Everyone seems to be preoccupied with all this Left / Right, He Said / She Said Paradigm. So here is something that changes that whole Argument into the realm of the Insane. This post is not for the faint of heart so if you like your cage skip this post.

OK, Warnings complete and you are still here. Lets continue shall we?

What is Citizenship made of or put a different way how is it defined and what is it for allegedly?

We Are Told Citizenship Is Reciprocal In Nature, I Give You This And You Give Me That.

Allegiance for Protection otherwise It is a Protection Racket (Protection against your will at gun point)

Why can’t you sue the police when your car is stolen or worse yet your wife calls 911 and is on hold with police for 45 minutes. Yes they never showed up and the woman died after being raped while the phone was off the hook. The husbands case was thrown out for lack of standing. Why you ask, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DUTY TO PROTECT ANYONE, Yes you read that correctly. You can’t hold anyone accountable because you don’t have standing to sue. So if your car is stolen and you pay the police to protect your stuff, shouldn’t they be held responsible when they fail in their duty to protect you or your property? Not if there is no such thing as a duty on their part.

We call this a Protection Racket in Reality.

What are the ramifications of this?

No Such Thing As A Citizen, Illegal Alien, Alien, State, Nation, Country. The reality is just a bunch of men and women controlling / protecting you against you free will. This is the definition of Racketeering. Wic vs. Woo Case the Judge said to be under the will of another is the essence of slavery.

To Make Matters Worse They Passed The Buck Act Which Created The Slave Class

In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the “Social Security Number”.

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security.

The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security “Districts”. The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal area” which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939, the federal government instituted the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”. This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal area”.

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”. This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal area” overlay.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is no reasonable doubt that the federal “State” is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax

(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110]. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”?

A “Federal area” is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.). This “Federal area” attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating “Federal areas” within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an “individual entity”. See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of all the several states.

This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this “Federal area”. Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms.

You must live on land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any “Federal State” or “Federal area”, nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you subject to “federal laws”. You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a “resident” driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a “federal” bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any other known “contract implied in fact” that would place you within any “Federal area” and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress. Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has been created a fictional Federal “State within a state”. See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional “State” is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like “CA”, “AZ” and “TX”, as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and “Tex.”, etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

 This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939” to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers who have a Social Security number to all state and federal laws “within this State”, a “fictional Federal area” overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation.

All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.

The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” supra which states:

110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

110(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do some research. I have given you all the proper directions in which to look for the jurisdictional nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

 Fact Check All You Want, I Beg You!

Birth Certificate, Credit, Status And Jurisdiction

1. Background and framework.

The government founded by the original Constitution, 1787, is no longer publicly/generally operational.   Instead, what is called the “Government of the United States” is a bankrupt, private corporation, owned, underwritten, and functioning in commerce as a front for the international bankers and the Powers-That-Be with which said bankers are allied.  The entire institution, i.e., “US Inc.,” is private (not free) enterprise administering the ongoing business and political goals of the actual owners.  In this current scenario, every action of US Inc. is a commercial transaction by and between fictitious entities all transpiring for the purpose of furthering the economic and political objectives of the alleged creditors.

This situation arose from the borrowing by USA from European central banks and owing the unpaid indebtedness to the Crown from the original joint-venture agreement(s) between the Colonies (which are corporations of the Crown) and the Crown per se.  It appears as though USA has been bankrupt—certainly, at least, in debt—from inception, i.e., from 1788, and the Constitution was drafted by the framers as “constitutors” to “re-constitute” the unpaid debt and structure an organization for functioning in ongoing indebtedness.

The Civil War was staged and financed by the bankers and the Crown to conquer the nation by engaging in the timeless strategy of “divide and conquer.”  Pitting North against South resulted in the usurpation and transformation of the central government, i.e., Washington, D.C., from operating in accordance with the organic Constitution to functioning in the international, private, commercial, military jurisdiction of the Emergency War Powers as an instrumentality of the bankers, et al.  The States were drawn into the Central Government, as were—progressively—the people directly by means of each individual ratifying the implied contract unilaterally offered by the Federal Government operating in/from the new jurisdiction.  The whole conglomerate thereafter operated in the Emergency War Powers of 12 Stat. 319, 1861, under the “law of necessity,” martial-law rule.[1]  Thus, the “Government” functions under mere “color (appearance only) of government” with the President as acting dictator on behalf of the bankers under the President’s capacity as Commander in Chief of the Military.  I.e., when the seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, Congress—and, indeed, the entire de jure Government of USA under the original Constitution—dissolved based on absence of a Congressional quorum to adjourn and re-convene.  The result is that the actual winner of the Civil War was neither the North nor the South, but the bankers who owned the Federal Government that defeated both North and South and absorbed and subserved the States into that new, private government as “Federal Districts.”

In accordance, inter alia, with the Limited Liability Act of 1851, the Emergency War Powers, 12 Stat. 319, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the constitutional provision allowing Congress authority to pass any law Congress wishes within the ten-mile square territory of Washington, DC and its territories and possessions, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed ratified in 1868.  Within that framework, on February 21^st, 1871, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, 16 Stat. 419, “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” which act was revised in 1874 and reorganized June 8, 1878, 20 Stat. 102, Chap 180, 45^th Congress, 2^nd Session, “An Act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia.” This “government” is a private corporation copyrighted and known by such names as “The United States Government,” “United States,” “U.S.,” “U.S.A.,” etc., all referenced herein as “US Inc.”  It is important to understand that US Inc. is not a country, but a corporation—and indeed a bankrupt corporation operating under color of government as the front and device for administering the conquest in law and commerce of the United States of America.  The 14^th Amendment and US Inc. are all private international law in the admiralty-maritime/Law Merchant of Roman Civil Law, accomplishing in this country what had beset in England.

The 14th Amendment states: “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.” This amendment allows US Inc. to have complete jurisdiction over “citizens,” i.e., corporate subsets of US Inc., which the de jure federal government did not and could not possess.  The 14th Amendment also states (section 4): “The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion [per 12 Stat. 319], shall not be questioned.”  The 14^th Amendment established the framework for complete conquest and absorption of the country, rendering all citizens permanent debtors, indentured servants in involuntary servitude and peonage.  As enemies of the government in accordance with 12 State 319, any aspect of US Inc. may summarily confiscate property in rem without necessity for judicial process whenever any citizen asserts a challenge to the private laws of the corporate United States, i.e., US Inc.

Remnants of the de jure Government remained after the 14^th Amendment, however, based on such things as the continuing circulation of gold and silver coin (the money of sovereigns as movable allodial title) and the fact that Senators were still elected to the Senate by Electors of the States rather than by direct, popular vote.  Senators became elected by direct vote of the people with the passage of the 17^th Amendment.

The Civil War had forced each sovereign State to pledge its assets as collateral and become surety and a cosigner for the defaulted Federal Government’s debt to the bankers.  This procedure was repeated in the 1933 bankruptcy, at which time gold and silver coin (substance) were outlawed as money for citizens of the United States (fictions).  Inability to use gold and silver as money solidified the bankruptcy of US Inc. and foreclosed every such citizen from accessing real money for use in payment of debts, thereby denying access to sovereignty and protection of unalienable rights.  US Inc. is completely devoid of rights, substance, standing in law, and sovereign character, as is every citizen of the United States.

1. The creation and nature of the strawman.

Because additional pledging of assets was required to enable the now-bankrupt corporation to continue to operate when civilly dead, the governors of all the States met to discuss the “emergency” declared by Franklin D. Roosevelt, i.e., the bankruptcy, and how to reorganize US Inc. to continue functioning when bankrupt by means of insurance underwriting by the creditors.

At the Conference of Governors on March 6, 1933, the governors of the forty-eight (48) States made a “pledge” to US Inc. to underwrite the bankruptcy through a grand scheme of limited-liability insurance.[2]  The people, through their “Certificates of Live Birth” registered in the States, were pledged assets to the federal bankruptcy and the people’s energy was thereby established as the collateral for backing the whole operation—the entire fraudulent national debt.  Since the States, being fictitious, commercial entities with no capacity to bind real beings, could not pledge private, living people or their property, a “bridge” was needed between the living people and the bankruptcy.  To accomplish this result a new legal fiction was created in the form of the people’s name in all-capital letters, which then functioned as a “strawman,” i.e., a shill put out front to operate publicly in place of the people.  The scheme had to be so clever that the people would agree to operate as surety for the debts, charges, and obligations of the strawman without truly knowing what was happening to them, who did it, what they were agreeing to, or how the whole process worked.

When the governors made the pledge, they agreed to register the State-issued birth certificates of the people (which was all the States had a right to pledge, since they had no claim on the real people per se) with the U.S. Department of Commerce.  The birth certificate is a bill of lading, a document of bailment, signed by the delivering mother and witness (usually the Doctor), which ships the cargo (birth certificate) into the special (private) maritime jurisdiction of the creditors where it operates as the security instrument (collateral) used to back the pledge. The strawman, the legal fiction, was created by the Federal Department of Commerce by fabricating a new birth certificate using the name on the State-issued birth certificate but changing the spelling to all-capital letters.  This all-caps legal fiction, the “strawman,” is “birthed”—like a vessel—into the private, international-law domain of the bankers, et al, as a “citizen of the United States born [birthed] or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Thereby living people assumed the roll of representative, guarantor, accommodation party, and surety for the legal fiction that functioned for the benefit and enrichment of the creditors.  In this scheme the strawman, not the living being, is what operates throughout the entirety of today’s law and commerce.  One need only look at the Social Security Card, School Records, Passports, Driver’s Licenses, credit cards, utility bills, etc., all of which are always in all-capital letters—just as are gravestones of dead people all over the world—to see the ubiquitous use of the strawman in today’s commercial and legal world.

A “surety” is defined as “the one who is responsible to pay.”  The real man is the surety and liable by contract to pay for the debts and obligations of the strawman, even though the real man does not own, nor does he receive title to, nor does he have any claim on anything purchased or accomplished by use of the strawman.  The strawman is owned by the banks that purchased US Inc. bonds raised against the strawman’s birth certificate.

As stated, US Inc. is bankrupt, and the most recent, flagrant and dramatic reorganization occurred in 1933 with the New Deal.  US Inc. had no gold or silver to pay its debts to the bankers, and, as an insolvent corporation, became civilly dead.  Having neither possession, nor right of possession, nor legal capacity to use gold and silver, i.e., “lawful money,” the only asset left to finance the continued operation of the bankrupt US Inc., i.e., the “government,” was the citizens of the United States, i.e., citizens of US Inc., who were hypothecated as the credit/collateral to finance the bankruptcy reorganization and insurance underwriting.  US Inc. uses the substance and labor of the people, as citizens, to finance its entire operation, hence the need for ultimate control.  Fiat and force replaced substance and freedom.

The resulting scenario is extremely sophisticated, involving in the operation of a vast and pervasive administration of legalized peonage, slavery, permanent indentured servitude, and collectivism (communism) wherein the people have forfeited all standing in law and are “dead to rights.”  If you are deemed a citizen of the United States, you are an asset pledge to the bankruptcy, on the basis of which the Powers-That-Be borrow against your life, rights, and labor to finance their administration of the system they use to exploit, plunder, and dominate you, all under the pretext/presumption that they are acting as your agents to fulfill your own requests in the Democracy.  In this scheme, by your own presumed pre-agreement as a citizen of the corporation, you are punished when you fail to pay or obey.

The sequence of steps involved in creating the existing system, in accordance with the best research to date (resulting from the efforts of many devoted people), is as follows in the United States:

1. A living, flesh-and-blood baby is born from its mother’s womb.
2. The legal/commercial system, existing and functioning entirely in the abstract realm of words, contracts, legal persons, corporate entities, laws, symbols, ideas, commerce, private international law, etc., (i.e., the “matrix”) cannot see, recognize, or deal directly with the real world, including real people. The system itself is imaginary, while the real world is genuine and substantive.  Consequently, the system deals only with documents and matters in the abstract realm that form, by presumption, ratified implied contract attached to the real world by “operation of law” and the tacit consent of the people.
3. Just after birth, the involved doctors and hospitals have the mother sign a “birth certificate,” i.e., a “certificate of live birth,” without telling the mother (and undoubtedly without themselves knowing the truth) that by so doing she and the doctor are criminally informing on her newborn baby as an enemy of the state in accordance with the War Powers and turning the baby over to the bankers as chattel property and slave, pledging the baby’s life-energy and labor in perpetuity as the collateral for borrowing into existence all “currency” (debt-paper) that passes as “money” today.[3]
4. The original birth certificate, a “Certificate of Live Birth,” constitutes, as it were, a “certificate of title” to the real being, and is in essence the equivalent of a “manufacturer’s statement (or certificate) of origin,” i.e., “MSO” or “MCO,” which is created upon manufacturing an automobile and constitutes title to the vehicle.
5. Just as in the case of a car, anything being “registered” in the legal system is established on the record as property of the king. The key here is “registered,” a word deriving from “regis,” meaning “king,” whereby everything “registered” is recorded as the king’s property.
6. The sequence of steps concerning the birth certificate appears to be as follows:
   1. After registration of the Certificate of Live Birth in the office of the county recorder, the county recorder makes a certified, true copy or microfilm, retains it, and sends the original to the Department of Commerce in the State.
   2. As in the case of the county recorder, the State Department of Commerce makes a certified, true copy or microfilm, retains it, and sends the original to the Department of Commerce of the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
   3. The Department of Commerce in Washington then makes a certified, true copy and, in addition, creates a new document, constituting a “certificate of equity interest,” which is labeled “Birth Certificate.” This birth certificate, however, has the child’s name in all-capital letters, unlike the original birth certificate filed in the county recorder on which the name was in upper- and lower-case letters.
   4. The Department of Commerce in Washington, DC then forwards the originals of both documents to the record repository in such locations as The Hague, for holding on behalf of the international banks, e.g., the “World Bank,” the “Bank of International Settlement,” IMF, et al. There the documents remain on deposit as the collateral/asset for hypothecating into existence the credit that finances the underwriting of the world’s bankrupt governments.
7. By this means, the people become the “utility” for the “transmission” of energy from reality into the fictitious, colorable realm of international commerce.

The private, international law that governs the legal/commercial system today is the Uniform Commercial Code, which was recognized as the law of the land in the United States in Public Laws 88-243 and 88-244.  This established the entire legal, banking, and monetary system under the UCC, which is private, not public, law.  The UCC is copyrighted, private law of UNIDROIT, an Italian corporation out of the Vatican.

Now the people, via their all-caps names, are classified as “human resources,” and “goods” under the Uniform Commercial Code—see Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become “goods” saleable in commerce.

The Department of Treasury issues bonds on the birth certificates, which are sold through securities exchanges and purchased—by extending credit on the bank’s books—by the Federal Reserve Bank, which uses the bonds as “reserves” for creating credit in the fractional reserve system.  The people’s labor becomes the collateral for issuing Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of “debt obligation” (see 18 USC §411).  The bonds are held in trust for the purchaser, now the “secured party” and holder in due course, at the Resolution Trust Company at 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Federal Reserve. It is a high-rise office building with a sign that reads, “The Tower of Power.”

After the New Deal (Governors Pledge) the all-caps name, i.e., “strawman,” is what the system deals with, since it cannot interface directly with real beings.  The real being, however, is presumed to have ratified the deal, agreed to the pledge, by the three (3) means for signifying ratification of implied contracts[4].  Thereafter, the system functions on the basis of possessing complete authority to do anything it wishes with the strawman, which is its own creation and property and does not belong to the living being to whom the strawman purportedly pertains.

This scheme of legal/commercial peonage and slavery is outside the Constitution, which does not apply in any matters concerning the resulting process.  The system functions in the realm of private contract, private international law, in international commerce, i.e., the private international law of the private, colorable Law Merchant, not within the direct purview of the Constitution, which merely sanctifies the operational right to contract.

Thereafter, every time the real being signs his name on any legal/commercial document, he is creating more debt-currency into existence, signing as the “surety,” or “accommodation party” per the Uniform commercial Code §3-415.  He is also placing title to whatever property is involved in the hands of the bond-holder.

In this scenario, the “name,” i.e., strawman, is credit and is a constructive cestui que trust (trust created by operation of law, i.e., fiat) holding all the real assets, i.e., “sweat-equity,” created by the labor of the real being.  The right to the use has been separated from the title. The “strawman” holds the title and belongs to the bond-holder, not the real being.  The flesh-and-blood man or women has only naked possession with a limited “right” (privilege) to use the thing, such as one’s body, possessions, or land.  Such illusion of ownership and right is essential to maintain the sting on an ongoing basis, keep the people from completely rebelling if their status as accommodation/surety slaves was self-evident, and fostering more enthusiasm to work and produce by thinking that they are doing so for their own benefit rather than for the enrichment and power of their owners/masters/rulers.

When the strawman violates some rule or statute, such as is presumed whenever the strawman receives a traffic ticket, the flesh-and-blood being must appear at an arraignment and admit that he is the surety and accommodation party for the strawman, and thereby agree to provide the “energy” necessary for providing whatever fine or penalty is deemed due and payable.  The real being has re-confirmed the contract of implied unification of the real being with the strawman by saying “here” when the strawman’s name is called in the idem sonans, i.e., “same-sound,” private/commercial/trust tribunal.[5]  This is why it essential for the operation of the system that people “voluntarily give” their names to the court.  The “Defendant” in the action is the strawman, not the real being. The real being confirms that he is, or may legally be treated the same as, the Defendant.  Through this process one has entered through a door over which is inscribed: “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”

It is now clear that the strawman is:

1. A “nom de guerre,” meaning “a name of war,” whereby the strawman is regarded as being in a state of “insurrection or rebellion” per Section 4 of the 14^th Amendment, 12 Stat. 319, and the Trading With The Enemy Act, as amended;
2. A “stramineus homo,” or “strawman,” the legal and commercial consequences/aspects of which are that it is a permanent debtor in legal incapacity, a dead estate;
3. An artificial entity owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the U.S. Treasury.

It is important to remember that the strawman is not the property of the real being.  The living man or woman is merely the surety (sucker) providing the labor, life-energy, and sweat-equity for the fiction owned by US Inc. and the bond-holder.  The strawman is the front that enables the secured party to act in legal/commercial dealings without revealing his identity, and to deceive the real being, who signs in all matters as a surety and accommodation party, into thinking that the real being is doing something for himself rather than his owners/masters.  Everything the real being signs on behalf of the strawman places title to whatever property is involved into the hands of the United States and the bond owner, i.e., the secured party over the strawman.

There is a sequence of steps that must be done—properly and in sequence—to become free of the bondage-system that now enslaves mankind, and regain lost freedom and independence.  The system has not, to say the least, been forthcoming in informing the people concerning the true legal and commercial situation to which virtually everyone in the world is now subject.[6]  If full disclosure, good faith, and genuine meeting of the minds prevailed, as is required for any purported contract to be an actual, bona fide contract enforceable at law, and the people knew the truth, the banks and governments of the world would be out of business.  It has been a long, dangerous, often ruinous road—involving the blood, sweat, tears, property, and even the lives of many people—to uncover the nature of the clever scheme.  Such people, most of whom not only love freedom and truth but principle for its own sake, have not been willing to remain in ignorance and bondage, and have diverted their lives to the task of understanding the nature of the system and ascertaining ways to become free of it.

III. Remedy and recourse

The real man has no remedy or rights protected the organic Constitution because the commercial process operates entirely in the realm of private contract and private law between legal fictions, i.e., strawmen, outside the Constitution.  Today’s operational jurisdiction is private law, called “public policy,” not public law as existed in the Republic.  To make his way in the world a living being, who cannot enter, operate in, or be directly interacted with in the realm of the fictitious and imaginary, needs a commercial vessel.  Such a vessel is the strawman.

Inasmuch as law must always provide a remedy, when US Inc. declared bankruptcy it had to structure a means for living people to appear in their private, proper capacity and deal with whatever claims might arise.  The result is that all claims must be resolved first through private administrative process to determine whether or not the public sector (public policy) has jurisdiction in a given matter.  Consequently, in order properly to bring or deal with an action in the public sector, the private, administrative remedies must properly be exhausted first.  The real being must first perfect his claim before asserting any standing as creditor.

Inasmuch as all courts today are admiralty-equity tribunals, the universal principles of equity are operational.  This includes such maxims of equity as:

1. He who comes into a court of equity must come with clean hands.  79 Fed. Rep. 854; 97 Tenn. 180; 11 Tex. Civ. App. 624.
2. He who has committed iniquity shall not have equity. Francis, 2d Max.
3. Equity denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men.
4. Equity suffers no right without a remedy.
5. Equality is equity.
6. Equity follows the law.
7. He who seeks equity must do equity.
8. He who seeks equity must have clean hands.
9. Equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong.
10. To receive equity one must give equity.

If, in an action, both parties are in dishonor, both have failed to “give equity” and have proceeded with “unclean hands.”  In such case the judge has unbridled discretion, since he is dealing with two losers from inception.  The judge must then do what his exclusive duty is in any case, which is to uphold public policy and collect revenue for paying the insurance policy premiums to keep the bankrupt corporation afloat.

The trick, therefore, is never to dishonor, i.e., always do equity and act with clean hands, and perfect your claim in the private, administrative realm.  By so doing, you have availed yourself of the remedy in law and “exhausted your administrative remedies.”  At this point, if the matter should enter a court and is put before a judge, you will be the one with a perfected claim on the private side and also the only party with clean hands, having done equity and acted in honor and good faith.

Because administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to a matter entering the judicial arena, as long as you are doing administrative procedure, the public officials cannot proceed with any court action against the strawman.

The administrative process consists of having your notary send (you should always send and receive all paperwork by and through a friendly and knowledgeable notary) notice of your position to all of the parties, i.e., “Respondents,” who are assaulting your strawman with demands, obligations, and charges.  Said Respondents are sent your private, administrative notices in the private capacity of all concerned, so that you are operating as a real being sending notices to other real beings.  The nature of your paperwork is that without dishonoring (denying, traversing, fault-finding, etc.), you require that your adversary “put up or shut up” without telling him he is wrong.  In other words, you send them conditional acceptances and negative averments that in essence state:

“I have no idea whether your claims and charges are bona fide or not, or whether I have an actual obligation to discharge the obligations you assert, but I am not aware of any evidence supporting your position in any of these matters and if you claim that your demands are valid, provide documentary proof of claim for the record substantiating your declarations, claims, and charges, and I will comply with whatever you prove.”

It is essential to remember that the entire current judicial system functions by stipulations, i.e., agreements, between disputing parties.  Stipulations occur either by the two parties openly agreeing on a particular point or, if they do not, the discovery and trial process resulting in stipulations based on the ruling of the judge, i.e., the “conscience of the court.”

The entire legal/commercial process today is a game, the essential rule of which is: “Whoever dishonors first loses.”  Or, phrased differently, “No one who dishonors can be assured of prevailing.”  In short, if you wish to win you must proceed without dishonoring, or there is no guarantee you will prevail and, what is worse, if your adversary is the system itself, you are automatically guaranteed to lose because the judge must faithfully adhere to his Prime Directive: Uphold public policy and collect revenue for the bankruptcy reorganization.

Your private administrative process must operate as follows:

1. Do everything by affidavit or asseveration, notarized;
2. Use a notary for everything—sending out all of your paperwork, receiving responses, keeping the notarial logbook, retaining copies of everything sent and received, executing such notarial documents as those involved in a notary protest, etc.;
3. Have your notary send your adversaries your notices in the private capacity of all involved parties;
4. Never dishonor or traverse, which can be done by enjoining (commenting on, whether admitting or denying) any of the content, i.e., subject matter, in their communications, as well as by ignoring what you receive (failing to respond within the time frames required);
5. Place the burden of proof on your adversaries in the private sector through the Private Administrative Process, i.e., “PAP,” to prove their claims without stating that their claims are invalid, in accordance with the maxim of law: “The burden of proof resides on him who asserts, not on one against whom a claim or charge is made.”  They initiated the matter and are demanding something from you, not the reverse.  Therefore, deal with them as soon as possible, in the private sector, where the burden of proof concerning the validity of their assertions rests with them, not you.[7]
6. Invoke the principle of acquiescence by silence, i.e., by the terms and conditions of the interchange, their failure to put up or shut up within the time frame you allow for them to prove their claims constitutes their stipulation (agreement) that your position is true, correct, and complete in entirety and they are devoid of proof of claim for anything they’ve alleged against the strawman.
7. After you have consummated your private administrative process, proceed to the public side by invoking the notary for the notarial protest process, at the end of which you have the following established as documentary proof on the record:
1. A private (from you) and public (from the notary) exhaustion of administrative remedies;
2. A complete set of stipulations by them in support of your position;
3. Private, commercial, and judicial summary judgment and judgment in estoppel on the law, facts, and money.

Their stipulations that you have established by the foregoing process include their admission and confession, i.e., “confession of judgment,” that:

1. You are the creditor and not a debtor concerning the transaction;
2. There is no evidence that they are the creditor;
3. They owe you, and you can bill them for, the sum-certain amount set forth in the paperwork;
4. They have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
5. Any and all proceeding against you thereafter constitutes a libel on the public record authorizing your filing a libel of review in the (general) admiralty against all parties in their private capacity, devoid of official immunity;
6. They and all others are hereafter forever estopped from raising the issue, contesting the stipulations, or proceeding against you in any way concerning what has been finalized.

After completion of the above, you can file your administrative judgment with the County Recorder, and thereafter record a certified copy of the filed judgment on a UCC-1 or UCC-3.

Remember that your notary constitutes a third party, a disinterested witness.  When the notary, an agent of the court, enters the public side with your private information, your position appears on the public record.

Thereafter, any form of court action would constitute self-validating proof, based on the public record that has been established, that any and all involved parties—including any judges—are acting inequitably and with unclean hands. If you have any form of court proceeding asserted against you thereafter you can provide the public/statutory court with a letter rogatory from your private court—the court of the sovereign (as a sovereign, which you always are in private/real capacity, you are your own court)—and provide the judge with certified, true copy of your perfected claim on the public record on the basis of which any further action against you concerning the matter is not only void but actionable against all parties involved.  You neither go into court (which would imply that you are a debtor, citizen of the United States, and admitting that a dispute exists after it has been stipulated on the record as not existing), nor move the court for anything.  Doing any of these things merely proves to the judge that you don’t know what you’re doing.  Just show the judge that he has only one course of action based on the record.

Once the above process has been undertaken, then all manner of remedies and recourses exist for you that formerly did not and could not.  These include a habeas corpus, criminal affidavits, maritime liens, and other remedies, with stipulations that the public officials had no jurisdiction or authority to act as they did, and have proceeded against you in mere private capacity, without immunity.

 [1] There is a difference between “martial law” and “martial-law rule.”  The former involves overt rule by military officials, with troops in the streets, curfews, and the like.  The latter consists of out-front civilian rule within a jurisdiction that is intrinsically military.  Martial-law rule can, at any instant and under any pretense, transform into full-fledged martial law.

[2] On March 6, 1933 at the “Conference of Governors,” the Governors of the (then forty-eight (48)) several states of the Union, pledged their “full faith and credit” as accommodation parties for the Federal Bankruptcy, and thereafter formed numerous socialist programs such as the “Council of State Governments,” Social Security Administration, etc., purportedly to deal with the economic “Emergency.”  The scheme operated under the “Declaration of Interdependence” of January 22, 1937.  Some of their activities were published in the “Book of the States,” Vol. II, page 144.

The jurisdiction of the “United States” (inc.) is signified by the phrases “in this state,” “this State” and the like, by two capital-letter federal postal designations (CA, NY, TX, FL, etc.), or by a five-digit ZIP (Zone Improvement) Code.  The phrase, “in this state,” is a catch-all term for everything and every agency within the Federal Zone, and is found in Senate Document No. 43, 73^rd Congress, 1^st Session, District of Columbia, United States, and referenced three (3) times in UCC 1-105.

[3] In clarification of this assertion, the original Emergency War Powers of 1861, 12 Stat. 319, not only has never been repealed, but is the foundation for subsequent acts, such as the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act thereto, i.e., the “Banking Relief Act,” of March 9, 1933.  The Amendatory Act (48 Stat. 1), amending the Trading With the Enemy Act, was passed by Congress just after Roosevelt’s Inauguration at a time when the United States was not in a shooting war with any foreign foe.  The American people, however, were (unknowingly) at war with their conquerors, the Banksters, who had defeated the country by the treachery of their something-for-nothing paper-money banking swindle and other deceits, rather than force of arms.  The pen can indeed be mightier (and more suicidal for those who mindlessly use it) than the sword.  This amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act provided “legal” justification for dramatic increases in the power, scope, and authority of the U.S. Government (now owned by and an administrative agency of the bankers).

The original Trading with the Enemy Act had specifically excluded citizens of the United States from being regarded as the enemy when involved in transactions wholly within the United States.  The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, however, expressly included the people of the United States as the enemy by insertion of the following text: “…by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 1(b).

By operation of law (private law of the 14^th Amendment trust) the American people became the “enemy” of the private Federal Reserve/IMF Creditors in bankruptcy, who have thereafter been administering their prize/conquest through their alter ego and front, the “U.S. Government.”  To regulate and control their chattel property the bankers, et al, rendered (under color of law and government) all intercourse illegal amongst the American people without obtaining permission through licensing.  Commerce is illegal between belligerents, who, as enemies, are regarded as devoid of rights.  To travel, a driver’s license is required; to open a business requires a business license (not to mention additional and on-going mountains of “red tape”); to work for another one must obtain licensing through a Social Security card.

To be “within the United States” one must merely be a “person” or “resident,” i.e., a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Although one can never know who actually knows what, the chances are overwhelmingly large that the vast majority of doctors and hospital personnel are as ignorant of how badly they’ve been had as the mother of a newborn baby and the rest of the country.  Part of the cleverness of the sting is that it has been structured so that the people are duped into policing and being policed by each other without ever knowing whose agenda they are actually fulfilling.  It is possible that Henry Ford was correct in his celebrated comment: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

[4] The three means of ratifying an implied contract, i.e., a unilateral offer from the system to you, are: 1) Do nothing; 2) Accept benefits from the system; 3) Fail to know, declare, and properly notice the appropriate parties in the system of your applicable law that is other than theirs.

[5] A given name sounds the same when spoken, regardless of whether the spelling on paper consists of all-capital letters (the strawman) or upper- and lower-case letters (symbolically representing the real being).

[6] The nature of the existing scenario is not, for instance, on the curriculum of any institution of public education, nor is it discussed in the media, news, law schools, etc.

[7] This approach pertains to law, i.e., genuine law as exists in the Republic, not public policy that prevails in the Democracy.  Today’s system operates via implied contract in special (private) maritime, where everything is a reverse, mirror image of law.  In law you are presumed “innocent until proven guilty” and have access to the Bill of Rights; in public policy you are automatically “guilty until you prove yourself innocent,” and have no rights whatsoever.  In law you possess absolute right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, as per the 5^th Amendment; in the public domain you have absolute obligation to testify against yourself in all matters.  In law, the government lacks capacity to compel people to do anything; the current ecclesiastical/private/commercial system, functioning in admiralty, operates via compelled performance.  Do not mix apples and oranges.  A citizen of the United States is “on the ship,” where the captain’s word is law, not on land where one can walk off a job or invoke public law for protection against miscreant government officials.  Avail yourself of the remedy and engage in the PAP in all matters or you have lost and are dead to rights from inception—before ever entering court.

Successful Jurisdictional Challenge

Original full Document Source: https://www.constitutionallawgroup.us/

Jurisdictional Challenge
to the prosecution/plaintiff and to the court
by special appearance.
An appearance de bene esse is designed to permit a party to a proceeding to refuse to submit
his person to the jurisdiction of the court unless it is finally determined that he has forever
waived that right. Such an appearance is therefore a special appearance designed to allow the
accused to meet and any supposed requirement of making an appearance, and at the same
time, to refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of any alleged plaintiff (and therefore of the applicable
court ), unless and until some judicial department prosecutor makes all disclosures, specifically
by producing a complaint of damage or injury, signed and verified by the injured party.
FOR THE RECORD
I, the alleged Defendant Richard Travis; Martin , Sui Juris, Reserving all rights at all times and
places, one of the people, a natural, private common man , within the Texas a republic, by
special appearance, do challenge, and demand proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record,
of the prosecution/plaintiff to file charges/suit and prosecute. And further the jurisdiction of the
court, appearing on the record, in all actions against the alleged defendant.
VERIFIED NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRESENT MAJOR OBJECTIONS TO THE
CONTINUING, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS ABSENT PROOF OF JURISDICTION
APPEARING ON THE RECORD WITH RELIEF BEING TO DISMISS THIS BOGUS ACTION
WITH PREJUDICE.
THIS IS NOT A MOTION
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on
appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2D, 368 Fla a DCA 1985)
” Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist .” Stuck v.
Medica1 Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289
“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215
“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff .” Loos v
American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 I11.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)
“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it. ” Binde11 v City 0f Harvey,
212 I11.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017(1st Dist. 1991)
” Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted .”
Lantana v. Hopper,102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 FSupp. 150
“…[H]owever late this objection [to jurisdiction] has been made, or may be made in any cause, 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 MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L.Ed.
1233 (1838).
“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739
“a universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a
nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property ,” Norwood v.
Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732
“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before
a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question the first
instance.“ Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8: 331 US 549, 91 K, ed,
1666m 67 S, Ct, 1409
“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law however
close apparent adherence to mere form in methods of procedure which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction .” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d
934, 937.
“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.
It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD
WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907)
“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416
“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to
act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187
P 27.
“the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an
arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance
there was a probable cause for the arrest .” Monroe v.Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
“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.“ US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406
(1980) Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821)
Points:
2. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, to state jurisdiction on the record the “facts
necessary to give jurisdiction”. See…
“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.
Also see… “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. 538 (1974)
3. Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, that plaintiff/prosecutor has standing.
(Corpus Delicti) See…
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction
or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.” Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
Also see…
“ With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face ”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512
Also see…

Supreme courts ruled “W ithout Corpus delicti there can be no crime” “In every prosecution
for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.”
People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185 . Also see… “In every criminal trial, the
prosecution must prove the corpus delecti , or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of
injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” People v. Sapp, 73
P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119
Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372. ]. Also see…
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable
controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication
because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury .” People v. Superior Court,
126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
Also see… “Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not
entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.)
“Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s
allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the
particular claims asserted.” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752… Whether one has
standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has
rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened.” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45
Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
4. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that the alleged defendant is subject to
commercial law and or the Uniform Commercial Code in light of the following:
Let it be known to all that I, Richard Travis; Martin explicitly reserve all of my rights. See
your…
UCC 1-308 which was formally UCC 1-207. Ҥ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under
Reservation of Rights. (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises
performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party
does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under
protest,” or the like are sufficient .”
I retain all of my rights and liberties at all times and in all places, nunc pro tunc (now for then)
from the time of my birth and forevermore. Further, I retain my rights not to be compelled to
perform under any contract that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract. I
am not ever subject to silent contracts and have never knowingly or willingly contracted away
my sovereignty.
5. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the defendant is subject to rules,
codes and regulations. See…
” All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only , not
Human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are
unconstitutional and lacking in due process…” RODRIQUES v RAY DONAVAN (U.S.
Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) .
6. Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, to force the alleged defendant into
involuntary servitude. See…
UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988) “For purposes of criminal prosecution
under § 241 or § 1584, the term “involuntary servitude” necessarily means a condition of
servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical
restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process.
This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by
placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. “
Also see… The constitution for the united States 1789, 13th amendment, Section 1. Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the united States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Also see…
The constitution for the united States, 1789, Preamble 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.
7. Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant is a person or
other legal or commercial entity. See your satanic…
UCC 1-201 General Definitions (27) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust,
estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or
commercial entity . Also see…
American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910 : “This word ‘person’ and its scope and
bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is
difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and
proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use … A person is here not a
physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested … not an
individual or physical person, but the status , condition or character borne by physical
persons … The law of persons is the law of status or condition.” Also see… Uniform Commercial
code creates a corporate State of the United States, the federal corporation. As opposed to one
of the dejure several States.
Also See…
UCC 1-201. General Definitions. (38) “State” means a State of the [corporate] United States,…
As opposed to…
USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A >§ 3002Definitions (14) “State”
means any of the [de jure union states] several States,…
8. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant is not
sovereign. See…
“In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever its
relationship to the People by taking away their citizenship.” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253(
1967).
Also see… “The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the
King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendel l9, 20(1829) Also see…
In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too
commonly acquired by force or fraud or both…In America, however the case is widely different.
Our government is founded upon Compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the People. Glass v.
The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6. (1794)
9. Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, to force the alleged defendant or other
sovereigns to be subject to statutes.
See… US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653, 667 (1979) : “In
common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” Also see…
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 S.Ct 742 (1941) : “Since in common
usage the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are
ordinarily construed to exclude it .”
Also see… US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 67
SCt677 (1947) : “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign and
statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.”
Also see… US Supreme Court in US v. Fox, 94 US 315 : “Since in common usage, the term
‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily
construed to exclude it.” Also see…
U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530 : “In common usage the word
‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally
construed to exclude the sovereign .” Also see…
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 425 (1979) : “the word
‘person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope
a variety of entities other than human beings . See e.g., 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1.”
10. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant is a citizen of
the United States and not a State Citizen in light of the following:
I, Richard Travis; Martin, am not a United States corporation citizen or a 14th amendment
citizen. I am a State Citizen of one of the several states of the republic, and not as a state of
the United States ®.
And I reject any attempted expatriation.
See… attached Affidavit of Corporate Denial
Also see… Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976
Also see… USC TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 -JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF
FOREIGN STATES § 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction Subject to existing
international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this
Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States
and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter. Also see…
In Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 we find “The United States government is a foreign
corporation with respect to a State” ( see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L.
Ed. 287).

Also see… DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (the United States ®) created by the Congressional act
of 1871, which states “… the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a
body corporate for municipal purposes , and may contract and be contracted with, sue and
be sued, plead and be impleaded…”
Also see… “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that
we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under
the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside
and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the
earth are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever
receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system
will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and
protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism … It will be an evil day for
American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds
lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to
exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. “
– -Honorab1e Supreme Court Justice John Harian in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwe11.
Also see… UCC 1-201. General Definitions(38) “State” means a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular
possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Also see…
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 43 > § 911: Citizen of the United States “Whoever falsely and
willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Also see…
Declaration of Independence, (Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776): The Unanimous
Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.”
11. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant cannot have
status of State Citizen. See…
15 united States statute at large, July 27th, 1868 also known as the expatriation statute.
Also see… U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a
special class of citizen created by Congress. “
Also see…
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each
of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of it’s own …” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Also see… “…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the
State,…”” One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States” .
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
Also see… ” That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state, …”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236(1927)
Also see… “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” Kitchens v.
Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
Also see… State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: “the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to
the term ‘subject’ in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in
government.”
Also see… Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226: “The privileges and immunities clause of the
14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor
protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar
to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state
citizenship.”
Also see… Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957: “The only absolute and
unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the
United States.”
12. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendants’ rights are
alienable. See…
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain un alienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of .”
[ Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
13. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record. To deny the alleged defendant the right to travel. See…
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969: “Further, the Right to TRAVEL by
private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE
INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT
for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating
under license IN COMMERCE.”
Also see…
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller
v. US, 230 F 486, at 489 .
Also see…
” There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights. ” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
14. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, to convert a liberty into a privilege. See…
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege,
license it, and attach a fee to it.” Also see… Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262,
(1969) “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with
impunity.”
Also see… Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) “Where rights secured by the Constitution
are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
15. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, to conspire against or deprive the rights of
the defendant under color of law. See…
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 241 , 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, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.
Also see…
USC TITLE 18 > PART I> CHAPTER 13 > § 241 Conspiracy against rights: “ If two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such
acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap , aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
Also see…
The court held in UNITED STATES v. KOZMINSKI, 487 U.S. 931 (1988) by looking to the
meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment in interpreting two enforcement statutes, one prohibiting
conspiracy to interfere with exercise or enjoyment of constitutional rights, the other prohibiting
the holding of a person in a condition of involuntary servitude. For purposes of prosecution
under these authorities, the Court held, “the term ‘involuntary servitude’ necessarily means a
condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat
of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal
process.” Also see…
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them.” MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
Also see… “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” HERTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110
U.S. 516
16. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, of having taken an oath of office.
17. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the court or the prosecution has the
right to violate their oath of office. See…
” faithfully perform the duties of his office” which is to secure defendants unalienable Right to
the liberty of ownership of property as per the Declaration of Independence secured in the
contract known as the Constitution for the united States of 1789.
I, Richard Travis;Martin, accept your oath of office and bind you to it.
18. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, to impair or force nonexistent obligations to
a contract.
19. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, of any maritime or admiralty contract that
the alleged defendant is a part of.

See… Alexander v.Bothsworth, 1915. “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or
authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.”
20. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, to deprive the defendant of common law
rights/due process as protected by both the Constitution for the united States and the de jure
state constitution.
21. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, the alleged defendant has given consent
to anything or anyone to govern him or his private property.
22. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that police officers are above the law.
See…
Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261
(1882) “No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the
law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the
highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”
Also see…
a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just
simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee 106
U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261 , the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate,
via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the
United States the Court declared: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.
No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the
government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It
is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office
participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to
observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”
Also see… Pierce v. United States (“The Floyd Acceptances”), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 (“We
have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who
does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority”); Cunningham v.
Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 (“In these cases he is not sued as, or because
he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of
jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him… It is no answer for the defendant to say
I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the
sufficiency of that authority “); and Poindexter v. Greenhaw, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903,
912
Also see… WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity See, Owen vs. City of
Independence, 100 S Ct.1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502
U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials
and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot
plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have
ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and
judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in
matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America . See: Title
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Also see… “Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to
award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by
direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or
custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing
subordinates who cause violation .” (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp.
93 (1988).
23. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that a commercial entity can detain,
imprison, enslave and force into indentured servitude a human being. See…
13th amendment, united States constitution
Also see… USC TITLE 18 > PART I> CHAPTER 55 > § 1201 Kidnapping
24. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that a commercial entity can sell penal
bonds on human beings and/or sovereign Citizens. See…
13th amendment, united States constitution
Also see… USC TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 17 “The labor of a human being is not a
commodity or article of commerce. “
Also see… Palermo protocols United Nations 2000
Also see… TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > § 1590 . Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor
25. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that corporate entities can interface with
other than corporate entities. See…
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial Person, an abstraction, and a creature of the
mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary,
having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the
tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency,
aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons
and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54;
1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and,
“the contracts between them” involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities:
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property
and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity””, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox,
298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
26. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that I am the property of the federal
government. See…
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property
and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity””, Wheeling Steel Corp. v.Fox,
298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
27. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, and that statements of the liar (prosecutor)
are not evidence or admissible
“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are
therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v
Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
“Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of
[a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,
“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to
constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting
statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their
appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt
whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224
U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.
“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to
regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel” , Holt v. United
States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,
“The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record
either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the
power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen
has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56;
416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.
“Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose
character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the
law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means
and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near
and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of
conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of
counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity
un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions
of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases.
Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell
Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company,
Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s
Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v.
American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed.
863, 8 S. Ct. 778.
“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
“Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a
part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma
Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).
Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in
argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment.”
“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely
on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880 Professional
statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may
be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And, how many of those Ass-Holes have
“first hand knowledge”? NONE!!!]

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on
behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does
the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus
compromising his role as advocate.
and it goes on to say that Article Eleven in Amendment says that these United States so-called
courts have no standing to do anything involving a state citizen, but they go ahead and assault
you anyway.
It’s a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL
POWER of the State.
Article XI.
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 any Foreign State.
US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the
FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Attorneys are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION
ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the
mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having
neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.
The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court,
etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts
between them.”
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
28. Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant cannot stand
upon his/her constitutional rights. See…
Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the
court states: “The “individual” may stand upon “his Constitutional Rights” as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his “private” business in his own way. “His power to contract is unlimited.” He
owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an
investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he
receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. “His rights” are such
as “existed” by the Law of the Land (Common Law) “long antecedent” to the organization of the
State”, and can only be taken from him by “due process of law”, and “in accordance with the
Constitution.” “He owes nothing” to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
29. Your code enforcers LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) are operating in their private
capacity
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the
government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94
as revenue officers under the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
“(h) DEFINITION’s. …. (1) SECURITY INTEREST .-The term ‘security interest’ means any
interest in property acquired by contract for the purpose of securing payment or
performance of an obligation or indemnifying against loss or liability. A security interest
exists at any time (A) if, at such time, the property is in existence and the interest has
become protected under local law against a subsequent judgment lien arising out of an
unsecured obligation, and (B) to the extent that, at such time, the holder has parted “with
money or money’s worth. “(3) MOTOR VEHICLE.-The term ‘motor vehicle’ means a
self-propelled vehicle which is registered for highway use under the laws of any State or
foreign country. “(4) SECURITY .- The term ‘security’ means any bond, debenture, note , or
certificate or other evidence of indebtedness , issued by a corporation or a government or
political subdivision thereof , with interest coupons or in registered form, share of stock,
voting trust certificate, or any certificate of interest or participation in, certificate of
deposit or receipt for, temporary or interim certificate for, or warrant or right to subscribe
to or purchase any of the foregoing: negotiable instrument: or money .” Federal Tax Lien
Act of 1966 at Public Law 89-719 at 80 Stat. 1130-1131
30. Your code enforcers LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) assaulted Me because of your
District of Columbia Code 27 CFR 7211
“Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses
against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery;
illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting,
procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses);
extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to
commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and
use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.”
which means that the so-called Judge is actually a Clerk working for the prosecutor “”When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date,
the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial
capacity ; courts administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially , but merely
ministerially….but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency — but
only in a “ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity…” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E.
579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.
“…judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in
nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis,
ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.)
“It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that
when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of
the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an
agency…” 30 Cal 596; 167 Cal 762,
and when a Judge becomes a Clerk working for the prosecutor, he is NOT acting in his official
capacity, but is acting in his private capacity,
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the
government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94
and he cannot do anything judicial
“Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities”
Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1, and further,
therefore any so-called order the Clerk (masquerading as a Judge) issues, is a fraud and a
nullity, like a warrant for arrest, is a fraud and a nullity, and a fine is a fraud and a nullity, and he
is fully liable in his personal capacity, and has no judicial immunity
“…where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well
settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross
claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.”
Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;
“When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially” (and thus are
not protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity,” – SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662;
Bothke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404) – –
“but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency — but only in a
“ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity…” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583;
Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their
jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386

U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160;
Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St.
724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311,
Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546).
“In arriving at our decision in this matter we do not depart in any way from our holding in
Huendling v. Jensen [*300] that the doctrine of judicial immunity extends to courts of
limited jurisdiction. But, when a minor magistrate acts wholly without jurisdiction, civil
liability attaches for his malicious and corrupt abuse of process and his willful and
malicious oppression of any person under the pretense of acting in his official capacity.
See Huendling v. Jensen, 168 N.W.2d at 749 and authorities cited.” 188 N.W.2d 294; 1971
Iowa Sup. LEXIS 863; 64 A.L.R.3d 1242
and your so-called court is actually a kangaroo court
“Kangaroo court. Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person’s rights
are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the
bias of the court or other tribunal .” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 868,
31. Everything your so-called court does is a fraud and a nullity under color of law
“Colour of Law – Mere semblance of a legal right. An action done under colour of law is
one done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law .” Barron’s
Canadian Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 51 [emphasis added]
“Color” means ” An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that
which is real . A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance , a plausible,
assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240. [emphasis added]
“Colour, color. Signifies a probable plea, but which is in fact false…” Tomlin’s Law
Dictionary 1835, Volume 1
by assaulting me based on your fictitious US citizen which is a fraud
“By metaphysical refinement in examining the form of our government it might be
correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States .
A citizen of any one of the States of the Union is held to be and called a citizen of the
United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing .” Ex Parte Frank
Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300, [emphasis added]
by criminally converting my proper appellation into a fictitious fraud “GLENN-WINNINGHAM,
FEARN” in my case,
by criminally converting my postal address from the land of Texas into your District of Columbia
territory with the use of a ZIP CODE

“As we have said, the Federal Personal Income Tax is Collected under a Military Venue
within a Martial-Law jurisdiction. Federal Reserve Notes are Military Scrip circulated
within a Military Venue . The problem is the people don’t understand how the entire United
States is covered by a Military Venue…. Under the Social Security Act , there was brought
into existence Ten Federal Regional Areas . These ten federal regional areas are the same
as a military base. It is not unconstitutional to circulate “military scrip” on a military base
as the base is considered to be a military venue. “Military scrip” cannot circulate in the
civil jurisdiction of the several States. To get around this Constitutional bar, the
Congress (via the Social Security Act), created Ten Military Venues, called Federal
Regional Areas. The problem the Congress realized was, while Congress could
restructure the Government agencies into these Federal Regional Areas, the people
could not be identified to be within this Military Venue but by their own consent . The
solution was to create another Military Venue which would trick the people to voluntarily
accept recognition that they are within a Military Venue. Congress solved this problem by
creating the ZIP CODE . The “zip code” divides the United States into Ten Military Venues
called “National Areas.” When a Citizen receives mail from an agency of the federal
government (such as the I.R.S.), in the return address of the federal agency is the district
within the regional area the letter is sent from, and on the address of the “Citizen” it was
sent to is the national area [ZIP] in which he received the correspondence from the I.R.S..
In other words, the correspondence was sent from one of the federal regional areas
[military venue] to one of the National Areas [another military venue]. “Taxing Districts”
are established within one of the Federal Regional Areas, which places the collection of
taxes under a martial law jurisdiction.” Dyett v Turner 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
[1968] The Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by Assistant Director A.H. Ellett, Utah
Supreme Court [Emphasis added],
by assaulting Me with your fraudulent fictitious unconstitutional District of Columbia municipal
corporation called City of Azle
“Fifth. The Constitution has undoubtedly conferred on Congress the right to create such
municipal organizations as it may deem best for all the territories of the United States ,
whether they have been incorporated or not, to give to the inhabitants as respects the
local governments such degree of representation as may be conducive to the public
wellbeing, to deprive such territory of representative government if it is considered just
to do so, and to change such local governments at discretion.” Downes v Bidwell 182 US
244
by assaulting Me with your fraudulent fictitious unconstitutional District of Columbia municipal
corporation called State of Texas when you know that no corporation has standing to do
anything in any court
“My opinion is and long has been that the mayor and aldermen of a city corporation, or
the president and directors of a bank, or the president and directors of a railroad
company and of other similar corporations , are the true parties that sue and are sued as
trustees and representatives of the constantly changing stockholders…. A corporation,
therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and
intangible , cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead
nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States .” Rundle v Delaware & Raritan Canal
Company 55 U.S. 80 (1852) [emphasis added]
everything you do is a fraud
“Once a fraud, always a fraud.” 13 Vin. Abr. 539.
“Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act.”
Trayner, Max. 482. Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9 th Edition, page 1862
“A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time.”
1 S. & R. 58. Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9 th Edition, page 1866
Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, Max. 178, Maxims
of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9 th Edition, page 1862, and further,
“Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom’s
Max. 349.” Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856,
and any act by any government official to conceal the fraud becomes an act of fraud;
“fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.”
Bouvier’s Maxims of Law 1856
and fraud is inexcusable and unpardonable;
“Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3
Co. 78.” Bouvier’s Maxims of Law 1856
and any fraud amounts to injustice;
“Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never dwell together.”
Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary, 9 th Edition, page 1832
“Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vei fraudem petatur, malum et injustum
efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and
unjust. 3 Co. 78.” Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856
and you are all satanic children of the devil
“ Ye are of your father the devil , and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it .” John 8:44
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers [pharmaceutical drug pushers], and idolaters, and all liars ,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death.” Revelations 21:8 and your judgment day is coming
“I know thy works , and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the
blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, [or Christians] and are not, but are the
synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9
32. The Constitution for the United States of America requires that lawful Article III Judges
be provided
“ART. III. § 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and
establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices
during good behaviour; and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States , and treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and
consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the
United States shall be a party;- to controversies between two or more States, between a
State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States , between citizens
of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or
the citizens thereof and foreign States, citizens or subjects.” 1 Stat. 17-18, and further,
33. All District of Columbia territorial courts are using their Uniform Commercial Code which
is controlled and regulated by their UNIDROIT Treaty ( International Institute for the Unification of
Private Law) , which the UNITED STATES, INC., has been a signatory to for over 30 years,
which is unconstitutional, because the Treaty power can ONLY be used externally,
“but Madison insisted that just “because this power is given to Congress,” it did not
follow that the Treaty Power was “absolute and unlimited.” The President and the Senate
lacked the power “to dismember the empire,” for example, because “[t]he exercise of the
power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.” “The object of treaties,” in
Madison’s oft-repeated formulation, “is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations,
and is external .” Bond v United States 572 US ____ (2014) case number 12-158 [emphasis
added]
“Today, it is enough to highlight some of the structural and historical evidence
suggesting that the Treaty Power can be used to arrange intercourse with other nations,
but not to regulate purely domestic affairs .” Bond v United States 572 US ____ (2014) case
number 12-158 [emphasis added]
and you have no authority to use your UNIDROIT Treaty in America, and your use of the
Uniform Commercial Code is unconstitutional
“The government of the United States . . . is one of limited powers. It can exercise
authority over no subjects, except those which have been delegated to it . Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the
treaty-making power ” Mayor of New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 736 [emphasis
added]
34. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all officers of the court are presumed to know the
law
“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn
officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law
excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are
deemed to know the law.” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398, and further,
35. United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges in Texas are impersonating a public
official, which is a felony
“(a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) impersonates a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his
pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts ; or
(2) knowingly purports to exercise any function of a public servant or of a public office,
including that of a judge and court , and the position or office through which he purports
to exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no lawful existence under
the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States .
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.” Texas Penal Code,
Section 37.11. IMPERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT, [emphasis added], and further,
NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE , the real question for the Court in this matter is whether they intend to be an
accomplice to the assault that has already taken place, because a lawsuit is coming, and since I
am being assaulted based on unconstitutional District of Columbia territorial statutes in Texas, it
will be in the federal court. If this so-called Court decides to be an accomplice to the assault,
without jurisdiction, then it will be a void judgment
“Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has
been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall
335,351.” Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948,

“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without
legal effect” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14
A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972). Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485
F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980)
“Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute
nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time
and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally
whenever and wherever it is interposed.” City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141
(Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).
“A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute
nullity” Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1951)
“Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time” In re Estate of
Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809,
(Ill. 1994)
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be
absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right,
of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to
any degree.” Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
“Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial
function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the
Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow
the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and The Judge’s orders are void, of
no legal force or effect”! Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757
(N.D. Ill. 1962)
and it will be brutum fulmen
“brutum fulmen”: “An empty noise; an empty threat. A judgment void upon its face
which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and by which no rights are divested, and from
which none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone. Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt
Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d 346, 348. Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum,
“Judgments” §§ 499, 512 546, 549. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
and the Clerk masquerading as a Judge will be an accomplice, with these City of Azle LEOs
code enforcers who are all Satanists (see Mark Passio’s Youtube channel – former Satanist
priest)
“ Ye are of your father the devil , and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him . When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it .” John 8:44
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers [pharmaceutical drug pushers], and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death.” Revelations 21:8
“… I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, [or Christians] and are not,
but are the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9
All charges, and demands, brought against Richard Travis; Martin, sui juris are void, false,
fraudulent and treasonous. Failure and/or refusal to bring forth such ‘proof of claim’ will place
you in dishonor under your satanic commercial codes, and thus constitute an admission of false
claims, damages and injury to Richard Travis; Martin, sui juris. I demand that you dismiss all
of these trumped up fictitious satanic charges with prejudice . Failure and/or refusal to bring
forth such “proof of jurisdiction “is acquiescence, agreement that the court and the prosecution,
et al has no jurisdiction and all charges are fraudulent and treasonous without objection. Silence
is Fraud.
“Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well
as from speaking an untruth.” Morrison v Acton, 198 P.2d 590, 68 Ariz. 27 (1948)
“Fraud” may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as
much as by speaking falsely.” Batty v Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Ariz.
239. (1941).
SUBMITTED BY DECLARATION
I have sealed this Declaration pursuant to locus sigilli
“locus sigilli – The place of the seal. Today this phrase is almost always abbreviated
“L.S.” ” Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1026.
Signed and sealed in red ink on the land of Texas, under penalties with perjury, [28 USC § 1746
(1)], under the laws of the United States of America, and without the United States.
I, Richard Travis; Martin , Sui Juris, a natural man of the republic, living in the republic, a
common man, does declare that I have scribed and read the foregoing facts, and in accordance
with the best of My firsthand knowledge, such are true, correct complete and not misleading, the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, pursuant to your Rule 201 of your rules of
evidence.
This Declaration is dated July ______, 2020 .