The Two Biggest Tools For Dealing With Admin. Courts

[Codee]

I can see that some on this forum is ready to make a bridge from the land of tribunals to the land of fictions and uppercase names. If you want a neat little one-line statute or no-non-sense-ruling, then go no further (in this essay.) If you want to understand the nature of the American and state courts and how they relate to a person/man/woman then read the following and realize you need to think here for yourself and make logical conclusions. You cannot wait to discover a decision/finding always. Sometimes you have to decide and find yourself. The rule comes down to this, one can either sue an action against a man or individual person or group of individuals as individuals, or they can issue a special proceeding against a fictitious group of real or fictitious individuals as one fictitious entity AKA a corporation.

"A 'summary proceeding' is not an action, though analogous to its
purpose and scope, it is special proceeding. Properly speaking,
therefore, there can be no judgment in summary proceedings, though
the final order entered is frequently referred to as a judgment,
and is in effect a judgment"
Seymour vs Hughs, 105 NYS 249, 250

This here folks is why you get told that “court” is “criminal.” But the remedy sought is a criminal special remedy and not a criminal action. This is where your constitutional rights are going into peril, because most people just mix in “court” and replace it for “case”, :remedy”, “action” and all sorts of things. People need to use the good definitions. It is not criminal action , equitable action, nor an action at all. It is a special proceeding. Special proceedings and actions are the only two types of “remedies” in California courts.

California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 21. “These remedies are divided into two classes:
1. Actions; and,
2. Special proceedings.”

California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 22. “An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.”

[“Prosecutes,” This does not seem to include review for default in the county recorder, or a review in any manner.]

[Could a REMEDY (saving to suitors clause) be brought for a “review” in a “libel of review” and as such would not a “review” be an extra-ordinary REMEDY to which common law can provide? Is “review” necessarily, “extra-ordinary” remedy? Does one need article three U.S. judicial power to work a R4C? Or can an R4C be worked first by an individual’s administrative power and then take that determination, file it put in a “review” for federal remedy in review? Hmmm… Who is interested in this stuff? Not many of my “in personam” friends, BUT lots of my subject matter friends are interested,,,I hope.

Now on the side, if someone R4Cs your R4C then what you have to do is enter the act or the common law which allows for you to do a R4C. If you are ABSOLUTELY in the right to demand an R4C then you can “rule” in favor of the plaintiff as the defense can show no way of wining. The logic for this is found in the endless volumes stating that a plaintiff’s case shall not be dismissed unless it can be show that there is no way possible for the plaintiff to prove his cause. Well the same is true in trial by written declaration, which is the trial form used in mailbox-court-clerk default judgments. Well he is defending an R4C, he is not the plaintiff. Well if I use an R4C and it makes me in the light of a plaintiff then the same is true to the other party when they R4C. I only point this out incase it comes up. The “craft”ty little eight balls always try something creepy and then its too late. Do not let someone R4C (or its equivilent, like “we do not accept claims like this by tax/credit/statute/”summary judgment” protesters any more.”) you when you have a right to R4C.]

Code of Civil Procedure sec. 24. “Actions are of two kinds:
1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal.”

This is why “criminal” defendants will get “assistance of council” (guaranteed) if he is sued under action, and why he will get “representation by attorney” in special proceedings and be lied to about it being a criminal action. Even if the tribunal says that the proceeding is criminal, it is not. It is just highly penal in nature. Tribunals administer REMEDY in special proceedings, in “summery judgment”, which is not “judgment.”

[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.

[Big Al]

Codee...... You are going to love this one. § 15. Prohibited State Action

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. No law impairing the obligation of contracts, and no law making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
The Constitution of the State of Alaska
Adopted by the Constitutional Convention February 5, 1956
Ratified by the People of Alaska April 24, 1956
Became Operative with the Formal Proclamation of Statehood January 3, 1959

Article 4 - The Judiciary

§ 1. Judicial Power and Jurisdiction

The judicial power of the State is vested in a supreme court, a superior court, and the courts established by the legislature. The jurisdiction of courts shall be prescribed by law. The courts shall constitute a unified judicial system for operation and administration. Judicial districts shall be established by law.
This same Constitution tells us that only courts with general jurisdiction are the Superior courts. This makes all District Courts legislative courts. Later on it puts these courts under the office of the Governor and call them Quasi- judicial. Are we having fun yet?

[Codee]

Yeah, I'm having fun!!!

Good job Al. Keep em comming. Lets get some from states other than California. Any Alaska court cites for the bill of attainder clause in the Alaska Constitution.

Keep in mind all of this is the ground work for lack of SMJ. If you can post in light of SMJ that will be helpful too. Maybe this could be that SMJ thread we wanted. Apparently if you start the thread with two or three pages it takes alot longer for the one-liners to trash it with litter and non-SJM arguments.

I wonder if people caught my statements earlier about there being essentially only one defensive plea in an administrative tribunal. That one plea is lack of SMJ. I think you have figured this out Al. The implementaion of the seperation of powers was the "no bill of attainder" clauses. These clauses allow for the objection to a court proceeding quasi(non)-judicialy.

[Big Al]

Deceit be thy name oh courts of the land. I feel sorry for all the folks trashing around still looking for a cure to these Color of Law courts. You Codee are 100% correct, there is only one cure for this administrative Quasi-JUST-US and that is Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The thing they don't and can not ever have. That is as long as we know who is the inherent holder of these Unalienable rights are!

[Codee]

What do you think about this strategy Al...

Lets keep trying to put defendant's rights in a criminal action into a defendants rights in a penal special proceeding. Lets just keep the focus on me and my rights (lets not bother to understand why these rights don't apply, Presumption, yeah right) and not focus on where I am. I do this with no wins and you hang out side the court house with a big sign that says "I know my rights." while you bang your head against the wall till it bleeds. Sounds fun huh!

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by Codee

What do you think about this strategy Al...

Lets keep trying to put defendant's rights in a criminal action into a defendants rights in a penal special proceeding. Lets just keep the focus on me and my rights (lets not bother to understand why these rights don't apply, Presumption, yeah right) and not focus on where I am. I do this with no wins and you hang out side the court house with a big sign that says "I know my rights." while you bang your head against the wall till it bleeds. Sounds fun huh!

I think all of the above is great except for the part about the sign. There is just tons of things to attack them on with SMJ that it never end. I smell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ form there pockets, I hope for a winters fun preparing my Civil tort for Superior Court. Lets see so far two cops, two prosecuting attorney's, two magistrates and two district court so called judges. Dern, Codee I'm starting to count the money already. Not to mention the fun.

[Codee]

If you need 26($) just ask. I'll make you some.

How much was the fine? 20$? Here you are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ gee great. Where is the definition for "$".

[David Merrill]

Thank you Codee, for the wonderfully well thought out treatise. I remember arguing bill of attainder a long time back. And coram non-judice too. I am looking at the Aaron Russo clip promoting his film America; Freedom to Fascism and surmising an entire jurisdiction about bankruptcy and private credit.

But that is just one jurisdiction where prohibition against attainder does not apply. In fact the Constitution does not apply in Congress' private coalition/combination with the private banking of the Federal Reserve - fascism.

I do not find any specific reference prohibiting bills of attainder in the State of Colorado constitution. But then again, they are prohibited in the states by the Constitution and that is found throughout and in the index. Just search the attached file for "attainder". Repeat at home with your local state constitution.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

Yeah, I'm having fun!!!

Good job Al. Keep em comming. Lets get some from states other than California. Any Alaska court cites for the bill of attainder clause in the Alaska Constitution.

Keep in mind all of this is the ground work for lack of SMJ. If you can post in light of SMJ that will be helpful too. Maybe this could be that SMJ thread we wanted. Apparently if you start the thread with two or three pages it takes alot longer for the one-liners to trash it with litter and non-SJM arguments.

Nevada has it as well....


Sec: 15. Bill of attainder; ex post facto law; obligation of contract. No bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html#Art1Sec15