Notes on “Courts Have No Authority”
What EX REL/QUO WARRANTO is All About

This writing has a lot of value in the sense that “can these individuals sit in their office?”

That is what EX REL/QUO WARRANTO is all about in essence the EX-REL is you are instructing the clerk to set up the proper court; and then send the QUO WARRANTO out to make sure that everybody who is participating can participate in their particular office.

…or you use the quo WARRANTO to gather evidence to a lock them into what you want them to be locked into. For example, a lender “I want them to be locked into the private sector position.”

So you use the QUO WARRANTO to say “Hey, what is your authority to operate?”

Once they start providing all the particulars, “Oh,” lo and behold; it looks like you are in the public sector. You are not getting out of that one.

Like with a judge, you are using examples of their oath and the participants bonds, insurance policies, whatever it is; and of course then you attack the statute; (the constitutionality of it).

Because what you are doing here; you are using court rules.

To bring up the Constitution to a judge by itself is worthless.

The judge’s Constitution are the Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence by his Supreme Court. So whatever appellate court he is under is the court that wrote his Constitutional Rules that he has to abide by.

So those Constitutional Rules, when you are using them, is like putting a electronic shock collar around his neck.

I emphasize here that it is imperative that you find the Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Evidence in your state. These Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Evidence are the judges Constitutional Rules that he MUST abide by!

Court opinions are just that; nothing but hearsay; but the Court Rules (Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence) by his Supreme Court are the judge’s Constitution.

The Judge cannot get around the rules. So you need to focus on the rules, which is exactly what is going on after constitutionality, which is about getting the proper oath or the proper documentation or whether documents are signed properly or if the finding if statutes are unconstitutional are all within the rules of the courts themselves.

Because when you do not cite the rules; you give the judge a whole lot of leeway to go around them if he can.

That’s how you establish a record. You use the rules against him. And when he goes outside the rules you object.

Now you have something to take on appeal if necessary.

But there is a second part to that. It also puts the judge on notice that you know what the shock collar around his neck really is. Once he knows that you know how to press the shock collar around his neck; because that is what an objection is, he will most likely snap back into what he supposed to be doing.

You want to find the state rules in regards to the complaint in regards to the court, in regards to the judge and in regards to the constitutionality of the statute.

So you are going to do your due diligence and find the corresponding court rules; and then jam that rule back down their throat and don’t ever take your foot off their throat.

NOTE: Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide a specific action. It is based on the case of Marbury v. Madison, which basically held that the judiciary had the right and power to determine whether the laws and actions of the other two divisions (legislature, executive) are constitutional.

Back