTERNATIONAL LAW quoting “…[T]he person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.” If the ‘hired help’ had any respect for its CREATOR, the judgment by default would have ended this fraud on the people. The court held in and I quote See also, in support thereof Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent , v Bustamonte, 410 U.S. 218 (1973) said “…A judgment, in its nature, concludes the subject on which it is rendered, and pronounces the law of the case. The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on the entire world as the judgment of this court [the United States Tribunal (court for created person-fictions] would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it “. ( See Ex Parte Watkins, 3 Pet. @200-203.
In Colorado that court is found in the law of 1887, Civil Code, Sec. 412 Page 212 “Each of the following courts shall have a seal and shall be courts of record: the Supreme court, the District courts, and County courts and Any court established by law and expressly denominated a court of record. “By law” means common law with common to all being the mandate to best secure unalienable Rights’ and, to get consent from the governed before attack by the fiction-actors in this instant controversy. Section 412 in the 1887 general law has now been codified in 1935 by the legislature without any delegated authority creating a statutory creation a/k/a “color of law” Title 13-1-111 C.R.S. The Colorado state Constitution did not delegate any authority to the legislature to legislatively create statutes as a jurisdiction and especially for use against the People. Title 13-1-111 C.R.S. is a special statutory procedure created by the general assembly in violation of Article V, §25 “Fictions arise from law, not law from fictions”.
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
The Fourth Amendment protection applies to Me because absent its protection, My unalienable Rights to Liberty was taken and domestic tranquility guaranteed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America was violated. The fictions that made the arrest are bound to the United States Constitution to secure My unalienable Rights endowed by My CREATOR in the supreme law of the land, the unanimous Declaration of Independence.
I have been subjected to four kidnappings absent the fourth amendment protections by the use of administrative warrantless seizures. The dates of these Fourth Amendment violations are June 23, 2008, April 24, 2009, May 6, 2009, and June 23, 2008.
On June 23, 2008, the first warrantless seizure was the result of the litigation commenced on March 15, 2007, by RICHARD C. KAUFMAN, using a legislatively created statute 38-35-201 through 204 C.R.S. in an effort to remove the default judgments and 07Cv1626 that was filed in El Paso County, Colorado District Court, a special statutory procedure. The June 23, 2008 the first warrantless seizure resulted in a personal injury that required surgery for correction to My left shoulder. Surgery occurred on September 3, 2008. Medicare paid the bill, but the City of Pueblo admitted to the liability as presented in My self-evident exhibits 208117487, 208117486, 208124590, 208134363 as a matter of public record. The City of Pueblo is refusing to honor its agreed to default judgment. No liens have been created by Me. I have read and studied KAWANANAKOA v. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S. 349 (1907) and quote “… [A] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law or which the right depends. “ I give no consent and state for the record that RICHARD C. KAUFMAN knows or should know that as one of the people in Colorado he has no persona jurisdiction over Me. Incidentally, jurisdiction has been challenged and never proven by any of the prosecutors.
On April 24, 2009, I sustained a second warrantless seizure absent a fourth amendment warrant issued from ALJ PELICAN’s court without PERSONA AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over a People who has unalienable Rights as a result of the March 31, 2008, proceedings in ALJ PELICAN’s justice court. The so-called default judgment created in 96Cv604 is VOID. On March 31, 2008, had ODIL and KOGOVSEK done their homework, they would have known that they had NO JURISDICTION to ask for a contempt charge . The contempt charge requested on March 31, 2008, resulted in My personal injury requiring surgery on September 3, 2008. ODIL and KOGOVSEK failed to follow Rule 107 ( c) mandated procedures disallowed in 2-5-103(d) in this justice court as a result of 1962 when Article VI was turned upside down by REFERENDUM unratified by Congress. Judge PELICAN’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper.
The second contempt charge is VOID based on the facts present about 96Cv604 on the March 31, 2008. Additionally, a superior Writ of Mandamus SA08271 was filed into 07Cv1626 . on August 12, 2008, removing the jurisdiction from the PELICAN court to the Colorado Supreme Court. Concurrent jurisdictions cannot exist, but yet I am and have experienced harassment and threats of jail/prison. Moreover, ODIL and KOGOVSEK created NO paper trail mandated in Rule 107 ( c ) for the execution of a second warrantless seizure on April 24, 2009. The failure to appear charge is also VOID.
On May 6, 2009, a fourth warrantless seizure occurred, for 09CR1682 absent SUBJECT MATTER and PERSONA jurisdiction. As a People I am not subject to STATUTES created outside the constitutional mandates in Article VI, § 1 cross referenced in Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution mandating jurisdiction is law and equity. Additionally in Colorado’s constitution of 1876, the people mandated in Article VI, § 28 use of only general law. In 1962 Article VI was abolished by REFERENDUM. Absent ratification by Congress and use of a REFERENDUM VOIDS all changes to Article VI in 1962 and law and equity stand as of this writing. Only Amendment XIX can be used to alter, change, or amend the People’s organic law. The use of STATUTES was the basis of the arrest on May 6, 2009, and on a people without a fourth amendment warrant created the third warrantless seizure. All actions are outside the mandates of the United States Constitution for America and are NULL and VOID. Judge GILBERT’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper.
On June 23, 2009, a fourth warrantless seizure occurred when I appeared by special appearance in ALJ GILBERT’s court without an attorney. Judge GILBERT revoked My bond and I was escorted by sheriff Terry MAKETA’S staff to El Paso County Jail without a warrant of commitment and a fourth amendment warrant. On June 26, 2009, I was returned to his ‘justice court’ and released pending the purchase of another bond costing Me 200 U.S. funds on June 27, 2009.
Since the Fourth Amendment mandate regarding probable cause is so important, the court held and adjudicated that the suspect warrant needs to be investigated to see if it met procedural and constitutional requirements relative to its validity. I am relying on the following and quoting “… [ I]f a warrant does not meet procedural and constitutional requirements, it is invalid. STATE V. BURTIS, 664 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). A void warrant invalidates all subsequent proceedings emanating from the warrant. STATE v. CAMPBELL, 641 S.W.2d 890 (Tenn. 1982). No valid conviction can occur if the charging instrument is void. STATE v. MORGAN, 598 S.W.2d 796, 797 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979).
Judge GILBERT’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper. Sheriff TERRY MAKETA and Sheriff KIRK TAYLOR’s oath of office appears to be “just a piece” of paper to them also. Both could have prevented these warrantless seizures if they would obey their oath of offices. The PUBLIC CORRUPTION by the unqualified and improperly credentialed general assembly in 1996 by REFERENDUM negates any responsibility to the enforcement of STATUTES in Colorado’s Republic by Sheriff MEKETA and Sheriff KIRK TAYLOR My endowed CREATOR unalienable Rights were taken in violation of all ‘fictions’ oath of office by failing to “faithfully perform the duties of his office “ to secure My unalienable Rights. This failure then led to the willful failure to enforce the fourth amendment which took My unalienable right to Liberty and turmoil experienced at home regarding the willful disdain for violation of My domestic tranquility guaranteed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America.
The bonding company, Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (SCIRSA) is refusing to honor the valid claim. As a corporation created by statute as per Article XV§ 2 in Colorado, it is bound to the Colorado state Constitution of 1876 which is bound to the United States Constitution to secure My unalienable Rights as per the Declaration of Independence. Their statute 24-10-113 C.R.S. supports its compliance. CIRSA chooses to rebel against 24-10-113 C.R.S. as do Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool (CAPP), Western Surety Insurance Company, and Department of Personnel Administration in care of Richard Gonzales, Director.
FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
I exercised My unalienable Right of Liberty to Freedom of Speech and to Publish because I chose to discipline My employees/public servants for the intentional taking of My unalienable Rights when they willfully chose to violate their oath of offices. I placed a Notice of Claim for Damages upon their bonds for their contemptuous attitude towards their duty to be bound to My contract in Article VI to which they freely volunteered to do when they chose to work for Me; and, subsequently failed to submit to the supreme law of the land, the Declaration of Independence to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights.
I took ownership of the Declaration of Independence, the subordinate United States Constitution for America and the still further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876 on August 27, 2007. When I signed all contracts, My signature energized the contracts and by birthright and adoption, I became as though I were one of the original signers of the unanimous Declaration of Independence of 1776 and subordinate United States Constitution of 1789. I now have standing to enforce that which I wrote. I became the LAWMAKER quoting CARTER v CARTER COAL CO. , 298 U.S. 238 (1936), “…[A]nd the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and otherwise, that the legislative, executive and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess”. I am sovereign. Quoting YICK WO v HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 “…[S]overeignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself”. Quoting more on sovereignty CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall, 419, 454 said “…[a]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern; but, themselves…”
ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITIY BY CONTRACT
As a standing sovereign and one of the People in Colorado Owners, I have judicial Power. I wrote Article 3, §1 “The judicial Power in the United States [the people] shall be vested in One supreme Court, “… The UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT recognized the difference between the CREATOR and CREATION when it stated in AMERICAN BANANA CO v UNITED FRUIT CO, 213 U.S. 347 “…The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the DECREE of the sovereign makes law.” THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.) adjudicated “…The judiciary is the one department of government that may indict, try and convict for real or imaginary offenses against what it is pleased to term [*269] its "dignity." The court is not only "imperio in imperium," but it is "THE STATE" itself, the only higher tribunal being "THE PEOPLE." Quoting PENN v COM, 528 S.E. 2nd, 179,
“…[J] urisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or a statue, or both”. .
As a result of the CREATION being unable to submit to authority, all actors brought a total of two new statutory actions against Me in an effort to get My self-evident exhibits of the t judgments by default 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 removed from the public record and My Final Judicial Decrees. These new statutory actions were designed to relieve the bonding companies of their admitted liability by default.
I have had to surrender two and one-half years of My unalienable right to Liberty and Life to defend against these unconsciousable attacks. The actors know I am a People. Not once have they ever disproven that I am a People, but continue to treat Me as a “fiction” by attempting to reduce My People class one status to that of themselves, the CREATION. They fail to accept that the “creation are not greater than the creator” quoting Marshall v Marshall, 04-1544 (May 1, 2006) quoting Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 360.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
In an effort to get their way, all actors-fictions have un-ceasing harassed Me by having Me seized WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, created injury that required surgery for correction and now refuse to assume the liability admitted to by the city of Pueblo by their bonding company; and, are now attempting to have me imprisoned because I will not submit to them. This is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT because I chose to hold accountable My employees/public servants who willfully chose to breach their contract and violate Article 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution ”No State shall enter into *** ex post facto Law [the Administrative Reorganization Act of 1969], or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. See Article 2, §11 in Colorado’s constitution. All actors fail to realize that and quoting SHERAR v CULLEN, 481F. 2nd 946 (1973) “…There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights” to demand the securing of My unalienable Rights. Quoting RYAN V COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533 “Before sending person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating, but an aggravating factor”. The public officials fail to accept and realize that and quoting BUTZ v ECONOMOU, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); U.S. v LEE, 106 U.S. at 220 (1882) “…No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may se that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it”.
More CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is to knowingly proceed with this court scheme knowing that Jurisdiction CANNOT BE PLACED UPON THE RECORD because NONE exists against one of the People in Colorado, a making Owner and Creator in this action. Jurisdiction has been challenged at least four times and ignored by Judge Gilbert. As CHIEF JUSTICE Chase said in EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 74 U.S. 506 (1886) and quoting him “…The first question necessary is that of jurisdiction * * * Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle”. John Marshall, Father of judicial review, continued to affirm and wrote that for the court to usurp jurisdiction would be TREASON to the constitution”. (emphasis added) CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICION. Therefore, this matter must be determined before moving one step closer to a trial by jury.
Still more CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is the on-going harassment and threatened jail/prison time for holding accountable the public servants that agreed voluntarily of their own free will to work for Me, their employer, as My employee (public servant) per their oath of office to the United States Constitution for America of 1789, (hereinafter U.S.C.) to secure My unalienable Rights. This will cause Me harm and is a crime in 18-8-404 C.R.S. Each public servant is bound to Article VI, in this contract created by the authority of the Declaration of Independence as a result of wanting to have My right of suffrage (voting) in 2006, in Pueblo county. My vote was not counted and thrown out; and, the beginning of this under Color of Law Civil (natural, rights contract) Rights complaint. This appears to be an “Acorn type” election fraud situation in Pueblo county Colorado and supported as such within the State of Colorado?
TRIAL BY JURY
The GILBERT court is harassing Me into a trial with NO probable cause based upon STATUTES which are not law and use of an UNVERIFIED information as the charging instrument. As a sovereign I am entitled to a Trial by jury mandated in the Seventh Amendment which then means that I shall have an Article 3 common law trial by jury mandated in the Article 3,§2, Cl. 3. The oath of office rears its ugly head again to which all actors refuse to submit. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in COVERT v REID, 354 U.S. 1, (1957) stated in Article 3, § 2 “…the trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. And if it has so great an advantage over others in regulating civil property, how much must that advantage be heightened when it is applied to criminal cases!...[I]t is the most transcendent privilege which any subject [People] can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve his neighbors and equals.” (emphasis added is mine) See also Ex parte Milligan 4 Wall. 1, 122-123; Thompson v Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 349-350; United States ex rel. Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11,16, 18-19; 2 Kent’s Commentaries, 3-10; The Federalist, No. 83 (Hamilton); 2 Wilson’s Works (Andrews ed. 1896) 222. De Tocqueville observed: “The institution of the jury…places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed, or of a portion of the governed, and not in that of the government…He who punishes the criminal is …the real master of society…All the sovereigns who have chosen to govern by their own authority, and to direct society instead of obeying its directions, have destroyed or enfeebled the institution of the jury”. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Reeve trans. 1948 ed. 282-283.
Mary Severance is NOT a PERSON
The term ‘person’ has been carefully described and I have read and am quoting from the definition of ‘person’ in the American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910: “This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCEONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use…A ‘person’ is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested…not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons…The law of persons is the law of status or condition”. It is a ‘legal fiction’. A person in law is a legal fiction. It is undisputed that Mary Severance is a People with self evident unalienable Rights per the unanimous Declaration of Independence.
Also, PERSON, is a noun. Per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
Quoting the Supreme court in Wills vs Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989)”… a sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a “person,” or “any person”.
ARTICLE VI OATH USC VIOLATORS
The Acts of the First Congressional Congress of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in I Stat. 23, §3 makes it perfectly clear that there is absolutely NO excuse for the Colorado State Legislature to have never taken and subscribed an oath of office and to have allowed this to happen since 1880 is reprehensible. The following oath offenders are presented for investigation and consequential actions:
First are the unqualified and improperly credentialed State Senator ABEL TAPIA and former State Representative DOROTHY BUTCHER. This grievous infraction was allowed by Chief Justice MARY MULLARKEY who knows or should know the requirements of 1 Stat. 23§ 3. The entire state legislature is unqualified and improperly credentialed to fill the state legislature position and they too are guilty of 18-8-303 C.R.S. for taking “compensation for past official behavior”.
Second is the unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney, DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK. He has been employed since August 14, 2001, and is in violation of 18-8-303 C.R.S. taking “compensation for past official behavior” from the Pueblo taxpayers for pretending to be a county attorney. The county commissioners are to review the credentials of all elected and/or appointed officials at the first meeting in January of each year as stated in 24-13-105 C.R.S. The county commissioners per 24-13-107 C.R.S. are to keep a record of examination. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK vacated office has been adjudicated in Quimby v People, 381 P. 2d. 275 (1963) and by statute 24-13-108 C.R.S. .
Lastly is Attorney General, JOHN SUTHERS who was appointed to fill the vacancy of KEN SALAZAR on February 7, 2005. By law, JOHN SUTHERS was required to file his oath of office on February 7, 2005. By the admission of the public record at 20055611052 from the Secretary of State’s records, it states that JOHN SUTHERS filed his oath of office on May 02, 2005. JOHN SUTHERS did not qualify for office required by Article 12, §§ 8-10 in Colorado’s Constitution of 1876. JOHN SUTHERS is therefore, unqualified and improperly credentialed to fill the office of attorney general. He is trespassing upon public office. Moreover, MARY MULLARKEY is in violation of 1 Stat. 23, §3, because she swore him. MARY MULLARKEY had the duty to prepare the written certificate. As attorneys who go to law school, they know or should know contract law and how to lawfully fulfill the requirements of filing his oath of office that he accepted on February 7, 2005, to fill the vacancy of KEN SALAZAR. Attached is his admitted vacated office and continued taking of compensation for past official behavior according to 18-8-303 C.R.S.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9, CL. 8 and SECTION 10. CL. 1
I, standing in the shoes as though I were James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin by birthright and adoption of the supreme law of the land, the unanimous Declaration of Independence, subordinate United States Constitution of 1789, and still further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876 state for the record that the intent of the United States Constitution is to secure My [all of the People’s] unalienable Rights and to protect them from the “Kingly”, “Aristocratical”, “Monarchial” government by including Article 1 Sec 9, Cl. 8, and Article1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person [public servant] holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title [Esquire, Attorney, Judge ,] of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Quoting Section 10, “No State shall grant any Title of Nobility”.
Article 5,§25 in Colorado’s Constitution prohibits “the [unqualified and improperly credentialed since 1880 ] general assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say; “…granting to any corporation, association [the bar association] or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever…”
The People no where in the organic law of 1876 created any provision for the Colorado Bar Association and went so far as to say in Article VI, §18 “ [T]he Judges of the Supreme and District Courts ***and no such Judge shall receive any other compensation, perquisite or emolument for or on account of his office, in any form whatever, nor act as attorney or counselor at law”. Article VI, §18 is in compliance to Article 1 Sec 9, Cl. 8.
The original, organic Colorado state constitution mandated that the Section 10 “no person shall be eligible to the office of Judge of the Supreme Court unless he be learned in the law …” By the non-ratified REFERENDUM by Congress in 1962, Article VI was abolished. Please notice that “learned in law” was removed in section 11 and now the judges “…shall have been licensed to practice law in this state for five years.” The People’s qualifications of “learned in law” have now been put under the control of the Colorado Bar Association. The judges sitting on the bench are in violation of Article VI, §18 and are an active registrant with the Colorado Bar Association.
The Colorado Bar Association functions on presumption of creation by special legislation of which I can find no reference. The Secretary of State has no reference of registration as an active association. The “BAR (=British Attorned Registry) ASSOCIATIONS” have unlawfully established that they are above the law, not subject to violations of law and are above contestation of their authority to break our laws. These “Foreign Agents” in 22 USC 611 have given their loyalty to a “Foreign Power” and are barred from all “Public Offices. These Esquires cannot hold public office in the Republican form of government guaranteed in Article IV, §4. They have a conflict of interest as stated in Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 8 and Article I, Sec. 10 of the United States Constitution of 1789. Each bar number represents active participation in the Colorado Bar Association with no proof of registration with the Colorado Secretary of State. Therefore, all named attorneys are in violation of 22USC, §22 and subject to accountability.
Conclusion
To make a long story shorter, I placed claims upon the bonds of the unqualified and improperly credentialed county sheriff, county attorney, the City of Pueblo for My surgery and service funds due those who corrected My injury sustained by Me from the Pueblo cops, a claim upon the bond of the City Manager, and the seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices. The claims are all the same. All of My employees have intentionally and willfully breached their contract in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 8 and Section 10, Cl. 1 in the United States Constitution and in Article 2 § 11 in Colorado’s constitution regarding the violation of “..Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, and the ex post facto mandate. ” All public entities have failed to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights, all ‘persons’ have been given due process of law per the contract under the Fifth and Seventh Amendment, with trial by jury being by Me under Article 3, § 1 in the United States Constitution for America quoting “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court..” As a cross reference, please see Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl 9 “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” I can enforce the contract; and, because I wrote the law, as one of the People in Colorado and a making Owner of the United States Constitution of 1789, I would not give equal or greater authority to My employees. Carter v Carter Coal Company, supra clearly adjudicate that the lawmakers are the people.
A Public Notice to the World was recorded in My self-evident exhibits at 207127767.
Additionally, there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of misconduct and I do not consent to the on going attack upon Me. The ‘public servants’ were caught with their hands in the preverbal “cookie jar”; and, now they do not want to be held accountable for their breach of contract and other conspiring activities. Moreover, they are angry in that the common law trumps statutory law jurisdiction not to be found anywhere in the USC and/or Colorado state Constitution subordinate contracts. Article 3, § 2 makes it perfectly clear that jurisdiction of the judiciary is in law and equity. Colorado’s constitution in Article VI, §1 of 1876 remained in tact until 1962. At that time the legislature created a referendum and placed upon the ballot asking the people to change Article VI. The “new altered Article VI, § 1 has NO mention of statutory jurisdiction because they know this article has to be in compliance with Article 3, §2 of the USC. Legislatively created statutes are COLOR OF LAW and violate the delegated law and equity created by the People in 1876. Justice courts are not courts of record. Justice courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The present day court system is one of special statutory proceedings and was adjudicated as non-constitutional courts and exist under authority and by permission of the legislative branch of the government in United Securities Corp. v Pantex Pressing Machine Inc., 53 P. 2nd 653 (1935). The Plaintiff has NOT appeared in this controversy because a plaintiff may appear by his agent at the time of trial and save the dismissal of a cause—can mean nothing else than that the agent may represent the plaintiff in the trial of that cause. A corporation must be represented by an attorney. Quoting SHELBY COUNTY V NORTON,118 U.S. 425 (1886) “…[A]n 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”.
It is for the above stated reasons that I am seeking the investigative arm of the Victim Assistance Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD in Pueblo and El Paso County. I have sustained and could sustain further damage because of the anger and vindictive nature of this situation. The actor-fictions were caught for being in violation of each actors Oath of Office for failure to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights. Additionally, the bonding companies have conspired with unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney General, JOHN SUTHERS, to avoid having to discharge their liability by violating the above stated contractual obligations to get relief from judgment by default they brought upon themselves for failing to answer or otherwise plead. If no answer is filed, there is no issue to be tried. In an unlawful detainer action where a written complaint is filed in compliance with section 13-40-110, if defendant fails to file a written answer, there is no issue to be tried, and defendant is in default in both original and appellate courts, if an appeal be taken from a judgment against him. FORT V. DEMMER, 91 Colo. 285, 14 P.2d 489 (1932). Vol. 5 P. 318.
DANIEL MAY, D.A. has been woven into this conspiracy and is using the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO as the Plaintiff. He knows or should know by now, that the self-evident exhibit 205201897 proves that PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO are a non-entity. Not being a corporation or other such entity, requires the Plaintiff to appear, and not by the D.A. If DAN MAY insists on pursuing this case based upon the foregoing facts, it is filed in the wrong court. The United States Constitution in Article 3, § 2 clearly states that “…when a controversy exists between a State, or the Citizens thereof, original jurisdiction resides in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I do not consent to being prosecuted by STATUTES and in El Paso County, if indeed, the State is attacking Me.
The solution was very easy before January 18, 2007. All the unqualified and improperly qualified newly elected ‘persons’ had to do was talk with Me. This is called a “union” meeting. But, what did they do? They ran to attorneys who have created this huge problem and expanded a simple default judgment into the discovery of PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD in Colorado, namely Pueblo and El Paso counties. “Oh what a web we weave when at first we deceive” What is clearly apparent, needs not be proven”
Under the authority of the People, I declare these statements as true.
__________________________
Mary Severance, one of the People in Colorado
Verification
Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter My status in any matter. The purpose of a notary is verification and identification only; and, not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
On this 26th of July, 2009, this PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD In
Pueblo County, Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud was sworn and signed in My presence by Mary Severance known to me or identified, who did acknowledge that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
_________________________
Notary and date
____________________________
Notary Commission
As stated in the letter of March 1, 2007, letter from the unqualified and improperly credentialed DANIEL C.KOGOVSEK also brought this special statutory proceeding assisted by VALERIE HAYNES, # 25288. Apparently KOGOVSEK and KAUFMAN all attend the same law school as both know or should know that “…[A] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law or which the right depends “ quoting POLYBLANK, supra.
On August 12, 2008, I filed a superior Writ of Mandamus 08SA271 into 07Cv1626 . The Writ of Mandamus was not entered into the ROA . Because I knew the superior Writ of Mandamus removed jurisdiction to the Colorado Supreme Court, I did not appear on August 22, 2008. To show the disdain ALJ PELICAN and ODIL and KAUFMAN requested another charge for contempt be filed against Me. The default asked by ODIL and KAUFMAN became a quasi-criminal procedure. The P-R Bond was revoked and another bench warrant was entered into the record by ALJ PELICAN. Upon arrest I will be held without bond until returned to this court. The NON-FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT was entered on August 25, 2008, while the Colorado Supreme Court still maintained jurisdiction. ALJ PELICAN’s oath of office which is to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to best secure My unalienable Rights has been breached willfully. As a result of this unconsciousable behavior, I placed a claim upon the bonds of Steven Thomas Pelican, David A. Gilbert, Richard C. Kaufman, and Leno S. Lipinsky deOrlov on June 10, 2008. I have the authority to enforce My law in the United States Constitution to hold accountable the public servants who volunteered to serve Me, not attack, not harass, not to imprison without My consent. I consent ONLY to be served and for compliance to My contract to which they volunteered to be bound.
The Notice of Claim for Damages and Claim of Liability matured AFTER 90 days. On September 24, 2008, an Owner’s JUDICIAL FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE as My self-evident exhibit 208105395 as a matter of public record was recorded with the El Paso county clerk and recorder. On November 19, 2008, a Ten day Notice and Demand for payment was recorded as My self-evident exhibit 208124595 finalized the claim due and payable to Me for damages I sustained for the willful taking of My unalienable Rights by Stephen Thomas Pelican, David A. Gilbert, Lino S. Lipinsky deOrlov, and Richard C. Kaufman. The “public entities” were afforded complete due process of law and by operation of law, a common law lien was created BY THE CONTRACT, not Me. The public entities have NO personal monetary obligation of funds owed Me. The liability rests with the Department of Personnel Management who are refusing to honor their statute at 24-10-113 CRS.
*************
.
I am one of the People in Colorado State who have CREATOR endowed unalienable Rights as per the unanimous Declaration of Independence. I am reporting PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD in Pueblo County, Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud that involves county and state officials within the jurisdiction of Pueblo County mandated in Article XIV. All I wanted to do was to vote constitutionally under the mandates of Article VII in Colorado’s constitution of 1876, in the November 2006 election. The election was held, I voted, but the vote was not counted because I refused to register to vote. I then challenged the election and those that were elected unconstitutionally refused to answer or otherwise plead. However, before I get into the specific issues of PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD, the history of this FRAUD must be presented
On March 31, 2008, TIMOTHY ODIL and DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK requested that I be held in contempt of an ORDER RE: Permanent INJUNCTION in case 96Cv604 recorded in the public record at 1148558. Upon investigation by Me, I found that this case could not materialize because I was NEVER personally served a summons, complaint, Motion or Temporary restraining Order, and Notice of Hearing in this matter on 10-3-1996 as stated in the bogus ORDER in paragraph 12. ON 10/2/96 the ROA contradicts the bogus ORDER which said on the Return of Service “DEFT served 10/2/96 at the El Paso Co Jail.” I testified on July 8, 2009, that I was not in El Paso County Jail on either of these two dates. A civil case fails when process is faulty. Moreover, I used the open records format and wrote to the Colorado Attorney General Office on March 16, 2007, asking him for a copy of all paperwork in his possession regarding 96Cv604. Quoting in part, the Deputy Attorney General’s Jason Dunn response is presented in My self-evident exhibit at 208096038 as a matter of public record. His response was “after a thorough review, our office has NO PUBLIC RECORDS responsive to your request. Specifically, news printed media, MOTIONS, COMPLAINTS(S), ANSWER, ORDERS, JUDGMENT, SUMMONS, HEARING DATES a duly certified transcript of the entry of the Permanent Injunction ...” I made this request of the A.G. because I had a copy of the ROA with no paper work, NO court of record for this statutory created “court of record” codified in 13-1-1111C.R.S. To make matters worse, on July 8, 2009, ODIL and KOGOSVEK subpoenaed Sandy Hook, clerk and recorder for El Paso County and presented My self-evident exhibit 208124589, absent pages 8 & 9. This is called, in My book, Tampering with Evidence a crime in 18-8-610 CRS. Additionally, I believe the intent of tampering with evidence was an attempt to prove that there was a “court of record” with a paper trail to Judge Crowder. I impeached this presentation which proves that there is NO proof of a Return of Service validating I was served on 10/3/96 a summons and complaint on 10-3-1996 in paragraph 12 in the so-called ORDER and unsubstantiated in the ROA at 10-2-1996. Regardless of the truth presented, Judge Crowder ruled against Me stating that I knew I could not use the public record. I ignored this bogus ORDER because I knew that faulty process negated the ORDER and that this special statutory proceeding had no real reason to enforce this so-called contempt charge because ODIL did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt required in Rule 107 that the ORDER was valid, absent the paper work documenting SERVICE and My proof forthcoming for presentation on July 31, 2009. That court is/was in want of paper trail, the bogus ORDER is VOID, because at no time did I ever make an appearance. This bogus ORDER is a default judgment as entered on the ROA on 10/30/96. The published bogus ORDER at reception number 1148558 is a crime under 18-5-105 CRS, the criminal possession of a forged instrument created by the Colorado Attorney Generals Department. Forgery is also a crime under 18-5-102 CRS which includes a written document containing “material misstatements” which appears among much in the written words of ELIZABETH WEISHAUPL, Ass’t Attyn General on the ROA .
As a result of ODIL and KOGOVSEK’s request for a contempt charge under Rule 107, I sustained injury to My left shoulder when I was arrested WITHOUT a FOURTH AMENDMENT warrant with affidavit of probable cause attached. I had to use the public record in El Paso County Colorado because DANIEL C.KOGOVSEK would not allow use of My clerk and recorder in Pueblo county. He made a judicial determination with no authority.
***********
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN PUELBO COUNTY
A ‘court of record’ is one where paper backs up the docket entries known as a Registry of Actions (hereinafter ROA) My self-evident exhibits 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 as a matter of public record default judgments have now been deemed as “false liens” as per My self evident exhibit 207038694 as a matter of public record. I submit 207038694 this exhibit because the unqualified and improperly credentialed , de facto county attorney DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK made a judicial determination that the default judgments were “judgment liens” because of the phrase “court of record” and “by the court” accusing Me of impersonating the unlawfully created legislatively created Colorado courts codified at 13-1-1111 C.R.S. I did not impersonate Colorado courts because as one of the People making Owners of the subordinate U.S. C. I have fully described why I am a judicial Power validated in NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING, supra. Common sense says that as the Owner/Enforcer of the USC, I would not give equal or more power to the “hired help” the “created persons” than that of Myself. Additionally, this document was recorded as a self evident exhibit of “threat and bribery” by DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK as stated and signed by him in his March 1, 2007, letter “In order to resolve the problem created by the three recorded Judgment Liens, I request that you come to my office on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 16, 2007, and each sign a Release of Judgment Lien form, the threat! Copies of the Release of Judgment Lien forms are enclosed for your review. If you do not sign a Release of Judgment Lien by March 16, 2007, I will have no alternative but to commence appropriate litigation against each of you—bribery, a crime at 18-8-302 C.R.S. A “Judgment Lien” is a statutory creature and My/Our default judgments are not statutory. The Release of Judgment Lien was not signed and DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK carried out his threat and attacked Me/Us with litigation which has turned so ugly that I am now threatened with 48 years of prison time in 09CR1682. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK, # 7566 conspired with DAVID BROUGHAM, # 1950 who also threatened to bring criminal charges by statute in his December 10, 2008 letter attached. Statutes do not apply to Me, a people in Colorado who has unalienable Rights.
DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK and TIMOTHY ODIL attempted to conceal from Judge Crowder that case number 1996Cv604 is a “court of no record” which is validated by the only thing in this record in Pueblo, Colorado is a ROA. Moreover, My self-evident exhibit 207038695 as a matter of public record (Exhibit C in 07Cv1626) is a confession that DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is impersonating a county attorney absent his oath of office mandated by the People in Article 12, Sec. 10. Refusal to qualify-vacancy. “If a person, elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant”. This is a crime at 18-3-207 C.R.S. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is mandated by law to have a bond and the oath attached to each other. In all likelihood, Valerie Haynes is also unqualified and improperly credentialed to work for DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK.
Furthermore, the law that created the bond-oath combined paperwork is found in G.L. §1940. Two maximums describe this scenario, “Fictions arise from law, not law from fictions”. “What is clearly apparent, needs not be proven”. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK has been extorting funds from the People in Pueblo county since 2001. This is a crime at 18-3-200 C.R.S. It is time for DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK to be arrested and this office remains closed until it can be filled constitutionally.
The issue on the civil side fails to present a claim upon which relief can be granted. The prosecutor fails to meet his burden beyond a reasonable doubt as mandated in Rule 107. The bogus criminal side using UNVERIFIED information presents lies and deception which I challenged in the Objections to the Fatally Defective Complaint and Information. To seek to imprison a People for any time is unconsciousable especially when all courts are in want of UNPOVEN challenged jurisdiction. The criminal court has been requested four times to prove jurisdiction and four times ignored. As Chief JUSTICE CHASE in EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 74 U.S. 506 (1886) said and I quote him” …The first question necessary is that of jurisdiction * * * Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle”. CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICION
*****
even though the contempt charge has not met “beyond a reasonable doubt” based upon the third reason stated in DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK’s letter relating to Case No. 96Cv604. This law suit did not materialize and I was never served with a complaint or summons validated in the so-called Permanent Restraing Order at recorded at reception # 1148558 on 12-1-1996.
based upon a court case docketed as 1996Cv604. This court action did not materialize as by the admittance of Elizabeth Weishpul she said in her order that I was served a summons, complaint, on October 3, 1996, and on the ROA it said I was served on 10-2-1996. This is not true and proof of lie is recorded as My self-evident exhibit is a matter of record.
I claim and accept all endowed by Creator’s unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty (none above), and pursuit of Happiness with My guaranteed domestic tranquility guarded in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. I signed the supreme law of the land, My self-evident exhibit personal code
the unanimous Declaration of Independence, the subordinate United States Constitution for America and further subordinate Colorado State Constitution of 1876. The Declaration of Independence is the supreme law of the land as this is My law, the law I wrote, as an Owner. This law provided the authority of creating a government for those who volunteered freely of their own will to be a “CREATED” person who is bound by contract mandated in Article VI, Cl. 2 to the supreme law for those working as My employee/public servant
THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.)
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Jurisdiction by and for the writing/making bosses
Jurisdiction by and for the writing/making bosses
1. Absolutely...Happy to help any & all people... Neil Strong from Maine
email anytime, 24/7 at strong@midmaine.com , or call my cell phone 8 AM till 11 PM, 7 days a week...All messages will be answered by a call back if I cannot take the call immediately...Just leave a first name & verbally leave your number...Together, we WILL change our country for the better...
2. From Colorado, Mary Severance; email-- severance@yahoo.com phone # 719-543-6295
3. Or me, Siegfried Caruthers; email -- sjcaruthers@yahoo.com phone 931-319-5531 or current best 405-525-2271
I am slow sometimes with email replies- better with phone conversations. For your info; I have posted some materials in short letter form at the two following urls;
3a. http://pagosafreepress.com then on the left hand side click on discussion forums, then on national issues and I have about 21 post -- all under unalienable rights---no sign in to read ---only to post replies or questions, comments
3b. http://firstchiefjustice.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------
If any are interested in the way I and the two individuals above are handling the lawlessness concerning the law of this land, you can check out the posted info at the given urls. I will post this email at the above urls and in the file sections of the the_great_debate and the constitutional_debate when I post this to members of those forums. In short, I hold that the supreme law of this land is a contract between equals called The Declaration of Independence (DoI) and then those of us DoI writers/adopters who choose; and then wrote a subordinate contract to best implement and best secure the law of the unalienable rights from the Creator and absolute equality of each and every non-created-individual as a matter of law per the contracts called The Declaration of Independence and the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) and the USC’s contract due process (status is a mandatory part of the due process).
If you claim the status of a Citizen of the USC; you by contract logic default have to be covered by the DoI and a making owner/writer by adoption. As such you hold the same highest status position as each of the other makers/owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC. All state constitutions are still further subordinate to the DoI and the USC, but must not over-rule or even try to change any contract clause of the 2 upper tier contracts.
As a USC Citizen, while it is not technically exactly correct word usage, a claiming/making/owner is Sovereign as it related to him and his treatment. The president and congress persons, cops, mayors, attorneys, DA’s, are all of inferior status with respect to each and every one of the making owners as all of these are created pursuant to the umbrella contract rules, the making owners (USC’s Citizens wrote when they gave (Legislated) the law. The president works for you not over you – Us making owners and the created hired persons do not have a Divinity to overrule or change or set aside our contract law. If as maker or created person, if the total contract is not one you can adhere to per any divinity one claims to follow, then you are a liar; if you of your freewill claim to be a maker or created worker; hence a follower of the DoI and subordinate USC contract law..
These contracts result in each making owners being the only true judicial power of their one supreme Court as given per the USC contract. All the other inferior courts are simply by USC contract simply administrative. For a DA, cop, attorney, corporation to even try to get you into the administrative side means they are not following the DoI and USC contract. For you to go; Means you have either accepted their claim of being a god over you {For Star gate fans means you think the hired help are either Goa’ulds or Oris} {how sad for you}, or bought into their line of BS. Or simply have no knowledge of the law I operate by and which by your right and choice could be yours.
I know Vivus Spartacus teaches to use 5USC 556 and 702. But I suggest that method only has a plausible contract logic use in the case of an innocent error committed by the created hired help. How many attacks does it take for the average forum reader to come to the conclusion that the attacks are completely contrary to the contract law of this nation.
As a side note, when he was alive, Clyde Hyde kicked me off Lawworks, twice, for telling what I considered the DoI and subordinate USC. He called my words just patriot myth and such trash was not allowed on his forum. That was several years ago; about a week or so ago, mainly out of curiosity I signed up to join the current Lawworks. Last I checked, I was still in pending status. I can level with you about what I believe, and why – but you (each of you) have to make the decision as to what you consider the law and conduct you follow in all cases. If such is not the case, then I will shed a tear for your lost freewill.
Contracts are basically all known as civil, because between the contract parties there has to be both, a meeting of the minds and freewill acceptance by all the parties. A contract is not by definition of contract structure rammed down one of the party’s throat by the other party or parties by force. For my use of the analogy that follows, it is a close fit and I hope you understand. If you and a neighbor are the writers of a contract for a series of buildings, that is accepted by several different contractor to do the work --- the contractors do not get to change the contract per their wishes or use force to get you or your neighbor to do anything and claim it is according to the contract. Any decisions per the contract you and your neighbor are in the drivers’ seat of having the highest status per the contract. The contractors fit the status and position of the cops, mayors, president, congress, etc. They have no contractual lawful right to sue you. If They do have a grievance against you for your performance per the terms of the subordinate USC , then they can try for “redress of grievance” but if it is you they want to come against, then they have to do union with you and if that doesn’t close the issue, the only option the contractor types have is to come against you in your one supreme Court. You can choose to be both the judge and jury, the only contract option the contractor has is to accept your decision or quit the contract created job.
To try to get you into the inferior administrative law courts (forums), the contract is being side stepped and the all the parties against you are guilty of unclean hands and barred by the doctrine of latches.
5 USC § 556 – title listed, but not the substance of 556
If you read the below 5 USC 702 and understand contracts as I do, one can readily see that even the codes allows and instructs all the created to honor the contract and your making status. Why therefore a making owner would ever freely walk into an administrative law forum and not stand up for our law is beyond my comprehension. They may beat and rob you, but you will have lost as a honorable law abiding individual. In leaving this paragraph, I leave you with this note for thought, no administrative law court can issue a final nor binding judicial decision for any making owner of the USC contract unless the making owner just wishes to honor that administrative decision and willingly of your freewill accept that your contract terms have not be adhered to – as such is your lawful right and due process.
----------------------------------------
5 USC § 702. Right of review
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought
-------------------------------------
Because of all the criminal acts being committed that did not conform to the DoI and the subordinate USC, I went back and looked at the things again. Toward the end of the USC; the contract verbiage indicates to be put in effect, it has to be accepted by making owners (body politic) from 9 states. Since all the early makers were dead, I got in touch with neighbors across the states and asked if they wanted to help me in bringing the law to this land. My understanding of contracts is if you are not part of the contract, then you have no standing to get involved per the contract. As it stood, all the hired help were possibly operating under another set of rules concepts as the contract (USC) might well not have been considered in effect.
To that end there was recorded filing in the state of Colorado of the DoI and the accepted USC. A pdf file of the recorded id number and the actual recorded documents can be distributed to any who want and makes sure we who were trying to insure contracts were in effect, used the same documents.
{{{ Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-28-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking us making bosses under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits. }}} Since we have gotten this thing done and it is the law of this land, several other state have signed one. The more making owners who actually sign up, help keep the law alive during your life time. If your kids don’t want to continue the law, that is their business, not yours. Until all accepting signers die, then the law remains in effect.
The original signers per my knowledge are given in the below:
Project 9 -- looks like I can get a letter off to 2 houses of congress now. I will also run info at a couple of other places,
Your names are a matter of record via what you have sent Rice. I will use your names in posted info, but if you do not want your email address (if you have one) given please let me know. I happen to think that there is no good reason that one should hid claiming the law of this land.
The 9 states at present:
Tenn. --- SJ Caruthers---sjcaruthers@yahoo.com
CO.-------Mary Severance ----- severanceme@yahoo.com
WY. ------ Justin ? (need a last name and address to send him copy if he does not have email)
IO. ------- Robert Intlekofer ---- (need email address)
AL. ------ Robert Cook ? ---- ??? robertcook@sovereign-american.org
MD. ----- James Mozingo ---- kaostheory@comcast.net
MO. ----- John Gold ---- abchtg@tranquility.net (John, did you use john Gold or John Paul Fagot on stuff?)
CA. ----- Patrica Korsdal & Lars Stephen ---- svenska1054@netzero.net
NE. ------ Rita Critel ---- lemasters@neb.rr.com
Mary, and other listed who get this email provide input so I get everything correct.
Since the original law went in affect per this stuff on 4-28-08, several other states have had making owners sign on for their home states. The more that sign on, the better it is, but the option is up to you now. You can claim the law or you can reject. Choice is entirely yours. I only do or assist with counsel in accordance with the contract law of this land as I understand it—not you, not cops, not DA’s, not administrative law judges, but as I understand it.
Experience indicates the inferior administrative courts never put jurisdiction, much less contract jurisdiction and the status of the parties to the matter per the contract terms. The federal inferior administrative court uses a brief blurb on jurisdiction that is as meaningless as the state administrative courts non-use.
Since I see no way for the inferior administrative courts to get or have a valid judicial jurisdiction, use seizure or so-called arrest warrants. Puts you, as a making owner, in the sole position of the only true judicial power in your matter.
For that reason, I suggest that you add to the record of any inferior administrative court that attacks you, your claim of the contract law and submit both the DoI and the subordinate USC as part of the record. The inferior judges and attorneys do not like to accept or acknowledge that the law you have is greater than they can claim – but I know of no way for them to mount a lawful attack against your claim, once you have made it. What is in you is greater than what is in them.
If they don’t accept your status and claim, then per the contract as a true contract judicial power, issue your judicial mandamus as the superior court order to the state supreme court or federal court to get control of the misbehaving inferior administrative courts operating under guise or color of law as judicial courts and not following the controlling contracts.
A bunch of files have been used and can be transferred to you for use or modification so you don’t have to start completely from scratch. We live it and use it, between the 3 of us listed above we can provide you files as we have used and already considered. Please note: no non-contractual use is suggested or supported by me, and if you want to use violence which is outside the contract intent and terms; I am out of it – I only consider and use the contract as a civil tool. Even if you are getting attacked, then the contract is not part of a physical response by me to the lawless of the hired help against you.
Some of the available files as those files are named on my naming scheme and have all been used in the struggle of various making owners to defend against unlawful and non-contractual attacks. ----- if anyone wants please contact me and I will email as attached files – this missive is long enough.
PS: My application to congress and then notice for assistance to president, and impeachment on his non-response is still valid – change of created persons does not change a thing until the congress clears by votes in a trial setting with me as the Chief Judge of the supreme Court, the president for duty.
1. Absolutely...Happy to help any & all people... Neil Strong from Maine
email anytime, 24/7 at strong@midmaine.com , or call my cell phone 8 AM till 11 PM, 7 days a week...All messages will be answered by a call back if I cannot take the call immediately...Just leave a first name & verbally leave your number...Together, we WILL change our country for the better...
2. From Colorado, Mary Severance; email-- severance@yahoo.com phone # 719-543-6295
3. Or me, Siegfried Caruthers; email -- sjcaruthers@yahoo.com phone 931-319-5531 or current best 405-525-2271
I am slow sometimes with email replies- better with phone conversations. For your info; I have posted some materials in short letter form at the two following urls;
3a. http://pagosafreepress.com then on the left hand side click on discussion forums, then on national issues and I have about 21 post -- all under unalienable rights---no sign in to read ---only to post replies or questions, comments
3b. http://firstchiefjustice.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------
If any are interested in the way I and the two individuals above are handling the lawlessness concerning the law of this land, you can check out the posted info at the given urls. I will post this email at the above urls and in the file sections of the the_great_debate and the constitutional_debate when I post this to members of those forums. In short, I hold that the supreme law of this land is a contract between equals called The Declaration of Independence (DoI) and then those of us DoI writers/adopters who choose; and then wrote a subordinate contract to best implement and best secure the law of the unalienable rights from the Creator and absolute equality of each and every non-created-individual as a matter of law per the contracts called The Declaration of Independence and the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) and the USC’s contract due process (status is a mandatory part of the due process).
If you claim the status of a Citizen of the USC; you by contract logic default have to be covered by the DoI and a making owner/writer by adoption. As such you hold the same highest status position as each of the other makers/owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC. All state constitutions are still further subordinate to the DoI and the USC, but must not over-rule or even try to change any contract clause of the 2 upper tier contracts.
As a USC Citizen, while it is not technically exactly correct word usage, a claiming/making/owner is Sovereign as it related to him and his treatment. The president and congress persons, cops, mayors, attorneys, DA’s, are all of inferior status with respect to each and every one of the making owners as all of these are created pursuant to the umbrella contract rules, the making owners (USC’s Citizens wrote when they gave (Legislated) the law. The president works for you not over you – Us making owners and the created hired persons do not have a Divinity to overrule or change or set aside our contract law. If as maker or created person, if the total contract is not one you can adhere to per any divinity one claims to follow, then you are a liar; if you of your freewill claim to be a maker or created worker; hence a follower of the DoI and subordinate USC contract law..
These contracts result in each making owners being the only true judicial power of their one supreme Court as given per the USC contract. All the other inferior courts are simply by USC contract simply administrative. For a DA, cop, attorney, corporation to even try to get you into the administrative side means they are not following the DoI and USC contract. For you to go; Means you have either accepted their claim of being a god over you {For Star gate fans means you think the hired help are either Goa’ulds or Oris} {how sad for you}, or bought into their line of BS. Or simply have no knowledge of the law I operate by and which by your right and choice could be yours.
I know Vivus Spartacus teaches to use 5USC 556 and 702. But I suggest that method only has a plausible contract logic use in the case of an innocent error committed by the created hired help. How many attacks does it take for the average forum reader to come to the conclusion that the attacks are completely contrary to the contract law of this nation.
As a side note, when he was alive, Clyde Hyde kicked me off Lawworks, twice, for telling what I considered the DoI and subordinate USC. He called my words just patriot myth and such trash was not allowed on his forum. That was several years ago; about a week or so ago, mainly out of curiosity I signed up to join the current Lawworks. Last I checked, I was still in pending status. I can level with you about what I believe, and why – but you (each of you) have to make the decision as to what you consider the law and conduct you follow in all cases. If such is not the case, then I will shed a tear for your lost freewill.
Contracts are basically all known as civil, because between the contract parties there has to be both, a meeting of the minds and freewill acceptance by all the parties. A contract is not by definition of contract structure rammed down one of the party’s throat by the other party or parties by force. For my use of the analogy that follows, it is a close fit and I hope you understand. If you and a neighbor are the writers of a contract for a series of buildings, that is accepted by several different contractor to do the work --- the contractors do not get to change the contract per their wishes or use force to get you or your neighbor to do anything and claim it is according to the contract. Any decisions per the contract you and your neighbor are in the drivers’ seat of having the highest status per the contract. The contractors fit the status and position of the cops, mayors, president, congress, etc. They have no contractual lawful right to sue you. If They do have a grievance against you for your performance per the terms of the subordinate USC , then they can try for “redress of grievance” but if it is you they want to come against, then they have to do union with you and if that doesn’t close the issue, the only option the contractor types have is to come against you in your one supreme Court. You can choose to be both the judge and jury, the only contract option the contractor has is to accept your decision or quit the contract created job.
To try to get you into the inferior administrative law courts (forums), the contract is being side stepped and the all the parties against you are guilty of unclean hands and barred by the doctrine of latches.
5 USC § 556 – title listed, but not the substance of 556
If you read the below 5 USC 702 and understand contracts as I do, one can readily see that even the codes allows and instructs all the created to honor the contract and your making status. Why therefore a making owner would ever freely walk into an administrative law forum and not stand up for our law is beyond my comprehension. They may beat and rob you, but you will have lost as a honorable law abiding individual. In leaving this paragraph, I leave you with this note for thought, no administrative law court can issue a final nor binding judicial decision for any making owner of the USC contract unless the making owner just wishes to honor that administrative decision and willingly of your freewill accept that your contract terms have not be adhered to – as such is your lawful right and due process.
----------------------------------------
5 USC § 702. Right of review
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought
-------------------------------------
Because of all the criminal acts being committed that did not conform to the DoI and the subordinate USC, I went back and looked at the things again. Toward the end of the USC; the contract verbiage indicates to be put in effect, it has to be accepted by making owners (body politic) from 9 states. Since all the early makers were dead, I got in touch with neighbors across the states and asked if they wanted to help me in bringing the law to this land. My understanding of contracts is if you are not part of the contract, then you have no standing to get involved per the contract. As it stood, all the hired help were possibly operating under another set of rules concepts as the contract (USC) might well not have been considered in effect.
To that end there was recorded filing in the state of Colorado of the DoI and the accepted USC. A pdf file of the recorded id number and the actual recorded documents can be distributed to any who want and makes sure we who were trying to insure contracts were in effect, used the same documents.
{{{ Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-28-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking us making bosses under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits. }}} Since we have gotten this thing done and it is the law of this land, several other state have signed one. The more making owners who actually sign up, help keep the law alive during your life time. If your kids don’t want to continue the law, that is their business, not yours. Until all accepting signers die, then the law remains in effect.
The original signers per my knowledge are given in the below:
Project 9 -- looks like I can get a letter off to 2 houses of congress now. I will also run info at a couple of other places,
Your names are a matter of record via what you have sent Rice. I will use your names in posted info, but if you do not want your email address (if you have one) given please let me know. I happen to think that there is no good reason that one should hid claiming the law of this land.
The 9 states at present:
Tenn. --- SJ Caruthers---sjcaruthers@yahoo.com
CO.-------Mary Severance ----- severanceme@yahoo.com
WY. ------ Justin ? (need a last name and address to send him copy if he does not have email)
IO. ------- Robert Intlekofer ---- (need email address)
AL. ------ Robert Cook ? ---- ??? robertcook@sovereign-american.org
MD. ----- James Mozingo ---- kaostheory@comcast.net
MO. ----- John Gold ---- abchtg@tranquility.net (John, did you use john Gold or John Paul Fagot on stuff?)
CA. ----- Patrica Korsdal & Lars Stephen ---- svenska1054@netzero.net
NE. ------ Rita Critel ---- lemasters@neb.rr.com
Mary, and other listed who get this email provide input so I get everything correct.
Since the original law went in affect per this stuff on 4-28-08, several other states have had making owners sign on for their home states. The more that sign on, the better it is, but the option is up to you now. You can claim the law or you can reject. Choice is entirely yours. I only do or assist with counsel in accordance with the contract law of this land as I understand it—not you, not cops, not DA’s, not administrative law judges, but as I understand it.
Experience indicates the inferior administrative courts never put jurisdiction, much less contract jurisdiction and the status of the parties to the matter per the contract terms. The federal inferior administrative court uses a brief blurb on jurisdiction that is as meaningless as the state administrative courts non-use.
Since I see no way for the inferior administrative courts to get or have a valid judicial jurisdiction, use seizure or so-called arrest warrants. Puts you, as a making owner, in the sole position of the only true judicial power in your matter.
For that reason, I suggest that you add to the record of any inferior administrative court that attacks you, your claim of the contract law and submit both the DoI and the subordinate USC as part of the record. The inferior judges and attorneys do not like to accept or acknowledge that the law you have is greater than they can claim – but I know of no way for them to mount a lawful attack against your claim, once you have made it. What is in you is greater than what is in them.
If they don’t accept your status and claim, then per the contract as a true contract judicial power, issue your judicial mandamus as the superior court order to the state supreme court or federal court to get control of the misbehaving inferior administrative courts operating under guise or color of law as judicial courts and not following the controlling contracts.
A bunch of files have been used and can be transferred to you for use or modification so you don’t have to start completely from scratch. We live it and use it, between the 3 of us listed above we can provide you files as we have used and already considered. Please note: no non-contractual use is suggested or supported by me, and if you want to use violence which is outside the contract intent and terms; I am out of it – I only consider and use the contract as a civil tool. Even if you are getting attacked, then the contract is not part of a physical response by me to the lawless of the hired help against you.
Some of the available files as those files are named on my naming scheme and have all been used in the struggle of various making owners to defend against unlawful and non-contractual attacks. ----- if anyone wants please contact me and I will email as attached files – this missive is long enough.
PS: My application to congress and then notice for assistance to president, and impeachment on his non-response is still valid – change of created persons does not change a thing until the congress clears by votes in a trial setting with me as the Chief Judge of the supreme Court, the president for duty.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
unalienable rights & USC contract request of congress
Application to United States legislature (Representative and Senate) for performance of subordinate United States Constitution contractual duty
The below following letter was sent as a valid contract request by one of the making owners of the USC contract. This information is being openly posted so others will know how to evaluate the honor and duty of our hired hands when measured against the contract they created hired hands have asked to be our faithful servants in our household. I have not figured out (if it is even possible) to copy and use .pdf files to do posting. The below letter is filed as a public record in the El Pasco County, CO clerk’s office at number 208074828. You can get a record copy straight from that office, or contract me via email at sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and I will provide you a .pdf file of the recorded letter and receipt confirmation number.
RE: Application to United States legislature (Representative and Senate) for performance of subordinate United States Constitution contractual duty for their help in abolishing this nation of domestic Violence from created persons against me, Siegfried J Caruthers and others of the body politic.
To:
US House of Representative
% Clerk Lorraine C Miller or current clerk person
US Capital, Room H154
Washington, DC 20515-6601
and
US Senate
% of Office of Secretary of the Senate: Nancy Erickson or current person
232 Senate Hart Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
and
See last page for those persons sent a copy without any attachments for notice of this letter information.
Date: June 15, 2008
House of Representative and Senate or congress:
I am known as Siegfried J Caruthers, one of many of the body politic, who is a making owner by birthright and knowing adoption of the Supreme Law of this land. That Law is known as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) of July 4, 1776. An earlier signed and openly filed copy of that DoI is attached to this letter.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –
I am one of the making owners of the United States Constitution of America (USC), by birthright, adoption, public utterances, use, and open filing of signed subordinate law to the DoI. An earlier signed and openly filed copy is attached to this letter.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The intent of Union (face to face with no 3rd party between) with Our created congress is My purpose with and for this letter. I have dealt with before --1: your created head inferior administrative United States Supreme Court; 2: then made application to the President for assistance in protection against domestic Violence. Both persons ignored my application as no correction/help was forth coming. I then impeached the person of the President, and provided the Senate with notice and provided Myself as the self-appointed Chief Justice of the contractual supreme Court. The Senate has refused to do their contractual duty per the USC contract and clear the impeachment or let it stand that the person of Bush as President is not morally nor contractually qualified to hold the office. Congress is attempting to run this nation as a king type democracy via pretense of following and adhering to the DoI and the subordinate USC.
Three times or more congress has denied to me and taken from me by force my unalienable Rights from the Creator, failed to support my efforts to get the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms enforced. The same failure of congress applies to getting contract chartered entities and or persons removed from my nation for failure to follow or honor the DoI and subordinate USC contracts in freewill subordinate contracts dealings with me. These items must be in accordance with the DoI and subordinate USC contract congress pretends to follow. I am invoking my duty and issue this letter call for adherence to strict contract intent and terms.
Unless you meet the following contract intent and terms, congress has forfeited the contract right to exist. There are too many failures of congress to correctly and properly follow the contact terms for one owner to cover with this one letter. If congress makes this a start of returning to the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, the making Owners and honorable persons will have more to change later.
Absolute corrections required as of this letter:
1. The signing making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC are the only People who can take any unalienable Rights from the Creator from any People or persons, and that by action by Jury of making Owners of a supreme Court using USC due process. Liberty is defined as no one above and that includes all created persons as NOT being over or above the making Owner or another off work duty person.
2. All persons will be directed to honor any persons’ request for a habeas corpus at the time the habeas corpus is given. Plus the due process of the USC contract requires any proper valid warrant for a non-consensual search of private property, person, things, or making owners shall only be issued by an active supreme Court grand jury. All inferior administrative courts who wish to issue warrants must clearly indentify on the paper of the warrant that the warrants are only valid for consensual and non-coerced use.
3. The charters of all entities who do not follow the intent of the contract rules, will die a civil death and the remaining USC charter entities will do no business with the former entities.
4. The serial numbered federal reserved note will be redeemable at any member bank with the various states within 90 days of the date of this letter. This is mandatory, otherwise the state inferior administrative court are prevented from any ruling concerning non-obtainable standard lawful money of account. ….. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,…… All consensual parties to such a hearing would have to agree that the USC contract was not being adhered to or used and these facts put on the hearing record and what the rules of the hearing were. In addition, it is the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, that the state sets the salary for their congressman, collects and sends that money to the federal treasury. The federal treasury then pays the state set salary, with state sent and provided funds. This condition is expected to be in affect for any congress taking office in 2009. What making owner would let the created hired persons set their own salary? PS: Attached for notice is a letter minus attachments to Treasury Sec Paulson dated June 21, 2008 concerning redeemable or non-redeemable Federal Reserve treasury notes.
5. All congress persons starting with 2009, when they accept the job, will not be inhabitants of the state they serve…..( ….Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.) This means they are non-voters for their contract period of service to me.
6. For the person the electors choose for starting the office term of President in 2009, the vice-president will be the electors second place vote getter. Other wise, the person of the President is starting off by not following the USC contact. That would be doing or accepting a violation of the USC contract on the first day in office, an impeachable act. For 2009 starting term, I expected to be hired as the Chief Justice so all making owners and persons understand the valid contractual impeachment power is in place and has been acknowledged by congress and the new presidential person. .
7. Only the accepted version of the USC has been changed by the making owners. The created hired persons can not change the Body Politics’ governmental contacts. Only the first class making Owners can make changes to their creation.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. In keeping with the intent of the USC contract that it required making Owners acceptance when changes were made, and contract interpretation maxim that only parties to a contract had standing to be a party to contract actions, the following actions have been performed. 1. The Ratification of the following making owners was done by convention of remote wireless communication for nine states, and is valid to ratify this accepted USC for this congress and nation. The making Owners and the states are as follow: 1. Justin Irvin—Wyoming; 2. Robert Intlekofer--- Iowa; 3. Mary Severance---Colorado; 4. Siegfried J Caruthers--- Tennessee; 5. Patrica Korsval & Lars Stephan---California; 6. John Paul Fagot---Missouri; 7. James Mozingo---Maryland; 8. Rita Critel---Nebraska; 9. Robert Cook---Alabama. We nine have accepted and signed on as making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC. We each have also provided a letter of this action to the US Secretary of State, to notify each of the states, the appropriate federal agencies, and affected treaty nations.
If any one burdens the unalienable Rights of any individual in those states that are not yet a signing partaker of the accepted contracts, any action not in accordance with the intent of the in force contract much be explained in clear simple English of what rules the moving party is using and their assumed jurisdiction. I do not consent to have my law besmirched with unlawfulness from others who wrongly blame my just DoI and subordinate USC contract law.
I expect the congress to convene within 10 days of receipt of this letter, and ensure the necessary action items are taken care of. If said convening and corrections are not complete with 10 to 15 days, then I will have to consider my next steps to get the contracts honored by another group of hired created persons. I would suggest a joint convening of the two houses of congress.
Siegfried J Caruthers: ________________________________________
Making owner, and a judicial power per the USC
Attachments:
signed Declaration of Independence – 5 pages
signed accepted subordinate United States Constitution – 15 pages
notice via signed letter to Sec Paulson of US Treasury – 2 pages date 6/21/08
Notice is given by this letter without any attachments to the following persons/US Departments:
Person of Sec. Paulson or current; US Treasury Department; 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW; Washington, DC 20220
Person of AG, Michael Mukasey or current; Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20530-0001
Person of Sec. Rice or current; Department of State; 2201 C Street NW; Washington, DC 20520
The below following letter was sent as a valid contract request by one of the making owners of the USC contract. This information is being openly posted so others will know how to evaluate the honor and duty of our hired hands when measured against the contract they created hired hands have asked to be our faithful servants in our household. I have not figured out (if it is even possible) to copy and use .pdf files to do posting. The below letter is filed as a public record in the El Pasco County, CO clerk’s office at number 208074828. You can get a record copy straight from that office, or contract me via email at sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and I will provide you a .pdf file of the recorded letter and receipt confirmation number.
RE: Application to United States legislature (Representative and Senate) for performance of subordinate United States Constitution contractual duty for their help in abolishing this nation of domestic Violence from created persons against me, Siegfried J Caruthers and others of the body politic.
To:
US House of Representative
% Clerk Lorraine C Miller or current clerk person
US Capital, Room H154
Washington, DC 20515-6601
and
US Senate
% of Office of Secretary of the Senate: Nancy Erickson or current person
232 Senate Hart Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
and
See last page for those persons sent a copy without any attachments for notice of this letter information.
Date: June 15, 2008
House of Representative and Senate or congress:
I am known as Siegfried J Caruthers, one of many of the body politic, who is a making owner by birthright and knowing adoption of the Supreme Law of this land. That Law is known as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) of July 4, 1776. An earlier signed and openly filed copy of that DoI is attached to this letter.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –
I am one of the making owners of the United States Constitution of America (USC), by birthright, adoption, public utterances, use, and open filing of signed subordinate law to the DoI. An earlier signed and openly filed copy is attached to this letter.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The intent of Union (face to face with no 3rd party between) with Our created congress is My purpose with and for this letter. I have dealt with before --1: your created head inferior administrative United States Supreme Court; 2: then made application to the President for assistance in protection against domestic Violence. Both persons ignored my application as no correction/help was forth coming. I then impeached the person of the President, and provided the Senate with notice and provided Myself as the self-appointed Chief Justice of the contractual supreme Court. The Senate has refused to do their contractual duty per the USC contract and clear the impeachment or let it stand that the person of Bush as President is not morally nor contractually qualified to hold the office. Congress is attempting to run this nation as a king type democracy via pretense of following and adhering to the DoI and the subordinate USC.
Three times or more congress has denied to me and taken from me by force my unalienable Rights from the Creator, failed to support my efforts to get the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms enforced. The same failure of congress applies to getting contract chartered entities and or persons removed from my nation for failure to follow or honor the DoI and subordinate USC contracts in freewill subordinate contracts dealings with me. These items must be in accordance with the DoI and subordinate USC contract congress pretends to follow. I am invoking my duty and issue this letter call for adherence to strict contract intent and terms.
Unless you meet the following contract intent and terms, congress has forfeited the contract right to exist. There are too many failures of congress to correctly and properly follow the contact terms for one owner to cover with this one letter. If congress makes this a start of returning to the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, the making Owners and honorable persons will have more to change later.
Absolute corrections required as of this letter:
1. The signing making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC are the only People who can take any unalienable Rights from the Creator from any People or persons, and that by action by Jury of making Owners of a supreme Court using USC due process. Liberty is defined as no one above and that includes all created persons as NOT being over or above the making Owner or another off work duty person.
2. All persons will be directed to honor any persons’ request for a habeas corpus at the time the habeas corpus is given. Plus the due process of the USC contract requires any proper valid warrant for a non-consensual search of private property, person, things, or making owners shall only be issued by an active supreme Court grand jury. All inferior administrative courts who wish to issue warrants must clearly indentify on the paper of the warrant that the warrants are only valid for consensual and non-coerced use.
3. The charters of all entities who do not follow the intent of the contract rules, will die a civil death and the remaining USC charter entities will do no business with the former entities.
4. The serial numbered federal reserved note will be redeemable at any member bank with the various states within 90 days of the date of this letter. This is mandatory, otherwise the state inferior administrative court are prevented from any ruling concerning non-obtainable standard lawful money of account. ….. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,…… All consensual parties to such a hearing would have to agree that the USC contract was not being adhered to or used and these facts put on the hearing record and what the rules of the hearing were. In addition, it is the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, that the state sets the salary for their congressman, collects and sends that money to the federal treasury. The federal treasury then pays the state set salary, with state sent and provided funds. This condition is expected to be in affect for any congress taking office in 2009. What making owner would let the created hired persons set their own salary? PS: Attached for notice is a letter minus attachments to Treasury Sec Paulson dated June 21, 2008 concerning redeemable or non-redeemable Federal Reserve treasury notes.
5. All congress persons starting with 2009, when they accept the job, will not be inhabitants of the state they serve…..( ….Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.) This means they are non-voters for their contract period of service to me.
6. For the person the electors choose for starting the office term of President in 2009, the vice-president will be the electors second place vote getter. Other wise, the person of the President is starting off by not following the USC contact. That would be doing or accepting a violation of the USC contract on the first day in office, an impeachable act. For 2009 starting term, I expected to be hired as the Chief Justice so all making owners and persons understand the valid contractual impeachment power is in place and has been acknowledged by congress and the new presidential person. .
7. Only the accepted version of the USC has been changed by the making owners. The created hired persons can not change the Body Politics’ governmental contacts. Only the first class making Owners can make changes to their creation.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. In keeping with the intent of the USC contract that it required making Owners acceptance when changes were made, and contract interpretation maxim that only parties to a contract had standing to be a party to contract actions, the following actions have been performed. 1. The Ratification of the following making owners was done by convention of remote wireless communication for nine states, and is valid to ratify this accepted USC for this congress and nation. The making Owners and the states are as follow: 1. Justin Irvin—Wyoming; 2. Robert Intlekofer--- Iowa; 3. Mary Severance---Colorado; 4. Siegfried J Caruthers--- Tennessee; 5. Patrica Korsval & Lars Stephan---California; 6. John Paul Fagot---Missouri; 7. James Mozingo---Maryland; 8. Rita Critel---Nebraska; 9. Robert Cook---Alabama. We nine have accepted and signed on as making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC. We each have also provided a letter of this action to the US Secretary of State, to notify each of the states, the appropriate federal agencies, and affected treaty nations.
If any one burdens the unalienable Rights of any individual in those states that are not yet a signing partaker of the accepted contracts, any action not in accordance with the intent of the in force contract much be explained in clear simple English of what rules the moving party is using and their assumed jurisdiction. I do not consent to have my law besmirched with unlawfulness from others who wrongly blame my just DoI and subordinate USC contract law.
I expect the congress to convene within 10 days of receipt of this letter, and ensure the necessary action items are taken care of. If said convening and corrections are not complete with 10 to 15 days, then I will have to consider my next steps to get the contracts honored by another group of hired created persons. I would suggest a joint convening of the two houses of congress.
Siegfried J Caruthers: ________________________________________
Making owner, and a judicial power per the USC
Attachments:
signed Declaration of Independence – 5 pages
signed accepted subordinate United States Constitution – 15 pages
notice via signed letter to Sec Paulson of US Treasury – 2 pages date 6/21/08
Notice is given by this letter without any attachments to the following persons/US Departments:
Person of Sec. Paulson or current; US Treasury Department; 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW; Washington, DC 20220
Person of AG, Michael Mukasey or current; Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20530-0001
Person of Sec. Rice or current; Department of State; 2201 C Street NW; Washington, DC 20520
unalienable rights & USC required contract money
State of standard lawful money from Paulson (head of US Treasury)
I do not know how most of you folks read and understand the law of this nation. Just as I do not try to convince flat earth believer that the earth is really another shape I will not try to spoon feed anyone my view of contract law. Does it matter whether the flat earth believers are correct or I am? This is the first of two done actions that I consider valid orders from my status with respect to the contract laws of this nation. If this works for posting, it will be followed by a second posting. I do hope the readers of this posting, enjoy becoming making owners, hence drivers of the contract law.
Please note: there is a blank space before the .pdf file of the publicly recorded letter concerning money kicks in. As far as I know, this allows my actions to be used by others as supporting their position concerning funny money and the contract requirements for this land.
I could not get the .pdf file to post, the following below letter and USPS confirmation of receipt is filed in El Pasco County, CO. at number 2080744829. If you wish to use, you can get from the CO county court clerk, or request via email from me and I will email the .pdf recorded file.
I can be contacted at for work files and my view point at <sjcaruthers@yahoo.com>
Serial Numbered US Federal Reserve Notes per Treasury
Date: June 21, 2008
To:
Person of Henry M. Paulson, Jr. or current Sec.
Treasury Department
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220
From:
Siegfried J Caruthers
Currently at: 1500 Hillcrest Rd, Apt 613
Mobile, AL 36695
RE: MY Request the enclosed 3 Serial Numbered 20’s I own and hold be exchanged for US minted gold coins.
Sir:
Long ago, I took some of the same type serial numbered notes to a local state member bank of the Federal Reserve banking system, but they could not or would not give me minted coin for the serial numbered legal tender notes. The action was repeated with the same result at one of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.
My status is as follows: I claim to be a making owner and accepter of the Supreme Law of this land known as the Declaration of Independence (hereafter DoI) and the subordinate accepted (my me and others) United States Constitution (hereafter USC). As a making owner and by the DoI and USC contracts a judicial power of this lands supreme Court, I send this judicial request letter to you. You are further informed that I have impeached the Person of President Bush, and you have no valid president above you to block, order, or cover for any contractual duty or non-contractual actions you take with regard to my request. For your peace of mind, I tell you I have provided notice to the appropriate houses of my Congress, with notice of my impeachment and offer to be the trial Chief Justice of the supreme Court mandated by the USC. Congress has chosen to not clear his name and thus, again qualify Bush to be the person of President. Those being the conditions, you working directly as appointed by congress, owe me the contract duty I am requesting.
Find enclosed 3 Federal Reserve serial numbers notes: CG 11078472 A;
GF 64694046 B; and IC 76924108 A. I want these three notes redeemed for indicated face value of minted US coin (standard lawful dollars). Since I have not been able to do so, at a local member system bank, I require shipping to my temporary address of this letter.
If the ordered redeemable does not take place and delivery made within 10 days after receipt, then this request serves as open notice to the world that any Monopoly money notes are as good as these more fancy non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes. By USC contract the federal court system can not order the use of a person or persons worthless piece of paper standing above worthless paper selected, made, or used another person or persons.
My ordered request for an owed contract duty per the USC,
Siegfried J Caruthers: ______________________________________________
A Judicial power of the supreme Court per the USC contract terms
PS: This letter without enclosed Federal Reserve bank notes will be attached to an application to congress I am making per the USC terms.
a: Enclosed are the three above listed serial numbered Federal Reserve Bank notes
I do not know how most of you folks read and understand the law of this nation. Just as I do not try to convince flat earth believer that the earth is really another shape I will not try to spoon feed anyone my view of contract law. Does it matter whether the flat earth believers are correct or I am? This is the first of two done actions that I consider valid orders from my status with respect to the contract laws of this nation. If this works for posting, it will be followed by a second posting. I do hope the readers of this posting, enjoy becoming making owners, hence drivers of the contract law.
Please note: there is a blank space before the .pdf file of the publicly recorded letter concerning money kicks in. As far as I know, this allows my actions to be used by others as supporting their position concerning funny money and the contract requirements for this land.
I could not get the .pdf file to post, the following below letter and USPS confirmation of receipt is filed in El Pasco County, CO. at number 2080744829. If you wish to use, you can get from the CO county court clerk, or request via email from me and I will email the .pdf recorded file.
I can be contacted at for work files and my view point at <sjcaruthers@yahoo.com>
Serial Numbered US Federal Reserve Notes per Treasury
Date: June 21, 2008
To:
Person of Henry M. Paulson, Jr. or current Sec.
Treasury Department
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220
From:
Siegfried J Caruthers
Currently at: 1500 Hillcrest Rd, Apt 613
Mobile, AL 36695
RE: MY Request the enclosed 3 Serial Numbered 20’s I own and hold be exchanged for US minted gold coins.
Sir:
Long ago, I took some of the same type serial numbered notes to a local state member bank of the Federal Reserve banking system, but they could not or would not give me minted coin for the serial numbered legal tender notes. The action was repeated with the same result at one of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.
My status is as follows: I claim to be a making owner and accepter of the Supreme Law of this land known as the Declaration of Independence (hereafter DoI) and the subordinate accepted (my me and others) United States Constitution (hereafter USC). As a making owner and by the DoI and USC contracts a judicial power of this lands supreme Court, I send this judicial request letter to you. You are further informed that I have impeached the Person of President Bush, and you have no valid president above you to block, order, or cover for any contractual duty or non-contractual actions you take with regard to my request. For your peace of mind, I tell you I have provided notice to the appropriate houses of my Congress, with notice of my impeachment and offer to be the trial Chief Justice of the supreme Court mandated by the USC. Congress has chosen to not clear his name and thus, again qualify Bush to be the person of President. Those being the conditions, you working directly as appointed by congress, owe me the contract duty I am requesting.
Find enclosed 3 Federal Reserve serial numbers notes: CG 11078472 A;
GF 64694046 B; and IC 76924108 A. I want these three notes redeemed for indicated face value of minted US coin (standard lawful dollars). Since I have not been able to do so, at a local member system bank, I require shipping to my temporary address of this letter.
If the ordered redeemable does not take place and delivery made within 10 days after receipt, then this request serves as open notice to the world that any Monopoly money notes are as good as these more fancy non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes. By USC contract the federal court system can not order the use of a person or persons worthless piece of paper standing above worthless paper selected, made, or used another person or persons.
My ordered request for an owed contract duty per the USC,
Siegfried J Caruthers: ______________________________________________
A Judicial power of the supreme Court per the USC contract terms
PS: This letter without enclosed Federal Reserve bank notes will be attached to an application to congress I am making per the USC terms.
a: Enclosed are the three above listed serial numbered Federal Reserve Bank notes
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
unalienable rights vs donkey & elephant circus
Reply to Hope and the world at large:
Your question indicate you and I think differently about the law of this land and how it is suppose to be set up. To say I consider your questions way off point, and indicating a lack of understanding, at least from my view point, is a very mild way of saying --- one of us needs to do a lot more thinking on the law of this land.
I claim ownership of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and also the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC) (as I accept-not as the world talks about). I have signed the contacts and filed as a matter of record and told various and assorted persons of my position/status. My status is -- a making owner of both the DoI and subordinate USC. I am a Citizen of the United States. Both the DoI and USC are contracts. By signing on as a making owner, I hold by contract status, the position of a created judicial power of the USC’s supreme Court. I am one among many and by claiming I have a part in/of the contracts, I have standing. What gives you standing?
That said: I now go the words of the USC:
“”[[Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]]””
Read it and understand:: The contract is set up for us to choose electors who should then find a good man and vote for him. The contract implies strongly that once we choose electors, on a local scale, they then have the job of finding and voting for a presidential candidate. That means all this crap the from various parties and talk for popular vote or election of the president, is simply a Roman bread and circus show and is not according to the contract law of this land. Hope, you seem to have bought into this dog and pony show.
Please note the contract words are person and Native born. This part of the contract has nothing to with the birth of an individual via the birth canal or even by cesarean. I suspect it may take you a while to mull over the real intended time limit requirements, and qualifiers for this part of the contract language.
The governor of California Arnold S. can be president, and is contract suitable. For your info, remember Barry Goldwater. By using this Barack is not qualified because of where his mother’s legs were spread or womb was cut junk, then Barry Goldwater would not have been either. He was not birthed in the USA. It doesn’t matter that Arizona, later became a state. Go back and read the rules. There is no exception for being born in a soon to be state. Last for this posting -- natural born and native born are two very different words, especially when part of contract language.
Let’s elect the best electors we can vote for and let them do their job. I am tired of this donkey and elephant circus. I am out of it. It was much more enjoyable to watch Siegfried and Roy perform their show.
Your question indicate you and I think differently about the law of this land and how it is suppose to be set up. To say I consider your questions way off point, and indicating a lack of understanding, at least from my view point, is a very mild way of saying --- one of us needs to do a lot more thinking on the law of this land.
I claim ownership of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and also the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC) (as I accept-not as the world talks about). I have signed the contacts and filed as a matter of record and told various and assorted persons of my position/status. My status is -- a making owner of both the DoI and subordinate USC. I am a Citizen of the United States. Both the DoI and USC are contracts. By signing on as a making owner, I hold by contract status, the position of a created judicial power of the USC’s supreme Court. I am one among many and by claiming I have a part in/of the contracts, I have standing. What gives you standing?
That said: I now go the words of the USC:
“”[[Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]]””
Read it and understand:: The contract is set up for us to choose electors who should then find a good man and vote for him. The contract implies strongly that once we choose electors, on a local scale, they then have the job of finding and voting for a presidential candidate. That means all this crap the from various parties and talk for popular vote or election of the president, is simply a Roman bread and circus show and is not according to the contract law of this land. Hope, you seem to have bought into this dog and pony show.
Please note the contract words are person and Native born. This part of the contract has nothing to with the birth of an individual via the birth canal or even by cesarean. I suspect it may take you a while to mull over the real intended time limit requirements, and qualifiers for this part of the contract language.
The governor of California Arnold S. can be president, and is contract suitable. For your info, remember Barry Goldwater. By using this Barack is not qualified because of where his mother’s legs were spread or womb was cut junk, then Barry Goldwater would not have been either. He was not birthed in the USA. It doesn’t matter that Arizona, later became a state. Go back and read the rules. There is no exception for being born in a soon to be state. Last for this posting -- natural born and native born are two very different words, especially when part of contract language.
Let’s elect the best electors we can vote for and let them do their job. I am tired of this donkey and elephant circus. I am out of it. It was much more enjoyable to watch Siegfried and Roy perform their show.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Unalienable Rights -- congress a type Rev Wright?
Unalienable Rights –congress a type of Rev Wright
The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.
Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.
1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.
Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator
The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.
Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.
1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.
Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
