[Codee]

This following is a great quote. Man I have been searching for this one for a while and I finally dug it up. Here it is., IT IS SO GOOD!!! What this quote does is demystify the alleged “fourth branch” government. It is not true. As I have posted, the “fourth branch” government is simply the combined powers so as to leave one or two out. This happens without fail from the Legislative branch taking the reigns of everything not physical which is so engrained in the executive they still recognize the executive branch even though it is so completely dominated by the legislature that it is almost just an arm of the legislature. The following is why laegislative courts ARE constitutional.

"This clause and principle of separation of powers are intended
only as protection for individual persons, and private groups,
those who are peculiarly vulnerable to non-judicial determinations
of guilt." State vs Katzenback, SC 1966, 66 S Ct 803; 383 US 301

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
FICTION OF LAW. 3. Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. 4 Benth. Ev. 300. [Weakness = limited powers]

Did you catch that above. LEGISLATIVE USURPATION of the bench. This is means nothing more than the legislature saying “Judiciary, your OUT!!! Now I must ask myself if this of myself… If the use of fictions seems to be synonymous with “non-judicial” how are the proceedings “noticed” as such? The use of the “UPPER CASE NAME” in a non-judicial tribunal, deciding on a special proceeding on charge of a statutory nature, gives notice that the trial is:
1) Non-Judicial
2) Using Fictions (Fictions will need a fictious name permit if it is to be vested with powers to sue and “be sued.”) This is you baby. We know the “trial courts” are non-judicial. We know now that the use of fictions is related to usurpation of the Judiciary. We know that on the corporations name permit the name is in all upper case (Let me know if anyone needs some substantial proof of this.) I had a birth certificate with a seal of the state issued by a Catholic Church Nun, and my name was in lower case. Now if I request a copy from the state they do not give me a copy of that, go figure, they say it was an heirloom, and it was valuable, I lost it (very sad). They can say till they are blue that a document signed by two people at my birth, is not anything in law,,,yeah except insane evidence of the nature of who I am!!!
3) For same reasons as number one, that it functions by, and it is comprised of, Executive Officers.
4) With #1 and #3 is not operating under the “separation of powers” doctrine. (Constitutional however if applied to statutory/public entity. See State vs Katzenback 383 US 301 (Notice how I do not say that the court has violated separation of powers for the sole reason of that the judiciary has been left out of the loop. It is for the sole reason that they are coming after me as an INDIVIDUAL PERSON, and I mean “person,” or “private group” (Which is not a public corporation) that the Summary tribunal is not authorized to proceed.
5) The court is fiction and will use notes as statements. Color of law as law. Use discretion in the interest of Justice. And I got to say I am sick and tired of this unknown person named “Justice” always popping up in my cases with some unnamed interest and the court telling me I cannot subpoena him. Who is this guy and who does he think he is? What is his interest??? I don’t know. Tell him I’m looking for him. He appears to be elusive.
6) The court will issue “summary judgment”, which is not “Judgment.” [[Different names presumptively indicate different persons [19. Brum v Ivins, 154 C 17, 96 P 876.;] HOWEVER you need to be able to bridge the common logic to understand that this applies to all names of all things and not just persons. Legally it I true that you can sue “in personam,” “in rem,” or “in personam via corporation” If I can sue a thing, like a stack of money, or a man, or a corporation which does not even physicially exist, then the rule of names should apply especially when the rule names just cited is talking about a defendant’s name and all the three types of suits , in rem, in person, in person via corporation, are all types of defendants]

O.K. is there anything else besides the separation of powers doctrine which gives the individual person the right to a judicial trial before punishment can be inflicted. You betchya! The other protection which lies for the individual is the anti-bill of attainder clauses in the U.S. and state constitutions.

“They stand for the proposition that legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.”
US vs Lovett 328 US 303, 90 L Ed 1252

"A 'bill of attainder' is a legislative act inflicting punishment
without judicial trial"
Dept of Social Welfare of State vs Gardiner (1949) 210 P2d 855, 94
CalApp2d 431

“(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446…

Bill of attainder clause not only was intended as one
implementation of general principle of fractionized power, but also
reflected framer's belief that the legislative branch is not well
suited, as politically independent judges and juries, to task of
ruling upon blameworthiness of, and levying appropriate punishment
upon, specific [individual] persons”
UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437

2 Am Jur2d s779. Administrative jurisdiction as excluding judicial
jurisdiction.
“Unless there is a clear indication of a contrary legislative intent, (17) if the legislature provides a remedy before an administrative agency which meets the demand of due process of the law (18), and does not invade the constitutional jurisdiction of a court, a court may be deemed to have no jurisdiction in the premises. Administrative agencies and their departments have been held to have exclusive original jurisdiction of particular matter, which precludes an original action in court in regard to such matters, (20) particularly where the statute provides for 'final and conclusive' action by the administrative agency.”

The “courts” constitutional jurisdiction is invaded when the administrative remedy is used against an individual person. It invades the jurisdiction of the court because the court is guaranteed a role due to the bill of “attainder clause” and the “separation of powers clause.” Are you beginning to see why the tribunals need to identify you as a corporation, a thing public person subject to license and administration? These two clauses only protect the individual. This is why a tribunal has no jurisdiction. Due process is what guarantees one the right to the protections of “no attainder” and “separation of powers” doctrines.

Codes will often state “person includes individual, corporation, pertnership…) and that is a person. But an individual person or “specific” person as used in the above quotes does not mean “one” corporation person but one non-corporate person. And a corporation person is always considered in its special corporate manner. This is why a corporation has no rights against self-incrimination.