Filing SUIT Against State in Article 3 Court--Need Advice

[shibumi2]

I lost my driving license for a year under very bogus circumstances.

Without going into great detail, I am looking for a starting point for grounds to file in USDC. My plan is to argue under constitutional right to free travel. Would there be better grounds.

I am now reading the threads on making a record in USDC but have no background

[David Merrill]

That is a great start! Become adept at Record-Forming. If you want to try asserting case law then you better be a court of competent jurisdiction by being a court of record yourself.

I encourage you to share your record with us here as you go.

Shibumi! I liked that book. Welcome!

[shikamaru]

I lost my driving license for a year under very bogus circumstances.

Without going into great detail, I am looking for a starting point for grounds to file in USDC. My plan is to argue under constitutional right to free travel. Would there be better grounds.

I am now reading the threads on making a record in USDC but have no background

I would add to your studies the Supreme Court case Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Association (1936), more specifically the Ashwander rule.

If one wishes to raise a constitutional issue, it would be wise not to avail one's self of statutory benefits in accordance with the avoidance doctrine established by Justice Brandeis in the aforementioned case.

According to George Gordon, the State (government) has an interest in your vehicle granted by way of the certificate of title. One may wish to possess the complete and full interest of their vehicle in their right to travel journey.

The certificate of title is a service. There are many, many links with commerce surrounding vehicles, certificates, insurances, and licensing.


For others:

A license is not a contract (which attorneys are quick to yelp about), but the never say exactly what a license is.
A license is a servitude. This is a very important point.

This being the case when did government acquire the power to impose this kind of servitude on citizens?
Perhaps a tie in with the Reconstruction Acts could lend us some clues?

Alfred Adask has an interesting theory on administrative courts being bills of attainder. Administrative courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by unifying the powers of all three branches into one entity.

Rod Class has interesting theories concerning administrative courts and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.

Lee Brobst also had interesting material concerning administrative courts and the Constitution as well.

There are also links involving federal codes and statutes involving transportation, traffic legislation of the States and federal funding in addition to regulations from both State and Federal.

[shikamaru]

Administrative Procedures Act

Basic purposes

Agencies are unique governmental bodies, capable of exercising powers characteristic of all three branches of the United States federal government: judicial, legislative and executive. An individual agency typically will possess only the power of the branch that set it up, or possibly powers characteristic of two branches, but the Separation of Powers doctrine dictates that all three powers should not be vested in one body. As recognized by President Roosevelt and others, the creation and function of federal agencies can cause separation of powers issues under the United States Constitution. To provide constitutional safeguards, the APA creates a framework for regulating agencies and their unique role. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), drafted after the 1946 enactment of the APA, the basic purposes of the APA are: (1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules; (2) to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process; (3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication; (4) to define the scope of judicial review.[6]

Bill of attainder.

Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflect punishment on them without a judicial trial.

....

An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" when the punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.]

Perhaps administrative courts are bills of pains and penalties?

Now, I am theorizing that these agencies may be commercial rather than governmental which may be how they are circumventing the separation of powers doctrine.

You may be able to go the Rod Class route and get your way simply by holding their feet to the fire of what the rules currently are and what the statutes, acts, codes, and regulations currently state.

[shikamaru]

I apologize in advance if the submitter feels I am derailing your thread.
If you feel this way, I can create a new thread moving the material thereto.

Rod Class asserts that the judicial power has been removed from federal courts per the 11th Amendment.

The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

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.

I have heard this mentioned before in allusion by "the Informer".

If this is the case, would this not make the federal courts merely administrative save District Courts?
District Courts handle suits in admiralty/maritime.

Thoughts?

[David Merrill]

I would add to your studies the Supreme Court case Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Association (1936), more specifically the Ashwander rule.

If one wishes to raise a constitutional issue, it would be wise not to avail one's self of statutory benefits in accordance with the avoidance doctrine established by Justice Brandeis in the aforementioned case.


Alfred Adask has an interesting theory on administrative courts being bills of attainder. Administrative courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by unifying the powers of all three branches into one entity.

You have many points there and I a focusing on these two.

I apologize in advance if the submitter feels I am derailing your thread.
If you feel this way, I can create a new thread moving the material thereto.

Rod Class asserts that the judicial power has been removed from federal courts per the 11th Amendment.

The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:



I have heard this mentioned before in allusion by "the Informer".

If this is the case, would this not make the federal courts merely administrative save District Courts?
District Courts handle suits in admiralty/maritime.

Thoughts?

This is the articulation of the Libel of Review.

Sign the driver license simply - First Middle. When you hand it to the officer specify that you are only using it to evidence compentency. - Not for identification purposes. He will execute a fatal error; misnomer. Now you cannot be arraigned from where you are, with a right to judiciary, into the administrative admiralty. The only justification for administrative government to exist is that it does so under judicial oversight. Look for that in AmJur 2d - Administrative Law.

Retain your right to judiciary by not allowing that signed contract to drag you into Ashwander Doctrine. If you endorse private credit from the Fed, you almost certainly have (own) a SSN that is a taxation contract that will function through that driver license card - so non-endorse private credit; redeem lawful money. Keep all that in your evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government with the Libel of Review.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

The only justification for administrative government to exist is that it does so under judicial oversight. Look for that in AmJur 2d - Administrative Law.

Another piece of the puzzle !! Thanks .

[Trust Guy]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640594/5-02pm-6-23-11-New-Dismissal-Template

[David Merrill]

The connections I make start with the case cited in the Article in my first Fed video. The Supremes think that SSI is a taxation system like the Income Tax.

Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

Now connect that up with the fact, that I have shown here - that you can get a valid drivers license in your hand, without a SSN. Now you will find (hopefully) that the driver license integrates your personal TIN as evidence to the Revenue Officer stopping you. However, if you have no SSN, then it is much easier to abate the cause for misnomer, provided you sign it correctly with your true name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Trust Guy]

Good points David . One may also claim “mistake” in securing the documents in the first place , correct the record and exercise the power of rescission .

Grace in the Law .

[AllanNR]

Rod and the AIB Team also make an interesting assessment regarding the whole “Drivers License” business .

In a nutshell . States signed onto the National Highway Safety Act . The Act provides revenue sourcing and that 40% of revenues collected are to go back to the State’s political subdivisions . A stipulation of the revenue arrangement is the local subdivisions are to adhere to federal guidelines in all highway safety related issues .

Only two classifications of “Driver’s License” needed to travel on Safety Act “funded” roadways . A CDL for commercial transport and a DL for those driving / delivering “migrant workers “ . ( Agriculture Codes come into play )

This is all administered under the Dept. of Transportation and ONLY the Office of the ( Director ? ) of the issuing State DOT has authority to pull a required License .

I’ll see what I can find in relation to this and post later .

11th Amendment and Foreign State Status logic can be found in this latest Dismissal Template .

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640594/5...issal-Template

was looking at the document and was wondering if "unjustice division" is a place holder or literal.

[Guest]

I would add to your studies the Supreme Court case Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Association (1936), more specifically the Ashwander rule.

If one wishes to raise a constitutional issue, it would be wise not to avail one's self of statutory benefits in accordance with the avoidance doctrine established by Justice Brandeis in the aforementioned case.

According to George Gordon, the State (government) has an interest in your vehicle granted by way of the certificate of title. One may wish to possess the complete and full interest of their vehicle in their right to travel journey.

The certificate of title is a service. There are many, many links with commerce surrounding vehicles, certificates, insurances, and licensing.


For others:

A license is not a contract (which attorneys are quick to yelp about), but the never say exactly what a license is.
A license is a servitude. This is a very important point.

This being the case when did government acquire the power to impose this kind of servitude on citizens?
Perhaps a tie in with the Reconstruction Acts could lend us some clues?

Alfred Adask has an interesting theory on administrative courts being bills of attainder. Administrative courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by unifying the powers of all three branches into one entity.

Rod Class has interesting theories concerning administrative courts and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.

Lee Brobst also had interesting material concerning administrative courts and the Constitution as well.

There are also links involving federal codes and statutes involving transportation, traffic legislation of the States and federal funding in addition to regulations from both State and Federal.

What of that Senate Report (can't find it right now, and have to go soon) where it's decreed that all property belongs to the State and "individual ownership" is reduced to "mere use". As far as Congress is concerned, anything within the United States is owned by the United States, including our cars?

[shikamaru]

What of that Senate Report (can't find it right now, and have to go soon) where it's decreed that all property belongs to the State and "individual ownership" is reduced to "mere use". As far as Congress is concerned, anything within the United States is owned by the United States, including our cars?

Good point and I do remember that.

I'd make sure personal property that is jus privati is without the United States and "this State" for that matter .

If personal property is "mere use", I'd start leaning heavy on all these trustees and fiduciaries to stand up and be counted !!

This is where you could have a lot of fun with all the trust law that has been passed from England to today.

Anyone claiming to be trustee or administrator within an office of trust, prove it.
No operation by assumpsit . Only lawful claims are acceptable.

An officer tenuring office lawfully does so by oath and bond.
An officer tenuring an office by oath (or lack thereof) and insurance policy sounds like a corporate officer to me.

Licensed and bonded?
Licensed and insured?

Office of trust or office of profit?

[KnowLaw]

No Article III courts in America

Although this is an old thread, its subject matter is of vital importance for anyone who is contemplating starting a legal action in any court in America. If you don't know what you are going up against, you will lose as soon as you step foot into its jurisdiction.

Rod Class asserts that the judicial power has been removed from federal courts per the 11th Amendment.

The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

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.

I have heard this mentioned before in allusion by "the Informer".

If this is the case, would this not make the federal courts merely administrative save District Courts?
District Courts handle suits in admiralty/maritime.

Thoughts?

That's an interesting find by Rod Class. Another piece of the puzzle that fits in with much of the material I've been pouring over lately.

What is as interesting (if not more so) is some of the work that Dr. Edwardo M. Rivera has done on these matters (which confirms both "the Informer's" and Rod Class' position) and what he has found and been able to verify. His paper Why There Is No Justice in America, The Congressional Judicial Hoax, A California Case Study will help to put some of the pieces of the puzzle together to explain why there are no judicial courts in America, and that there never have been! This first quote from page 4 gives a bit of historical context to how this circumstance came about.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created a court system of district courts for the lands it was to dispose of and manage under Article IV. District court judges were required to be residents of the district for which they were appointed. There was no provision for a judicial appointment for life during good behaviour, so it was just assumed that that courts and judges were of the third branch of government. To support the false belief that district court were judicial officers appointed for life, Congress impeached District Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire in 1804. The impeachment was pure show as Congress would not enact lifetime appointments for district courts judges until 1948 and the first quasi Article III district court in a state would not be established until 1959 when Hawaii was admitted into the Union. Because of a dearth of early cases and other skillful legislative moves, Congress has managed to keep their origins and limitations secret till now. What Judge Napolitano and others perceive to be Constitutional chaos is congressional conniving sustained by a judicial conspiracy to hide the true nature of the federal courts and federal laws.

For even more detail on Dr. Rivera's findings, starting at page 36 of the following Freedom School study guide PDF, read his 9 page letter titled "Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts." This study guide (which is well worth a careful reading in itself) can be downloaded in PDF form from the following website: Freedom-school.com/study-links.html. The study guide is the very first item on the list. The website itself contains a wealth of good information, and is well worth anyone's time to check out.

The big blow comes in the following paragraph in the letter:

The federal courts known as United States District Courts are federal and territorial in that these courts implement administrative law on territory exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States. These courts are being used primarily to prevent the rendition of law and equity in national courts by masquerading as Article III courts. These courts are incapable of achieving justice because they are not Article III courts.

The present intent of the federal government is to subject you to its administration. . . .

Americans do not want to be in a court that denies them their freedom; however, for more than 200 years Americans have been subjected to administrative law in courts they believed were dispensing the judicial power of the United States.

Ed warns his reader that: "You must first assure yourself that [the] opinion I provide in this letter is absolutely correct before you confront any federal judge." He states that even many of the judges themselves, in the past and in the present, aren't aware that they are not Article III judges. A statement that can be found to be rather appalling, to say the least. But I'm pretty sure he is correct in his assessment based on my own due diligence of this issue and from personal contact with the court system.

The good news is that this doesn't mean that we do not have access to the common law, as we most assuredly do. It just means that we have to know and understand the law first and how it works before we can gain remedy. As David has been teaching, remedy is there; you just have to know how to get it out of the administrative court system.

[David Merrill]

There are hundreds of Libels of Review already filed on that presumption. When the "judge" is assigned at filing the new suitor inquires, Is this an Article III judge? The clerk of court answers, Yes it is.

Either the clerk is lying or ignorant/incompetent.

However the clerk is competent to keep an accurate record. So you now have the "exclusive original competence" of the United States government through your $350 evidence repository.

[Sometimes I wonder though, because of how often the clerk of court forgets to use the adhesive and only tapes up the flap on mailing envelopes. This is against postal regulations and renders the material worthless if you are competent and apply Rules of Evidence in your kitchen table court. How do you know what you are reading is what the clerk of court sent?]

The problem with RIVERA and CLASS for that matter is they are busy describing how you do not have anything going for you in the federal court because of the incompetency there. Rather than how to become the court of competent jurisdiction by record-forming. When you become the only court of record you carry that authority.

Here a court of competent jurisdiction Ordered the clerk of the local court to reinstate his driver license. Notice the role of the federal evidence repository.


Regards,

David Merrill.