[hooded50]

What is happening in today's Courts ["Family Law" Courts included] is very simple, and several people here have hit the nail on the head. It's all commerce ! It's all about "contract law".

The "United States" is a Federal corporation [see 28 USC 3002(15)(A)]. It is nothing more than a fictitious corporate business entity doing business for profit through the use of contracts. All 50 "States" in the "United States" are founding members of the Federal corporation known as the "United States". This makes all 50 "States" corporate agents for the "United States". The "States" are all fictitious business entities, as well. For example, the "State of California" cannot answer questions, or perform any other physical action to prove its presence. Hence, it is a "fictitious entity" because it does not exist to the sovereign man. It is a fictitious "person", doing business for profit (as is evidenced by the fact that every "State" has a "Treasury") through contracts (Where there is no contract, there is no obligation. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 364 U.S. 64).

For example, if you're ever charged in a Court in the "State of California" (or any other "State"), look at the paperwork. It says the "State of California vs. You". You have the right to face all of your accusers. Therefore, since the "person" known as the "State of California" is the "person" who brought the charges, call the "person" known as the "State of California" foreward to answer your questions, and watch the judge's face. He'll almost choke over his own tongue to tell you that the "attorney" is "representing" the "State of California".

Here's where it gets fun. It is established that the "State of California" (and all other "States") is nothing more than a business. In order for a business to have a claim against a sovereign man, the business must be able to do two very important things. It must be able to show that it had the sovereign under contract, and it must be able to state a claim against the sovereign upon which relief may be granted. If the "attorney" that is representing the "State" cannot show a contract between you and him/the "State", nor can he/the "State" state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he/the "State" is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you can refuse to "do business" with him/the "State".

The same is true of the judge, because he is an "agent" for the "State" as well. If the judge cannot show a contract between you and he, and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you may refuse to do business with him just as you can with any other "business" (or its "agents").

This is where alot of people are making mistakes. The "State" (all 50 of them) does not have jurisdiction over you, unless you give them permission so to do! You don't have to go into their "Courts". You can demand the judge to show a contract and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, else dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.