Fire the Judge

[test]

1933 was another year for another big rape because these folks like that number (33) a lot, as well as 13.

need i say more? this information i just found speaks volumes. they admit they are not judges like i was saying, they are administrators. pay particular attention to the admin law cite below where they explain that a "judge" is actually a clerk for the administrative agency coming against you. the importance of this is thus. say you have a suspended license or irs or something coming after you. default the agency and their statutes, the judge can be brought in for judicial review of your process. when you default them, you tell them they have no judicial capacity to come against you.

Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially.

When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting as administrative officer and not as a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely administerially. Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 376, 154 SE 583, 71 ALR 604.

judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature or otherwise) act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency K.C Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.) their suppoed "court" becoming thus a court of limited jurisdiction s mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, P. 95 (CTP. 6 Ed. West's 1977)

"And this principle follows from the structure of the respective Governments, State and Federal, and their reciprocal relations. They are different agents and trustees of the people of the several States, appointed with different powers and with distinct purposes, but whose acts, within the scope of their respective jurisdictions, are mutually obligatory. They are respectively the depositories of such powers of legislation as the people were willing to surrender, and their duty is to co-operate within their several jurisdictions to maintain the rights of the same citizens under both Governments unimpaired." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

In the due process of law of the law of the land, a freeman could be deprived of liberty for crime or for debt after trial by jury in a court acting judicially.

Congress cannot remove a question of liberty from judicial cognizance. ""To avoid misconstruction upon so grave a subject, we think it proper to state that we do not consider congress can either withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty; nor, on the other hand, can it bring under the judicial power a matter which, from its nature, is not a subject for judicial determination. At the same time there are matters, involving public rights, which may be presented in such form that the judicial power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of judicial determination, but which congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper." Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. ,59 U.S. 272 (1855)

The question properly goes to the competency of the jurisdiction of a United States District Court, set in a jurisdicton alien to our rights confirmed in the Articles in addition to the Constitution of the USA, 1791, to deprive us of liberty and our immunity from deprivation of liberty in a jurisdiction not competent to judge according to common right.

Likewise, in this State, the question properly goes to the competency of the jurisdiction of a court of special jurisdiction created by the Legislature to deprive us of liberty and our immunity from deprivation of liberty by or in such a jurisdiction.

Due process of law from Magna Carta is the guarantee that:
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

The whole foundation of the Petition of Right and the American Declarations of Rights and the articles commonly known as the Bill of Rights stands on this part, point, or article of concession of the sovereign in the charter of liberties. Rights cannot be maintained unimpaired in courts of justice in which the rules of court do not require judgment according to common right.

[Jerseee]

Kgod,

yeah. But you know you have folks out there that don't want this system to change because they have an advantage over others that keeps them wealthy--basically all due to knowledge.

All,

You will have nay sayers around you telling you that you are crazy. But investigate these things for yourself and you will see that the only one who is crazy is the one who does not take their freedoms serious enough to defend them. Now that's crazy.

[sadie]

kgod

Awesome stuff, thank you!!!

[gregtu]

All, please listen to kgod!!!!!!

[its2die4]

So Kgod999, Lets assume that I agree with your presumptions regarding the implementation of administrative law as opposed to judicial, if one is presently before what is attempting to pose as a judicial court of equity in a foreclosure dispute how does that person then strip away the courts masquerade and find remedy of retaliation against the injustice?

Keith

the problem with a mortgage situation is, when you get into a mortgage, you waive all rights of protest, dishonor, etc. so, off the bat, you are dealing with again, a pocket judgment that the bank got against you up front. now, again, and this takes guts. what i would do if i had a house in forceclosure is off the bat im filing a common law lien to protect my equity in the property. then, i would contract with the bank to prove they lent me money to secure the mortgage in the first place(make it a claim and put a true bill in for the face amount of the mortgage plus triple damages.) state that they agree that your note financed the house and that its already paid for it they cant show proof of lost on their books. state that every instrument recorded in relation to the house is void, then, do a bill of sale and sale it to a family member and record the bill of sale into the public record. put all these documents into the public record. at the same time, work on getting a land patent. you HAVE to destroy the pocket judgment against you, a mortgage is a statute staple. the court aint gonna back you in any of this mortgage elimination stuff people are selling, so, you have to take your business in your own hands. believe in what you are doing. the main thing is to get it into the public record.

[its2die4]

Hi Kgod,

I sent you a private message but apparently you have yet to answer so.... I was hoping that you could offer some guidance on what and how to implemment what you have suggested. I sure hope you can point me to some template docs etc?

Thanks!
its2die4

dont make this hard. just write up a contract and make the bank the respondant and yourself the demandant. tell the bank they got 10 days to swear under penalty of perjury that they funded the "loan" to you by providing the appropriate accounting, signature of the bank's authorized representative testifing to that fact they loaned you money from the bank's assets, etc. there is case law in this website about banks being prohibited from loaning credit. have the bank refuse case law on that. put down anything you know the bank cannot rebut. write down the words true bill and put the value of the alleged loan plus triple damages as the amount the bank owes you if they cannot rebut your affidavit. ( all your facts will be in affidavit form). also inside the affidavit, tell the bank that they agree that your promissary note funded the alleged loan, that the house was paid for when you tendered the note and that all recorded documents in relation to the alleged loan are void for fraud. ( warranty deed, mortgage or deed of trust, etc.).