COMMON LAW
This is a really good article on how
Time to grow up and stop playing “pretend” and become responsible for our own actions. Americans live in the “LAND OF OZ”.
The SAVE ACT IS “NOT LAW” it’s a statute! The only ones obligated to obey statues as law are bureaucrats and subjects (US citizens as defined under the 14th Amendment).
14TH AMENDMENT – (ratified in 1868) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.
The word reside means you are not a citizen of the state you live in (to reside means you are passing through your stay is not permanent) but a subject of the United States. What the 14th Amendment did was move the ownership of the slaves from the southern slave owners to the federal government, all who claim US citizenship are slaves (subjects) to the United States.
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.” [Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874].
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual” …but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other”. [Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.]
ASK YOURSELF TWO QUESTIONS
(1) What were “The People” before 1868, answer – the People, Kings without subjects.
(2) The United States is a nation, nations do not have citizens, how can you be a citizen of a nation?
Americans are living in the world of wonderland, a world of fiction, you need only to wake up to escape the enslavement – Wake up America!!!
STATUTES ARE NOT LAW
STATUTE. [Blacks law 4th edition] The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]
TO BE CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE YOU MUST GIVE YOUR CONSENT
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, (injured party) leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” [Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.]
US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” – [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.]
PEOPLE NULLIFICATION (to make null or void) when statutory charges are brought against the people the court cannot proceed without your “CONSENT” it’s called an arraignment, if you do not plead you cannot be tried.
To Learn more come to our Monday night phone conferences and read our website Learn the “true meaning” of Liberty >http://newyorkcommitteemen.org/conference/default.html
So you see “We the People” have the power of NULLIFICATION by just saying NO in town courts, it doesn’t get any simpler then that. Its time to grow up and take a stand because the constitution cannot defend itself, Only You Can Prevent Tyranny.
John Darash
http://newyorkcommitteemen.org/
(845) 233-6560
http://NewYorkCommitteemen.org the only legal peaceful solution to restore our Republic.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority that participate” Thomas Jefferson
“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
03-28-2013 6:29 pm – John Darash
MESA MUNICIPAL COURT
________________________________________________
) CASE NO: _______________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA1 )
) Hon. ___________________
Plaintiff )
against )
)
____________________________________ ) ANSWER TO
) THE COMPLAINT –
Counter Plaintiff ) MOTION TO QUASH
________________________________________________)
Whereas, I ___________________ am not a government employee, am not contracted with any government agency, and am not incorporated, and therefore have no duty to perform as a statutory, or corporate agent;
Whereas, there has been no presentment by the people’s common law grand jury.
Whereas I, ___________________, am a living natural person, having previously made a special appearance before the Mesa Municipal Court, and having been recognized as a natural person by this court, who is one of the people2 of Arizona, hereinafter known as the counter‐plaintiff,
1 It is an Oxymoron to use People where it should read Citizen i.e., “The Citizens of the State of Arizona”. The state has no authority to act on behalf of the people, only a jury can so act, under the pretence of law ‐ Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. ‐ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges …
2 PEOPLE. People are supreme, not the state. [Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia 93]; The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516 (1884)]; …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves… [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455, 2 DALL (1793) pp471‐472]: The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA
Both constitutions (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative word is “establish / ordain.” The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People “establish” a constitution, there is nothing in the word “establish” that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (Republic vs. Democracy;). COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 1 of 9
accepts the oaths3, and bonds of all the officers of this court, and moves this Honorable Court to quash for lack of authority4 of personam jurisdiction5 given that this courts’ jurisdiction is barred6 because this is a nisi prius7 court, not a court of record8.
JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE
1.
Counter plaintiff moves the court to take “Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence”. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1961]
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL STARE DECISIS9 ET NON QUIETA MOVERE10
2.
This court “must” adhere to authority, “The doctrine of stare decisis is but an application of the doctrine of estoppel.” [Brown v. Rosenbaum, 175 Misc. 295, 23 N.Y.S.2d 161, 171 (1941);].
3.
“Jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389; Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250; Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768; Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528; McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135; Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341,
3 Oaths: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding… All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.”
4 AUTHORITY. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891] Permission. [People v. Howard, 31 Cal.App. 358, 160 P. 697, 701]. Control over, jurisdiction. [State v. Home Brewing Co. of Indian‐apolis, 182 Ind. 75, 105 N.E. 909, 916].
5 JURISDICTION. [Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition] A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. [6 Pet. 591; 9John. 239].
6 BARRED. Obstructed by a bar; subject to hindrance or obstruction by a bar or barrier which, if interposed, will prevent legal redress or recovery; as, when it is said that a claim or cause of action is “barred by the statute of limitations.” Wilson v. Knox County, 132 Mo. 387, 34 S.W. 45, 477.
7 NISI PRIUS. (Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition) Where courts bearing this name exist in the United States, they are instituted by statutory provision.
8 COURT OF RECORD proceeds according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
9 STARE DECISIS. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1961] To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 338, 390, 391.
10 STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE. To adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established. [87 Pa. 286; Ballard County v. Kentucky County Debt Commission, 290 Ky. 770, 162 S.W.2d 771, 773.] COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 2 of 9
423 F. 2d 272; Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906; Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111; and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1.]
STATUTES ARE NOT LAW
4.
This nisi prius court relies on statutes, which is not law, that seeks to control11 the behavior of the sovereign12 people13 of Arizona, who are under common law, not statutes, and who ordained and established14 the law.
5.
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)]
6.
“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261(1963)]
7.
“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” [Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)]
JURISDICTION MUST BE PROVEN ‐ NOT DECIDED
8.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]
9.
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
11 Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay,
12 The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.] A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king’s image is reflected. [1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.]
13 PEOPLE. People are supreme, not the state. [Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgiaat 93]; The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516]; Preamble to the US and AZ Constitutions ‐ We the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution…; …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves… [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455, 2 DALL (1793) pp471‐472]: The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
14 US Constitution ‐ We the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 3 of 9
10.
“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” [Lantanav. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicagov. New York, 37 F Supp 150].
11.
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389; “Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
12.
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
TOWN AND CITY COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PEOPLE
13.
“Service of an appearance ticket15 does not confer personal jurisdiction upon a criminal court. Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction.” [U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F.Supp. 1415 (1997)]
14.
“Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant.” [[People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 678 N.Y.S.2d 26,92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)]
15.
“Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court.” [People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)]
16.
“Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, …” [State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971, 354 Md. 573 (1999)]
17.
“Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling.” [Davis v. State of Texas (1997)]
18.
“…, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale 2 N.C. (1 Hayw.) 338, 1796 WL 273 (N.C. Super. L. & Eq. 1796)]
WITHOUT AN INJURED PARTY NO COURT HAS AUTHORITY OVER A SOVEREIGN
COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 4 of 9
19.
The US Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 grants court’s Jurisdiction under Common Law16 or Admiralty or Military tribunal venue.
20.
Common law is preserved under the Supreme Courts, and other courts of record, as defined in our US and State Constitutions.
21.
Legislators are authorized under the Constitution, ordained by the people, to write statutes and codes, enforced as law, to control bureaucrats, municipalities, government agencies, elected officials, interstate commerce, but not people, who’s rights are un‐a‐lien‐able17 and cannot be legislated.
22.
“Sovereignty itself [the people] is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” … “For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)]
23.
This court does not have jurisdiction or common law authority.
24.
Let the record show this court can only be an Admiralty Court18, acting under color of law19, alleging jurisdiction over a people, fraudulently applying statutes as laws upon the people.
16 “Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, …” [State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971,354 Md. 573 (1999)]
17 UN‐A‐LIEN‐ABLE [Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition] Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred; The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold; Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
18 ADMIRALTY. A court which has a very extensive jurisdiction of maritime causes, civil and criminal, controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. It is properly the successor of the consular courts, which were emphatically the courts of merchants and sea‐going persons, established in the principal maritime cities on the revival of commerce after the fall of the Western Empire, to supply the want of tribunals that might decide causes arising out of maritime commerce. Also, the system of jurisprudence relating to and growing out of the jurisdiction and practice of the admiralty courts.
19 COLOR OF LAW. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891] ‐‐ The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. [State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148] Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of state law.” (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188) COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 5 of 9
25.
Counter‐plaintiff has not pleaded, and therefore has not yielded jurisdiction to this court, nor can this court force its jurisdiction upon the people without their consent20.
26.
There exists no sworn affidavit by an injured party, as is required in a common law court, therefore the counter‐plaintiff demands this court dismiss all charges for lack of personam jurisdiction.
CASE CANNOT PROCEED ONE STEP FURTHER & MUST BE DISMISSED
27.
“When challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts”. [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528] (1974) Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135, Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272, Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111, and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1,]
28.
“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any case, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.” [Rhode Island v. Massachussetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838)]
29.
“Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case.” [Fontenot v. State of Texas, 932 S.w.2d 185 (1996) “Judicial action without jurisdiction is void.”‐Id (1996)]
30.
To proceed, in any way without jurisdiction, would be an act of defiance to Supreme Court rulings and would cause the counter‐plaintiff to file for a judicial review and a civil action.
IMMUNITY LOST, TO PROCEED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS TREASON
31.
“Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason”. [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)]
20 Declaration of Independence ‐ We hold these truths to be self‐evident … Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 6 of 9
32.
“There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign”. [Cooper v. O’Conner, 99 F.2d 133]
33.
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act”. [Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417]
34.
“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” [Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326]
35.
“A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.” [Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)]
36.
“When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.” [Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697]
37.
“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” [Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)]
38.
“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” [Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200] COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 7 of 9
UNLAWFUL TOWN COURT PRACTICES & A WARNING TO PROSECUTORS
39.
It is a common “unlawful practice” for town court magistrates and prosecutors to meet privately to plot21,22 an answer to a counter‐plaintiff, in an attempt to unlawfully maintain jurisdiction23, under color of law24, in opposed to studying its contents.
40.
Therefore the court should proceed with prudence, forewarned of the following:
41.
It is not up to the prosecutor to prove jurisdiction, but the magistrate.
42.
The prosecutor is not to write court rulings.
43.
The magistrate is not to meet ex parte with the prosecutor “for any reason”.
44.
For the magistrate to discuss this case with the prosecutor without the counter plaintiff present would be nothing short of an entangling alliance, criminal, conspiracy against counter plaintiff’s un‐a‐lien‐able rights, causing the counter‐plaintiff to file an action for conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution25.
45.
If the magistrate is not experienced in common law it would be wise to seek counsel from the appellate court; lawyers and trial court judges generally know statutes and not law.
CONCLUSION
21 USC 18 §241; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
22 USC 42 1985; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly any persons rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators.
23 USC 42 1983; CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.
24 USC 18 §242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
25 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. Eustace v. Dechter, 28 Cal.App. 2d 706, 83 P.2d 523, 525(1938). “Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause, and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. For this injury an action on the case lies, called the “action of malicious prosecution.” Hicks v. Brantley, 29 S.E. 459, 102 Ga. 264; Eggett v. Allen, 96 N.W. 803, 119 Wis. 625. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 8 of 9
COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 9 of 9
46.
In conclusion, this court is a nisi prius court, created by statutes, sanctioned by statutes, ruled by statutes and not constitutions. I am one of the people under the law of the land, aka common law, statutes are not law. This court has no jurisdiction over the counter‐plaintiff nor can this court prove otherwise therefore; this court is barred from jurisdiction in this case.
47.
For the officers of this court26, who’s constables are sent out on the highways27 disguised under color of law28 to kidnap29 people, conspiring to maintain constructive custody30, and thereby preventing counter‐plaintiffs’ free exercise of his unalienable rights, carries serious consequences. Should this court illegally proceed, such consequences shall be applied against all officers of this court, in a court of law.
WHEREFORE counter plaintiff moves this Court to enter an Order discharging this case for lack of personam jurisdiction, as is this courts constitutional duty.
Date ____,____, 20___ _________________________________________
__________________, counter‐plaintiff
26 OFFICERS OF THE COURT ‐ judge, prosecutor, sheriff, constables (police), or bailiff.
27 HIGHWAY. An easement acquired by the public in the use of a road or way for thoroughfare. Bolender v. Southern Michigan Telephone Co., 182 Mich. 646, 148 N.W. 697, 700.; It includes roads, streets, alleys, lanes, courts, places, trails, and bridges, laid out or erected as such by the public, or, if laid out and erected by others, dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such in actions for the partition of real property. Patterson v. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 29 P. 250.; “Street,” “avenue,” “road,” “public road,” “county road,” and “public highway” are used indiscriminately in legislation and judicial decisions. “Street” or “avenue” commonly applies to a public highway in a village, town, or city and “road” to a suburban highway, but there may be “roads” in a city or town and “streets” and “avenues” in the country. City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 179 Wash. 130, 36 P.2d 311, 313.
28 Color of law ‐‐ The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of state law.” (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188)
29 KIDNAPPING. the unlawful seizure and removal of person from own country or state against his will, State v. Olsen, 76 Utah 181, 289 P. 92, 93. In American law, the intent to send the victim out of the country does not constitute a necessary part of the offense. The term includes false imprisonment plus the removal of the person to some other place. 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 671. See State v. Rollins, 8 N.H. 567; State v. Sutton, 116 Ind. 527, 19 N.E. 602; Samson v. State, 37 Ohio App. 79, 174 N.E. 162, 163; People v. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 26 P. 759; Furlong v. German‐American Press Ass’n, Mo.Sup., 189 S.W. 385, 389.
30 CUSTODY. ‐ Detention; charge; control; possession. The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession. Jones v. State, 26 Ga.App. 635, 107 S.E. 166; J. 0. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co., 223 Mich. 349, 193 N.W. 789, 790; State ex rel. Bricker v. Griffith, Ohio App., 36 N.E.2d 489, 491; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468, 470; Carpenter v. Lord, 88 Or. 128, 171 P. 577, 579, L.R.A.1918D, 674; Little v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 272 S.W. 456, 457; Randazzo v. U. S., C.C.A.Mo., 300 F. 794, 797.]]>
