All Judgments are Void
A judgment is considered void and unenforceable if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction, either over the subject matter of the case or the parties involved. This means the court did not have the legal authority to hear and decide the case, making any resulting judgment essentially meaningless.
Deprivation of rights under color of law is a federal crime, specifically under Title 18, Section 242 of the United States Code. It occurs when a person, acting under the authority of law, willfully deprives another person of their rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
Deprivation of rights under "color of law" is a federal crime. It's defined in 18 U.S.C. § 242, which states that "anyone acting under the guise of law to deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or federal laws can be prosecuted." This includes federal, state, or local officials acting within or outside their authority, provided they are acting under the pretense of their official duties.
Key points about this federal crime:
"Color of Law" means acting under the pretense of official authority.
This includes actions by officials both within and outside their lawful duties, as long as they are acting in their official capacity.
The act must be willful.
The person acting under "color of law" must intentionally deprive someone of their rights.
The rights must be constitutionally or federally protected.
This includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, and more.
Punishment can vary.
It can range from fines and imprisonment for up to one year, to imprisonment for up to ten years for actions resulting in bodily injury, and even to life imprisonment or the death penalty for the most severe offenses, such as those involving death, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse.
Damages Under the "Color of Law"
Police and State Troopers Use the Term "Sovereign Citizen" Against the People.
Americans working as public workers (police) who oppose the Constitution and look for ways to penalize their superiors (the people) are the deadliest enemy the United States of America faces. Public servants (police and state troopers) use the term "sovereign citizen" against the people for demanding that their sovereignty be protected are likewise acting in violation of the Constitution. The people are sovereign.
The concept of a sovereign citizen does not exist. Here's Why: Sovereignty: In a political and legal context, "sovereignty" typically refers to the supreme authority or power of a state to govern itself and its people without external interference. Citizen: "Citizen" implies allegiance and subjection to the laws and authority of a particular state or nation.
There are NO Judicial Courts in America and Have Not Been Since 1789.
There have NOT been any “Judges” in America since 1789. There have only been Administrators. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138- 178”
Executive Administrators (NOT JUDGES) Enforce Statutes and Codes.
“Judges” do NOT enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178”
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Judges are under the illusion that they have absolute immunity but all the cases that are cited making such a claim are without authority and will fail in the federal and state courts in a court of record. Only the people are sovereign, all servants are under statutes and therefore liable to USC 18 and 42. "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion." they are not above the law when they commit a crime they will go to jail and are subject to civil suites.
“US Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ”color of law” may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974), “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.” Warnock v Pecos County, Texas, 116 F. 3d 776 – No.96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997.
Their STATUTES and CODES are “color of law,” not law.
The de facto is foreclosed from parity with the tangible. Their STATUTES and CODES are “color of law,” not law. They can control only that which they create. They are a CORPORATION, not a government. They, as TRUSTEES are all in breach of their fiduciary duty and many are guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Piracy:
Fraudulent use of admiralty maritime jurisdiction on dry land against the state citizen is a robbery on shore, and/or also, to do so in a vessel outfitted for the purpose of piracy. See 18 USC §1661; Robbery Ashore. Whoever, being engaged in any Piratical Cruise or enterprise (CORPORATION) or being of the crew of any Piratical vessel lands from such vessel and commits robbery on shore, is a Pirate, and shall be in prison for life. See 18 USC 18 USC §654.
18 USC §1664. Arming or Serving as Privateers.
18 USC §1664. Arming or Serving as Privateers. Whoever, being a citizen of the United States without the limits thereof, fits out and Arm or attempts to fit out or Arm, or is concerned in furnishing, fitting out, or Arm any Private Vessel of war or Privateer, with intent that such vessel shall be employed to Cruise or commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property, or whoever takes command of or enters on board of any such vessel with such intent Or whoever, purchases any interest in any such vessel with a view to share in the profits thereof, shall be imprisoned under this title.
Charges Against the Judge Brought by the Grand Jury
In the United States, a sizable population has been striving to bring our government back within its proper limits. The grand juries will henceforth be administered by common law grand jury administrators, continental United States marshals, and superior court judges. A grand jury is almost ready to order the first judge and police officer to be arrested. Perjury, “conspiracy against rights”, deprivation of rights under “color of law” (18 USC 242), “seditious contempt of constitution,” and the most serious crime, “treason,” are among the charges against the judge.
All but the perjury charge will probably be included in the police officer's charges. The judges are guilty of perjury when they provide the jury with a paper stating that the "defendant in this case has pleaded not guilty."
The Police Officer is the One Who Makes the False Claims
The accused actually opposed to the jurisdiction and the code. Naturally, if the police officer is the one who makes false claims, like the one in Texas, that the "State of Texas" was a "victim" because someone had cocaine, he may also face charges of perjury. How exactly did Texas get hurt? Since "there must be an injured party (a corpus delicti) for a crime to exist," this is clearly a ploy to deceive the public. Cullen v. Sherar, 486 F. 945.
An attorney cannot testify in court about matters they don't have personal knowledge of.
Here's a breakdown:
1. Personal Knowledge Requirement
General Rule: Witnesses, including attorneys, can only testify about facts they directly perceived through their senses (e.g., saw, heard, touched, smelled).
Rationale: This rule ensures the reliability and trustworthiness of testimony. It prevents witnesses from testifying based on speculation, assumptions, or hearsay (information they heard from someone else).
2. The Attorney as Advocate
Advocate's Role: Attorneys are primarily advocates for their clients. Their role is to present evidence, argue legal points, and examine witnesses.
Conflicting Roles: When an attorney testifies, they become a witness, and their credibility can be questioned, potentially undermining their role as an advocate.
Advocate-Witness Rule: Many jurisdictions have "advocate-witness rules" that restrict when a lawyer can act as both advocate and witness in the same case.
A Judgment is Void for Lack of Jurisdiction
A judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction when the court that issued the judgment did not have the power or authority to hear the case or to render a judgment. This can happen in a few different ways:
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The court doesn't have the legal authority to hear the type of case. For example, a state court might not have jurisdiction over a bankruptcy matter, which is typically a federal issue.
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: The court doesn't have jurisdiction over the person being sued (the defendant). This often arises when the defendant doesn't live in the state and doesn't have sufficient contacts with the state for the court to exercise authority.
Lack of Notice/Service: The defendant wasn't properly notified of the lawsuit, which violates their due process rights. Proper notice is essential for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
If a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, it essentially means the judgment is legally invalid from the start. It can be challenged and potentially overturned through various legal procedures, such as a motion to vacate the judgment or a direct appeal.
The the "Chevron Deference," a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions. Here's a breakdown of what happened:
What it was: Chevron deference, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., directed courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute it administers, as long as the statute was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation was reasonable.
Its importance: Chevron deference significantly impacted administrative law, giving federal agencies considerable leeway in interpreting and implementing laws passed by Congress. This had broad implications for regulations across numerous sectors, including environmental law, healthcare, and finance.
What changed: In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (June 2024), the Supreme Court effectively overturned Chevron deference. While the court didn't explicitly use the words "overturn," the ruling significantly curtailed the principle.
The new standard (likely): The Court appears to be moving toward a system where judges more independently assess the best interpretation of the law, rather than automatically deferring to an agency's interpretation. Exactly what test or tests will replace Chevron is still uncertain and will likely be clarified in future cases.
Why it changed: Critics argued that Chevron deference gave too much power to unelected bureaucrats and undermined the judiciary's role in interpreting laws. Supporters argued it provided necessary flexibility and expertise in a complex regulatory environment.
Impact: The practical impact of the Loper Bright decision will unfold over time. We can expect: More litigation: More challenges to agency regulations in court. Less agency certainty: Agencies will likely face more uncertainty about whether their interpretations of statutes will be upheld. Potential for regulatory changes: Some regulations based on agency interpretations that were previously upheld under Chevron Deference may be revisited and potentially struck down.
In short, the Chevron deference doctrine has been significantly weakened, ushering in a new era for judicial review of agency actions. The precise contours of the new legal landscape are still emerging. [END}
--Please take notice that the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III SECTION 2: In all cases affecting Ambassadors other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a STATE shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both in Law and Fact, with exceptions and under such Regulations the Congress shall make.
“The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.”
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
“The liberty interest at issue in this case - the interest of parents in
the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest
of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. (2024)
“The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause addressed remaining concerns about the processes that would attend trials before independent judges and juries. It provided that the government may not deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As originally understood, this provision prohibited the government from “depriv[ing] a person of those rights without affording him the benefit of (at least) those customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.” Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 176 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Erlinger, 602 U.S., at 6-7). More than that, because it was "the peculiar province of the judiciary" to safeguard life, liberty, and property," due process often meant judicial process. 1 St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, Editor's App. 358 (1803).
That is, if the government sought to interfere with those rights, nothing less than “the process and proceedings of the common law” had to be observed before any such deprivation could take place. 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1783, p. 661 (1833) (Story). In other words, “due process of law‟ generally implie[d] include[d]... judex [a judge], regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to settled course of judicial proceedings.” Murray's Lessee, 18 How., at 280.”
Administrative courts, also known as Administrative Tribunals or agencies conducting adjudications, have various requirements to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Here's a breakdown of key requirements:
1. Procedural Safeguards:
Due Process Requirements: Administrative courts must provide due process, including:
Notice: Adequate notice of the proceedings, charges, or issues.
Opportunity to Be Heard: The right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue their case.
Impartial Tribunal: A fair and unbiased decision-maker.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): In the U.S., the APA sets out uniform standards for federal agency rulemaking and adjudication, including:
Rules of Evidence: Administrative courts typically have more relaxed rules of evidence than traditional courts but still must adhere to certain standards of fairness and relevance.
Right to Counsel: The right to be represented by an attorney is often
permitted and sometimes required in administrative hearings.
Record of Proceedings: A record of the hearing is usually maintained,
which can be important for appeals.
2. Independence and Impartiality:
Separation of Functions: Investigators and adjudicators should be separate to avoid bias.
Conflicts of Interest: Administrators and judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal or financial conflict of interest.
Security of Tenure: Administrative law judges (ALJs) often have protections from arbitrary dismissal to ensure their independence from political pressure or agency influence.
3. Transparency and Accountability:
Open Meetings Laws: Many jurisdictions require administrative meetings to be open to the public (with some exceptions for confidential information).
**Public Records Laws: Laws like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the U.S. allow the public to access administrative records and documents.
Judicial Review: Administrative decisions can be appealed to a court to ensure agencies are acting within their legal authority and that their decisions are not arbitrary or capricious. The scope of judicial review is often defined by statute.
Sunset Provisions: These provisions require periodic reauthorization of administrative agencies or regulations, forcing a reassessment of their necessity and effectiveness.
4. Scope of Authority:
Ultra Vires Doctrine: Administrative agencies cannot act outside the scope of their delegated authority. If they do, their actions are considered ultra vires (beyond their powers) and can be challenged.
Statutory Limits: The statutes that create and empower administrative agencies define the limits of their authority.
5. Rulemaking Requirements:
Notice and Comment Rulemaking: The APA requires agencies to publish proposed rules in the Federal Register, solicit public comments, and consider those comments before issuing final rules.
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Agencies are often required to analyze the costs and benefits of proposed regulations before they are implemented.
Examples of Requirements in Specific Contexts:
Environmental Law: Agencies like the EPA are subject to strict procedural requirements in permitting and enforcement actions, as well as judicial review to ensure compliance with environmental statutes.
Labor Law: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must follow specific procedures in unfair labor practice cases, and its decisions are subject to review by federal courts.
Social Security: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a multi-stage appeals process for disability claims, with opportunities for hearings before ALJs and eventual judicial review.
Best Practices:
While not always required, certain best practices can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of administrative courts:
Clear Guidance: Providing clear guidance on procedures and expectations can help parties navigate the administrative process.
Training for ALJs: Regular training for ALJs on issues like bias, evidence, and procedure can improve the quality of decision-making.
Public Outreach: Engaging with the public and stakeholders can help build trust in the administrative process and ensure that regulations are responsive to needs.
In summary, requirements on administrative courts are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. These requirements include procedural safeguards, independence and impartiality, transparency and accountability, scope of authority, and rulemaking requirements.
Addtionally see: A STATUTE Repugnant to Constitution is Null and Void.
For more information: Contact Us
--Birth Certificate
Your Mother, a woman, a living soul, created by God, of flesh and blood, very much alive; went into the "foundling" (a safe place to abandon a child) hospital believing she would get care but instead was falsely declared indigent, a pauper. Important: See Full Report Here
The Birth Certificate is An Unrevealed Trust Instrument
The Birth Certificate Bond Explained.pdf
Birth Certificate; TITLE Created By State
How to properly Authenticate Your Certificate or Live Birth or Naturalization Certificate
Affidavit of Ownership Example.docx
--YOUTUBE VIDEO
The Creation of the Birth Certificate Trust
Facts You May Not Know
Our Relationship To Government
Hamdan Brief for US common law of war.pdf
The Use of a UCC-1 Financing Statement
Why You Should Never Hire An Attorney
American Bar Association and Lawyers:
Free Men want the Bar Association to be abolished, and the Commercial and Common Law Systems of the United States of America and its Constitution to be totally reinstalled. see: What All Free Men Want
Collection-Agencies-and-Your-Rights
--Special Reports For Your Information
You Will Never Win in Their Courts.pdf
Why You Should Never Hire an Attorney.pdf
When a County Clerk Refuses to Record.pdf
Declaration of the People of the United States for Global Peace and Prosperity
2nd Declaration of Independence (by Donald Trump)
--NOTICE: MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH ON TITLE 18
My research has uncovered a significant error in the criminal code.
The federal TITLE 18 criminal code was codified in 1909, again in 1940, and again in 1948. In 1909 and 1940 the jurisdictional section for federal courts only authorized prosecution under TITLE 18 crimes, not under drug crimes or IRS crimes. The 1940 statute, 18 USC §546, was never repealed or amended.
That statute, which is still valid, only authorized prosecution for 1909 TITLE 18 crimes, nothing for U.S.C. United States Code TITLE 21 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL or TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.
see report here: prosecution-under-TITLE-18-crimes
Then we have the following remedies available.
Method 1 Complaint and Application Writ of Quo Warranto. Quo warranto is Latin for "by what warrant” (or authority). A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy which is used to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office. A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation's charter. Bonnie-Straight --Quo-Warranto
Method 2 Get a Court Order Subpoena Duces Tecum. A subpoena duces tecum (meaning 'subpoena for production of evidence') is a court order requiring the person subpoenaed to produce books, documents or other records under his or her control at a specified time/place in a court hearing or a deposition.
In our Child Protective Services cases we serve [in person] the Supreme Court and the Attorney General to get a declaratory judgment and or testify to the lawful enactment and Constitutionality of the Statutes you are being charged with.
--A challenge to a law can argue that a statute is unconstitutional “facially” or “as applied.” A statute is facially unconstitutional when “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
--Constitutional Law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits.
See Also:
8 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.
For more information: Contact Us