"if the American people ever find out what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us".
That is a famous 1992 quote by George Herbert
Source -WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WAKE UP-2008 By V.K. Durham, First written: 5/13/05 JANUARY 31, 2008 snip: It took me from November 17, 1993 until just recently to figure out that my husband, U.S. Naval Intelligence, U.S.Coast Guard, CIA, Russell Herrman- meant when he sat in that chair in our living room with that 1000 yard stare, after being brought home from the Kidnapping, Torture and Rape Incident of October 28, 1993 when he was taken across state lines, missing and unaccounted for from around 9:15 A.M. until 21:27:57 that date, and said [quote]
"When the American People wake up and realize what the Federal government has done to them; I would not want to be the President, I would not want to be in the House of Representatives, I would not want to be a Judge on the Bench, or even in Law Enforcement, not even a local dog catcher, because they will be hunted down like dogs and given a fair trial, and taken out on the Capital Steps and hung." [end quote]
Here follows another awake American about our In-Just-US system:
Facts About the "Justice" System The "equity law" that the British adopted in the 1750's is a horrible excuse for a justice system. It allows the King's bill collectors to act "as" the King and to "dispense justice" on his subjects however they like without regard for the written law, past precedent, the findings of juries or anything else. Any British Subject facing such a court is utterly at their mercy in a venue that is something straight out of the Dark Ages. The conversion of the British Judicial System to this travesty and the pollution of the British Common Law under Lord Mansfield gave the British aristocrats a virtual carte blanc to do whatever they wished secure in the knowledge that the King's bill collectors would help them out in any issue provided that the King got his cut.This is a large part of the reason that the Colonies rebelled in the first place. And it is long past time that we did so again --- by savaging Great Britain in the Court of Public Opinion worldwide and refusing to put up with their evils on our shores. So now that you know what "Equity Courts" are and why they are evil, please realize that these evil foreign courts have taken over your courthouses like a cuckoo bird stealing a nest. The British Territorial United States began usurping against our lawful Federal Government during the so-called Civil War and started closing our courts in May of 1865.By the 1930's their puppet, FDR, had informed all the senior judges and justices that from then on, only (British) Maritime and Admiralty Law Courts were to be allowed here---- and quote, "We don't care what you call them!" In other words, deliberately deceive the people and foist these courts from a totally foreign jurisdiction off onto them. Now you know why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tell the judges and lawyers involved in this scam to provide "an appearance of justice". And that is what the American Bar Association has done.Every Bar Member has knowingly or unknowingly committed High Crimes and Treason. They have all conspired to create and then pillage and plunder public trusts named after each and every one of us. No more evil scheme has ever been devised in the history of the world, and having done it to us, they did it to the rest of the world, too. All the countries on Earth should, by rights, join together to sink the British Isles into the Atlantic --- except that by doing so, we would harm the British People, who have suffered under the scourge of these criminals for longer than everyone else.Finally, to protect themselves, they incorporated these evil courts so that they could seek bankruptcy protection and enjoy the benefits of the corporate veil. These "courts" are nothing but glorified commercial corporation debt collection agencies. And here's the proof, neatly summed up by Colt Dekker: "Not only is the United States a corporation, but the “Judicial Branch of US Govt” is also a Delaware Corporation (Delaware SoS file number: 3383789), listed in Dun & Bradstreet: “The following is the DUNS number for JUDICIAL BRANCH OF US GOV: DUNS number: 956858625”, as well. The “Judicial Branch of US Govt” (corporation) includes: “U.S. GOV’T LAW COURT ADMIN SUPREME & U.S. DISTRICT, APPELLATE, VETERANS PROBATE, BANKRUPTCY, STATE(S) COURTS, INC.” So our courts from the Supreme Court down to state courts are corporate “policy” (as in police) courts." So, Campers, there you have it. These are corrupt organizations fronting for other corrupt organizations and they have no right to address you at all. If J.C. PENNY can't tell you how to live your life or tax you, neither can THE STATE OF OHIO SUPERIOR COURT.They have hired "police" to act under color of law as mercenaries to remove you from your homes under conditions of false pretense. They are trespassers in the truest sense of the word. The politicians and Bar Members deserve to be excoriated from New York to San Francisco, from Beijing to Moscow, from Berlin to Seville --- and especially in London and Westminster where these evils took root and flourished and grew in the heart of what was supposed to be the "firm bastion of freedom".Firm bastion of Bull Shit is more like it. Every member of every police force on Earth and every member of every military and paramilitary organization needs to be clued in and told to do their actual duty. Assuming that the politicians won't do their jobs, the people will have to--- and in that eventuality the police and the military need to know who "the Enemy" really is.---------------------------- See this article and over 900 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
Article 4, Section 4
Tench Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of AmericaFall 1787Pamphlets 145--46
The United States guarantee to every state in the union a separate republican form of government. From thence it follows, that any man or body of men, however rich or powerful, who shall make an alteration in the form of government of any state, whereby the powers thereof shall be attempted to be taken out of the hands of the people at large, will stand guilty of high treason; or should a foreign power seduce or over-awe the people of any state, so as to cause them to vest in the families of any ambitious citizens or foreigners the powers of hereditary governors, whether as Kings or Nobles, that such investment of powers would be void in itself, and every person attempting to execute them would also be guilty of treason.
Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published during Its Discussion by the People, 1787--1788. Brooklyn, 1888. Reprint. New York: De Capo Press, 1968.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
You should note that the Council on Foreign Relations (ALSO ILLEGAL UNDER TONA), was founded in 1921 by Colonel Edward Mandel House and JP Morgan. Ever since the CFR has been at the center of a movement to transform the The United States of America from an independent nation into a political subdivision of a world Marxist government under the Black Nobility crime cartel.
The Judus Goats behind this coup of America couped congress and then set up a Dummy UNITED STATES In the 1860's (Organic Act of 1871), they couped the state legislatures; they illegally installed the STATE BAR associations displacing American common law; installed the Jesuit Generals over the BAR monopoly Court system to GENERATE funds from the underlying slavery system and fund the NWO system and the FED Rothschilds ZIONIST Ponzi Scheme. They installed certain high ranking Jesuit military controllers running the show to this day, all DC Cesspool Agencies like the DOJ under HR 1326 in 1870 which was a product of the Couped congress to continue martial rule over the American people established illegally at the Civil War by Lincoln - ongoing to this day through successive Emergency War Powers Acts!
The couped congress since the 1870's controls dumbed down law enforcement who have been duped in to waging war on the American people enforcing foreign private rules and codes WHICH VIOLATE THE LAW OF AMERICA - that law enforcement have not bothered to see of what they are enforcing is even lawful in America!
The UNITED STATES DC Dummy Corp., mentioned by Mandle House above may have as well been called Mickey Mouse Corp. for it was created without any delegated authority of the people or the Sovereign states! It has foisted its private rules and codes down the throats of generations of Americans as if they were law of the land when they are private rules and codes of Mickey Mouse Inc.! Parasite actor JUDGES like those listed herein are those on the front line violating America, our children and the men and women that created this nation to make sure parasites would never serve in our governance post TONA of 1810!
The couped Judiciary are engaged in much more than anti-American activity, they are engage in sedition and treason and anti-American activity.
It is further a fact that they are still operating as an arm of the Army carry on Military Emergency Government (See UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT FM-27 - page 19-20) - which was a scam to enable judus goats to get away with fraud so that they can thieve from the American people to fund international war crimes.
See here: Pay close attention to pages 19 - 20 - https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/PDF/FM-27-5-1947.pdf
Open Document in Browser: FM-27-5-1947.pdf
Organic United States Constitution Article XIII, Titles of Nobility Act of 1810, Law by 1819 - never terminated:
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Organic Constitution For The United States of America is:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
It should be noted that the above applies to any governance office in America, and this includes every Attorney.
[Journal of the Senate] and law by 1819 at this link:
Titles of Nobility Act was never terminated. It was buried by the BAR attorneys who have tried to pretend it was never ratified. To get around it they created the Counterfeit UNITED STATES Corp charter under The Act of 1871.
Its creators copied the original Constitution but made some notable changes including deliberately missing out Amendment XIII.
For a comparison see here: http://www.usavsus.info/
For the enactment of TONA in 1810 see here:
Link to Journal of the senate for Amendment XIII:
So if the laws of the land states that American government can not include foreigners in Governance [ Duel Israeli Nations for example ] - then why is the UNITED STATES and its SUB STATE OF STATE Corporations ran by foreign agents?
Answer: Because UNITED STATES is not an American government! Its an Occupying force orchestrated by the CROWN - Corporation of London, Holy See all of which is under control of the Black Nobility Families.
They have been coordinating the destruction of this nation since their coup of this nation in the 1860's. Violation of TONA is an act of sedition and treason the penalty for which is the same as a Horse Thief in the Wild West.
NOW - if you are born on one of the fifty states of America and you think that your lawful status is that of a UNITED STATES Citizen then you are a part of the problem. The UNITED STATES Citizen is a product of the Couped congress considered a dead lifeless entity, a CITIZEN of ROME with rights granted to IT by Rothschilds De facto government corporation, rights generally granted for a FEE! In other words - those operating under the Status of a UNITED STATES Citizen, as a subject of the DC Corporate democracy, the operates the faux fictional land of the Free and the SLAVE over America (pretend jurisdiction that is legally invalid)! A United States citizen is considered IS NOT considered to be an American National - state national.
URGENT NOTE FROM ANNA VON REITZ: http://www.annavonreitz.com/
HOW COULD THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIEVE MY TWO KIDS FROM ME FOR NO CAUSE AFTER AWARDING ME FULL CUSTODY JUST ONE YEAR BEFORE AFTER MY EX ABDUCTED THE KIDS OUT OF STATE AND WAS COURT ORDERED BACK TO THE STATE; HOW COULD A KANGAROO COURT - STAR CHAMBER VIA FOREIGN AGENTS THIEVE MY MILLION DOLLAR HOME IN A 5 MINUTE HEARING WHEN I HAD PROVEN THE BANK / ITS ROTHSCHILDS AGENTS DID NOT OWN THE HOME AND THEY AND THE COURTS AGENTS WERE - RELYING ON COUNTERFEIT PAPER TITLE (ROBO-SIGNED BY ONE INFAMOUS CHRISTINE CARTER) ENGAGED IN RICO, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ETC; HOW COULD THE STATE TAKE MY HOME AND ALL PROPERTY, AUTOMOBILE WHILE I WAS KIDNAPPED AND CAGED FOR NO CAUSE AND WITHOUT TRIAL?
HOW COULD THE STATE HOLD ME IN A CAGE FOR 81 DAYS WITHOUT ANY CHARGES OR DUE PROCESS OR TRIAL... HOW COULD A COURT ALLOW A MAN TO BEATEN BY SHERIFFS WHILE A SO CALLED HEARING WAS ONGOING, BEATEN FOR SAYING IN A SO CALLED HEARING (BAR ATTORNEY CLOSED SHOP BUSINESS MEETING) "THE PUBLIC PRETENDER DEFENDER DOES NOT REPRESENT ME" and WAS NEVER APPOINTED BY ME.
HOW COULD ALAMEDA KANGAROO _ STAR CHAMBER COURT ISSUE 300+ YEARS OF CUMULATIVE RESTRAINING ORDERS PREVENTING ME HAVING ANY CONTACT WITH MY TWO CHILDREN WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING, DUE PROCESS, VALIDATED COMPLAINTS? HOW COULD THE ALAMEDA FAMILY KANGAROO COURT SINCE NOVEMBER 10TH 2010 ISSUE a FIVE YEAR RESTRAINING ORDER FOR NO CAUSE and THEN IN OCTOBER 3 X 99 YEAR RESTRAINING ORDERS FOR NO CAUSE...? IF I WERE TO IGNORE THE COMPLETLY ILLEGAL RO's SAY BY EMAILING MY CHILDREN, CALLING THEM - MEN WITH GUNS WOULD BEAT ME - TAZE ME AND CAGE ME?
HOW COULD THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORP - COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ISSUE EIGHT RESTRAINING ORDER ON NO EVIDENCE AND IN PARALLEL SECURITIES THE FAMILY LAW COURT CASE. INVESTIGATORS PULLED THE CUSIP ON THE FAMILY LAW COURT CASE WHICH ACCORDING INVESTIGATORS HAS AN INVESTMENT POOL ASSOCIATED WITH IT VALUED AT $81,000,000 DOLLARS? THIS WAS AT THE TIME (OCTOBER 2016) THAT ALAMEDA FAMILY KANGAROO COURT ISSUED THREE MORE 99 9YEAR RESTRAINING ORDERS IN OCTOBER 2016 FOR NO CAUSE WHEN I CHALLENGED FIVE YEAR 2011 RESTRAINING ORDERS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR NO CAUSE....
SOME OF YOU MAY BE WONDERING WHAT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INVESTED THE $81,000,000 IN TO. THE INVESTMENT POOL PROCEEDS WENT IN TO FIDELITY ASIA CAP FUNDS NOTABLY INCLUDING A TURKISH MILITARY CONTRACTOR CALLED AESAN THAT MAKES GUIDED MISSILES.
IN OTHER WORDS - STEALING CHILDREN FROM A GREAT FATHER IN ALAMEDA COUNY FOR NO CAUSE - TO CREATE SECURITIES, THAT ARE SOLD TO INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, TO CREATE AN INVESTMENT POOL, THAT IN INVESTED BY FIDELITY INTO FOREIGN MILITARY CONTRACTORS IS CALLED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, BY THE FOREIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corp.
IN THE PERIOD FROM 2008 - 2011 I HAD ALSO EXPOSED CALIFORNIA HOME FRAUD-CLOSURE SCANDAL TO WHICH I HAD SEEN METICULOUS EVIDENCE OF RICO IN OVER 2000 CALIFORNIA GOUSE THEFTS BY SO CALLED LAW FIRMS. AFTER MY OWN FRAUD - CLOSURE EXPERIENCE - MEETING WITH THE FBI TWICE - I HAD SATISFIED MYSELF WITH OTHER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS IN CALIFORNIA THAT THE 7,000,000 FRAUD CLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA WERE ALL COMPLETELY ILLEGAL.
I HAD ALSO EXPOSED CALIFORNIA STATE FAMILY LAW CORRUPTION AND CHEMTRAIL WEATHER WARFARE TO THE FBI, TOGETHER WITH NUMEROUS SO CALLED AGENCIES AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE / AUDIT COMMITTEE - EVERY SO CALLED SENATOR / REPRESENTATIVE... AND NOTHING WAS DONE IN REGARD TO ANY ALLEGATION APART FROM TWO UNANNOUNCED VISITS BY THE FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE - ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF!
THE SECOND FBI VISIT OCCURED WHILE I WAS KIDNAPPED AND HELD IN SANTA RITA JAIL FOR NO LAWFUL CAUSE AS WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COURT AFTER MY RELEASE PROVING I WAS STATE KIDNAPPED.
THE AGENT FROM THE 1ST FBI VISIT THAT SHOWED UP UNANNOUNCED AT MY ALAMEDA HOME WITH A 26 YEAR VETERAN OF THE FBI IN 2011 AS A RESULT OF MY EXPOSING THE CHEMTRAIL GENOCIDE PROGRAM AND ASKING THE FBI IN A CALL TO THEIR SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE - IN WHICH MY MESSAGE SAID "WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THE CHEMICAL SPRAYING - ARE YOU DOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE DO WE HAVE TO DO SO"... WHICH THE FBI TOOK AS A THREAT AND CAME OUT TO THE HOUSE TO SEE IF I WAS NUTS! AFTER ACCUSING ME OF BEING NUTS "WHY WOULD THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SPRAY ITS OWN PEOPLE....." ETC THEY LEFT. I INFORMED THEM ABOUT FORMER FBI CHIEF THAT STARTED AIR CRAP AND I PUT TED IN TOUCH WITH THE AGENTS... THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD OF THEM FOR SOME MONTHS... DOCUMENTS SENT TO FBI, STATE AUDIT COMMITTEE, HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES CAN BE FOUND HERE: #1; #2; #3.
THE LOWER RANKING AGENT VISITED WITH ME WHEN I WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ALAMEDA POLICE STATION WHERE I WAS HELD OVER CHRISTMAS ILLEGALLY AND REFUSED A MAGISTRATE. I WAS STATE KIDNAPPED BY ALAMEDA POLICE DEPT ON DECEMBER 23RD 2011 (ALL CAUGHT ON VIDEO) AND TRANSFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION IN EARLY JANUARY.
ONE QUERK ABOUT MY STAY AT THE ALAMEDA COUNTY COUNTRY CLUB, SANTA RITA FOR NO CAUSE (STATE KIDNAPPING). ON PROCESSING AT THE JAIL AND WALKING TO THE CELL BLOCK I GOT CHATTING TO THE SHERIFF. TOWARD THE END OF A LONG CORRIDOR BEFORE ENTERING THE MAIN YARD - HE STOPPED. AT THE TIME I WAS SHACKLED AND GIVEN A GREEN PRISON RAGS TO WEAR. THE SHERIFF TURNED TO ME AND SAID; I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE BUT SOMETHING IS WRONG; YOU DO NOT BELONG IN THIS BLOCK. OPENING A DOOR, HE SAID WAIT HERE - I AM GOING TO GO AND SORT THIS OUT! HE RETURNED PERHAPS 1 - 2 HOURS LATER AND SAID AGAIN - THEY HAD YOU DESIGNATED FOR THE NUT HOUSE AND YOU DO NOT BELONG IN THERE. I LATER ASSUMED THAT THE DA HAD INSTRUCTED THE SHERIFF TO RIGHT ME UP AS NUTS SO THAT I WOULD BE PLACED IN THE NUT HOUSE AS FURTHER MEANS TO PUNISH ME FOR EXPOSING THEIR CRIMINAL RACKET! THE UNKNOWN SHERIFF (WHO I WOULD STILL LIKE TO THANK) SAVED ME FROM AN UNKNOWN FATE.
AT SOME LATER WEEKS TO PREVENT THE CASE GOING TO TRIAL THE DA - JUDGE OPENLY CONSPIRED TO HAVE ME SENT TO TWO THERAPISTS WHO WERE ORDERED TO FIND ME UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL! THE REPORT WENT TO ANOTHER SOCIOPATH AT ALAMEDA COUNTY WHO WROTE UP A REPORT FILED IN TO THE COURT SAYING SHE HAD REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE AND AGREED THAT I WAS UNFIT FOR TRIAL! THE ALIENISTS NEVER MET WITH ME YET STILL PRODUCED TEHE REPORT! THIS PROCESS IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR OTHER IN THE CELL BLOCK B THAT I WAS HOUSED IN HAD EXPERIENCES THE SAME TACTICS. IF THE STATE - POLICE - DA'S HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE AND THEY DO NOT WANT A CASE GOING PUBLIC THEY WILL PREVENT A TRIAL - APPOINT A PUBLIC PRETENDER AND THROW YOU IN NAPPA HOSPITAL FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED UNTIL "YOU GET BETTER AND ARE READY FOR TRIAL" WHICH NEVER HAPPENS. THEY THENK KEEP YOU INSIDE UNTIL YOU BREAK AND AGREE TO A PLEA DEAL WHICH WILL INCLUDE A GAG ORDER THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT YOUR CASE! I KNOW THIS FOR FACT FOR I KNOW PEOPLE IN WHICH THIS EXACT SCENARIO OCCURRED.
IN MY CASE - AFTER I WAS SHUFFLED AROUND FROM JUDGE TO JUDGE OVER 76 DAYS - THE PRESIDING JUDGE YOLANDA NORTHBRIDGE SOMEHOW GOT HOLD OF MY CASE AND TOLD THE WHIMPERING DA BEGGING THE JUDGE THAT HE WANTED ME TO GO TO NAPPA HOSPITAL RESPONDED TO SOCIOPATH DA - "JAIL IS NOT THE PROPER PLACE FOR THE DEFENDENT". THE PRESIDING JUDGE ON MARCH 7TH 2012 ORDERED MY IMMEDIATE RELEASE.
THE JAIL DRAGGED ITS FEET AND KEPT ME UNTIL 3:00AM THAT NIGHT! WHEN I REFUSED TO APPLY MY THUMBPRINT TO THE BIO-METRIC READER ON EXITING THE JAIL THE DISCHARGE SHERIFF HAD ME THROWN IN A HOLDING CELL AGAIN UNTIL I WOULD AGREE TO APPLY MY THUMB TO THE BIOMETRIC READER. I INFORMED HIM THAT THERER WOULD BE A CHARGE FOR DOING SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY FEE SCHEDULE. THE SHERIFF SCREAMED SOME ABUSE AT ME AND I LEFT THE JAIL IN THE EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING IN TO THE FREEZING COLD; WITH A WHITE TEE SHORT, JEANS, SOCKS, BOXERS AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE STATE - BNYM AND ITS CRIMINAL AGENTS HAD STOLLEN MY ALAMEDA BAY FRONT HOME AND EVERYTHING IN IT (WITHOUT DUE PROCESS) THAT I WORKED TO BUILD OVER MY ENTIRE LIFE. ON LEAVING THE JAIL I WAS GIVEN A A FIVE YEAR RESTRAINING ORDER STATING I COULD NOT CONTACT MY CHILDREN BY ANY MEANS UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST 2016. THE ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR ABSOLUTELY NOT CAUSE AND ON NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.
STATE THAT HE HAD LOOKED IN TO MY CHEMTRAIL CONCERNS AND SOMETHING WAS GOING BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS BEHIND IT!
Some additional notes on the case:
Rhonda Barovsky is a sociopath she believes her own BS, it is hard to believe that she still has her license. My daughter is still traumatized at age 22 by Rhondas actions of not listening to my 12-14 year old daughter. My daughter and I missed out on precious years because of this women. Her damage lasts a lifetime, do not hire her it will be the biggest mistake of your life. The only way to get rid of her is to stop paying her
Now, what most do not know about America's In-Just-US legal system is that every case is securitized and bonded which is based on the Existence of a Foreign Situs Trust associated created for everyone with there knowledge. This is evidenced by existence of a Birth Certificate issued by one of the UNITED STATES fifty DC Sub Corporations styled as STATE OF STATE ie STATE OF CALIFORNIA! The STATE makes money from securitizing each court case and gaining access to the foreign Situs Trust associated with the TRUST NAME on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The Clerk of the court manages and charges these trusts once the Admin styled as JUDGE manufactures some kind of charge against the PERSON. The Courts are in the Business of Manufacturing charges - they are not in the business of justice or law and order.
170 Deaths Following Gardasil Reported to VAERS as of August 2014
"Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers." - Dr Bernard Dalbergue
Alameda County DA Nancy O'Malley Announces Settlement over the Misleading an Untrue Claims of Plastic Coffee Pods which can be found here: http://www.alcoda.org/newsroom/2018/mar/costco_and_sf_gourmet_coffee_settlement
Excerpt: Alameda County District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley announced today that her office, along with 24 other District Attorney’s Offices in California, settled a consumer protection action against Costco Wholesale Corporation, Inc., and JBR, Inc., a coffee company headquartered in Roseville, CA, which does business as San Francisco Bay Gourmet Coffee and the Rogers Family Company. The settlement was based on allegations that the companies sold plastic coffee pods, labeled with untrue and misleading marketing claims, including statements related to biodegradability and compostability. A stipulated final judgment settling the matter was issued by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson.
I will come back at some point to point out the list of crimes that Alameda County has engaged in! They are the last Authority that has any credibility to go after other companies to suggest that they they have made Misleading and Untrue Claims!
Here are a few points that our we or our Children were not told at school, and were instead given a whole bunch of
Misleading and Untrue Claims indead!
STATUTES REPLACED WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW
December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.
GOVERNMENT AGENT ACTING AS AN [OFFSHORE] STATUTE MERCHANT
Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.
The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389. 409, 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666);
NEITHER THE FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENT NOR THE [FOREIGN] STATUTE MERCHANT/AGENT HAS ACCESS TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.); U.S. v. Georgia-Pacific Co., 421 F.2d 92, 101 (9th Cir. 1970) (Government may also be bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel if acting in proprietary [for profit nature ] rather than sovereign capacity); the “Savings to Suitor Clause” is also available for addressing mercantile and admiralty matters aka “civil process” at the common law and within a state court.
THE REASON WHY THE LAW OF NECESSITY AND FULL DISCLOSURE GOING TO SPECIFICITY COMES INTO PLAY IN COMMERCIAL PROCEEDINGS ONCE YOU’RE SUMMONED INTO ANY OF THESE PRIVATE MERCANTILE CORPORATE COURTS
Title 8, 22 & 28 USC
December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under international law.
December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.
22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court and that courts personnel is considered a separate foreign entity)
Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.
The 11th Amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of an Foreign State.” (A foreign entity, agency, or state cannot bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding the following procedure.)
Title 22 CFR 93.1-93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit, and in turn has to notify the United States citizen of said suit.
Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity.
Title 28 USC 1608 I have Absolute Immunity as a Corporation
Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.
July 27th 1868 15 Statutes at Large Chapter 249 Section 1 “Acts Concerning American Citizens in a Foreign State”, expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded, and it is not met with an answer.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b 6 the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. I have provided ample proof that the prosecution and other agents are actually corporations.
1950 81st Congress Investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association by definition is founded and run by communists. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. entity and never have allegiance to the people.
Please all note that the UNITED STATES Corp. is LOCATED IN the District of Columbia. It is operating a CORPORATE Democracy, and its citizens are CORPORATE US citizen chattel of the UNITED STATES Corp.
“Congress is the supreme legislative body of District of Columbia; District of Columbia is a municipal corporation, and not department of government, or sovereignty, and while, in sense, it may be called state, it is such in very qualified sense." _Metropolitan R. Co. v District of Columbia (1889) 132 US 1, 33 L Ed 231, 10 S Ct 19.
"UCC § 9-307 (h) [Location of United States.]
The United States is located in the District of Columbia."
I hope you're following this. If the United States is LOCATED IN the District of Columbia, and District of Columbia is a municipal CORPORATION, then OBVIOUSLY United States is a CORPORATION... and corporations have no parity with the living and therefore no authority over people on the land, EXCEPT through lawful CONTRACT. Yet - every contracted they have foisted the people under are based on FRAUD according to American common law!
By the time you have finished this article - you will have on-boarded what many have spent decades or more figuring out! You will no longer have any excuse for conspiring in your own death or building the prison planet to enslave your own children as your Human farmers have intended! Once you have awoken you should feel compelled to become part of the solution to expand and accelerate global awakening! Once enough wake up we can then all get on with building heaven on Earth and terminating once and for all the NWO agenda exposed herein!
Be absolutely clear that those that belong to the NWO cult do not care about you and they never did! All you are to them is a means to an end! You are simply a Human Resource - a battery - to power the NWO machine. If they can keep you blindly enslaving yourself and feeding the NWO Prison matrix then they are contented! That is until they no longer need humanity - which is rapidly approaching!
The thing they want the least is for you to awaken! They do not want you reading at this site or those linked to it! For - it is true - once you take the Red Pill there is no turning back and those that have enslaved you will no longer have any power over you again.
Does this all sound to crazy to you! Is cognitive dissonance setting in: http://www.1776reloaded.org/joomla30/index.php/how-the-nwo-makes-you-its-slave-cognitive-dissonance-through-your-daily-news-and-military-brainwash-on-social-media
Those occupying your country have no allegiance to a nation - a community or a people. The NWO cult have sold their souls to a demonic fantasy that goes against EVERYTHING that America once embraced before it was corrupted from within!
It was Marcus Tullius Cicero that reportedly stated that:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
TONA is how we undo the NEW WORLD ORDER and separate their hands from around our necks! You have no excuse to bow down to the authority of the openly corrupted! DO not consent to their tyranny! You should also realize that - to support International terrorists is a crime in of itself and it is your reason to NOT SUPPORT terrorists pretending to be government!
This advice applies to the world community being strangled by Rothschilds Zionist institutions including the World Bank, the IMF, the FED, BIS - all part of the money changers swindle. Yet - the grief caused by this scam continues to be blamed on the American people:
... As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva, put it.
"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States ZIONIST OCCUPIED UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CORPORATION OCCUPYING AMERICA against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."1
If a group or organisation had used its hard earned money to help these developing nations, then we might sympathise that there should be a real effort to repay these loans. But the money used was created from fractional reserve banking. The money loaned to the Third World came from the 90% the banks allow themselves to loan on the 10% they actually held. It didn't exist, it was created from nothing, and now people are suffering and dying in an effort to pay it back.
This has gone beyond clever financing, it's whole sale murder and it's time we stopped it. We can!
1. Luis Ignacio Silva, at the Havana Debt Conference in August 1985, quoted by Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Death p 238
We as the people of the world have the ability to end this insanity right now but you cant fix something until you understand it!
Please unlearn - re-educate and pass forward on the knowledge that everything you have been told by government and their NWO media is a lie! Understand the NWO agenda referenced below on this site and then look at the words of the so called politicians and the plots being spun on edu-tRainment - and enter-tRainment TV to see how you are supposed to fall for the NWO Social engineering!
Please note that the UNITED STATES Corporation of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA originally created under the Act of 1871 is One leg of the New World Order triumvirate stool working on the enslavement of humanity.
The current US Corp is a successor to the US entity created through the Organic Act of 1871 without delegated authority of the states or the people by agents of the Black Nobility crime syndicates that were exposed in the congressional record in 1916 in the outing of the Secret Treaty of Verona 1822. This exposed the Old World Crime syndicates represented by the Crown (Corp. of London) - Holy See and their sycophants and their plan t destroy we the people representative governance.
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
- Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
- Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
- U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346: If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
- Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
- Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
- Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
- Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
- Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
- United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806): “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.”
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958): “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
- “A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’”
- “...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.): 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. US v. Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 L.Ed2nd 392, 406 (1980)
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
- Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
- S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876): “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.”
- Grosjean v. American Press Co., 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 297 U.S. 233, 80 L.Ed 660: “Freedom in enjoyment and use of all of one’s powers, faculties and property.”
- ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972): “The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment… is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.”
- U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
- Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”
- 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted:
Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
… It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added)
–Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594.
Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.
- A judgment is void on its face if the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief that it had no power to grant. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a trial court by the consent of the parties. (Summers v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal. 2d 295, 298 [1 Cal. Rptr. 324, 347 P.2d 668]; Roberts v. Roberts (1966) 241 Cal. App. 2d 93, 101 [50 Cal. Rptr. 408].)
- The court may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.’ (For a discussion of the 1933 amendments to section 473 see Estate of Estrem, 16 Cal. 2d 563, 572 .
- “Motions to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment.”(County of Ventura v. Tillett, supra, 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110.).
- “[A] court may set aside a void order at anytime. An appeal will not prevent the court from at any time lopping off what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree—a void order.” (MacMillan Petroleum Corp. v. Griffin (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 523, 533 [222 P.2d 69]; accord: People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 467 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]; Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. App. 2d 638, 641 -642 [239 P.2d 650]; and see: 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 7, pp. 4024-4025.)
- Time limitation does not apply where the judgment is based on a fraudulent return. (Washkov. Stewart, supra, p. 318; Richert v. Benson Lbr. Co., supra, p. 677.).
- it is true that the statute of imitations does not apply to as uit in equity to vacate a void judgment. (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, supra, p. 569; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368, 374 [181 P. 648].) This rule holds as to all void judgments, in two other cases, People v. Massengale and In re Sandel, the courts hearing the respective appeals confirmed the judicial power and responsibility to correct void judgments (in excess of jurisdiction).
- “Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud.” (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.). Courts also have inherent power to set aside a void judgment. (Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.).
- “...the eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raises due process issues and can not be heard as part of summary unlawful detainer proceeding. Issues extrinsic to the right of possession are generally excluded even though they arise out of the parties’ landlord-tenant relationship. E.S. Bills, Inc. v Tzucanow (1985) 38 C3d 824, 830, 215 CR 278; Saberi v Bakhtiari (1985) 169 CA3d 509, 515, 215 CR 359. However, an action for unlawful detainer may coexist with other causes of action in the same complaint, as long as the entire case is treated as a regular civil action and not as a summary proceeding. Lynch & Freytag v Cooper (1990) 218 CA3d 603, 608–609, 267 CR 189 (rejecting defendant’s contention that unlawful detainer proceeding can be converted into regular civil action only when possession of the property is no longer in issue).[Judges Benchguide 31, 2011]
- U.S. Supreme Court precedents hold that fraud upon the court vitiates the case that all orders and judgments are regarded as nullities and void. (See U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64, 66 (1878); Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920)).
- In the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08, it was found that the payments that the County was making to the judiciary violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution as only the State Legislature could “prescribe” the “compensation” of judges,
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that Judge Benjamin should have recused himself. It stated in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), Slip Opinion page 16, in relevant part: Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.
- CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) mandated such judge’s disqualification. Such Section states: A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
- Canon 3E(2) requires the judge to: disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
- Canon 3E(1) requires the judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.”
- After the Sturgeon decision, the legislature enacted Senate Bill SBx2-11, which recognized that the County payments to judges were criminal. Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave retroactive immunity, effective 5/21/09, from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to a “governmental entity, officer, or employee of a governmental entity,” including judges who were paid or received “judicial benefits.” The retroactive immunity did not extend to the judge’s actions of presiding over cases in which the county who paid them was a party. Nor, did it extend to county payments received after 5/21/09. At all times, judges who accepted “bribes” from an interested party were biased. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct.1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.
- Further, the judge receiving the payment may be prosecuted for violating the intangible right to honest services under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ____ (decided 6/24/2010), Slip Opinion pages 48-49, that § 1346 encompasses bribery and kickbacks; that if the Federal Court Judges and/or Magistrates were not likewise involved in these frauds;
- Redress is defined in Black’s Law 5th Edition as:“ Redress. Satisfaction for an injury or damages sustained. Damages or equitable relief. See Recovery; Restitution”. Recovery is defined in the same as being: “In its most extensive sense, the restoration or vindication of a right existing in a person, by the formal judgment or decree of a competent court, at his instance and suit, or the obtaining, by such judgment, of some right or property which has been taken or withheld from him. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wood, 242 Ark. 879, 416 S.W.2d 322, 327.This is also called a “true” recovery, to distinguish it from a “feigned” or “common” recovery.” And indeed Restitution is defined as the: “Act of restoring; restoration; restoration of anything to its rightful owner; the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury; and indemnification. State v. Barnett, 110 Vt. 221, 3 A.2d 521, 525, 526. Restoration of status quo and is amount which would put plaintiff in as good a position as he would have been if no contract had been made and restores to plaintiff value of what he parted with in performing contract. Explorers Motor Home Corp. v. Aldridge, Tex.Civ.App., 541 S.W.2d 851, 852. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. Restatement of the Law, Restitution, § 1.”
- Regular on its Face—“Process is said to be “regular on its face” when it proceeds from the court officer, or body having authority of law to issue process of that nature, and which is legal in form, and contains nothing to notify, or fairly apprise any one that it is issued without authority.”
- In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
- “A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”.
- A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions  it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
- In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
- A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased)  1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis  3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School  3 WLR 736).
- A ‘fundamental defect’ includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen  1 KB 256); or where service of proceedings never came to the notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard ). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite v Hannay  A.C. 494).
- A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis ).
- In Peacock v Bell and Kendal  85 E.R. 81, pp.87:88 it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated.
- It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can never be void unless the ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ is ‘limited’ in situations where it is expressly shown to be so. In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130). However, where the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Court’s power by an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal ; Halsbury’s Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply.
- Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.  3 All ER).
- The main differences between a ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ order or claim is that:
- (i) a ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.  and Firman v Ellis ) whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder  A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside; and
- (ii) a ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen ) whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court.
- A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen ).
- The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order, although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen ) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where damages may also be claimed.
- Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen .
- A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. ).
- A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman  1 All ER 601).
- It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder  A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay  A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) ; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. ).
- In R v. Clarke and McDaid  UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court.
- In Bellinger v Bellinger  UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
- It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased)  or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the cherry’; and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew).
Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
(i) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:
(i) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions :
(i) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
In Craig v Kanssen  Lord Greene confirmed that:
(i) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
(ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and
(iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.
In Wiseman v Wiseman  1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not;
(ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party.
In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd.  Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void order is automatically void without more ado;
(ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside;
(iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void.
In Re Pritchard (deceased)  Upjohn LJ confirmed that:
(i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;
(ii) a nullity cannot be waived;
(iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
(iv) a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.
In Firman v Ellis  Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void ab initio
Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths 1979 – page 77, states:
(i) although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead”.
Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder  A.C. 461:
(i) a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary.
In Bellinger v Bellinger  the House of Lords confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void from the outset; and
(ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it.
Conclusion based on the case laws referred to above:
(i) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order;
(ii) the setting aside must be done under the Court’s inherent power to set aside its own void order;
(iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
(iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void;
(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
(vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages may also be claimed;
(vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act;
(viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning;
(ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary;
(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;
(xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act;
(xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament.