The inhabitants of any county shall within the boundaries of that county be and

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/40-...es/41a-24.html

Quote:

---

New Jersey Statutes - Title 40 Municipalities and Counties - 40:41A-24 Incorporation
The inhabitants of any county shall within the boundaries of that county be and remain a body corporate and politic, with perpetual succession

---

I was looking for the basis or fundamental law that gives authority to govern, cops seem to be always asking where do you reside. Look at the above cited section, it's the inhabitants that are the body politic (and corporate). The next section, tells you it's the registered voters who approve the direction of gov.

Quote:

---

New Jersey Statutes - Title 40 Municipalities and Counties - 40:41A-25 Government of county after adoption of optional plan
40:41A-25. Government of county after adoption of optional plan
Upon adoption by the registered voters of any county of any of the optional forms of government set forth in this act, the county shall thereafter be governed by the plan adopted, by the provisions of this law applicable to all optional plans, and by all general laws, subject to the transitional provisions in article 7 of this act.

---

I haven't come across anything that says U.S. citizens are the prerequisite people to the organizing of county government.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,31

Quote:

---

98 N.J. Super. 451 (1968)
237 A.2d 640
THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LLOYD W. McCORKLE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.
Decided January 5, 1968.

453
*453 Mr. Sanford Soren, County Solicitor, attorney for plaintiffs (Mr. Richard D. Ehrlich appearing).

Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of State of New Jersey, attorney for defendants (Mr. Eugene T. Urbaniak appearing).

MARTINO, A.J.S.C.

The parties to this litigation have agreed upon the facts and have filed with the court a stipulation of those facts.

454
*454 The basic legal questions deal with the application of certain New Jersey laws to inhabitants of Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base, two federal military bases located within the boundaries of Burlington County.

Two distinct factual patterns are involved. The first relates to children, born to inhabitants of the bases, who become dependent and require the care or guardianship of the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services. The second concerns base inhabitants who become mentally ill and require admission to a State Hospital for care and treatment.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against the defendants, while the latter counterclaim for a declaratory judgment against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend that L. 1938, c. 354, ceded jurisdiction to the United States over lands theretofore acquired by it for military purposes in Burlington County and concurrent jurisdiction was reserved by the State only for the execution of civil and criminal process. Additionally, N.J.S.A. 52:30-1 and 52:30-2, incorporating the provision of the general cession act of March 29, 1907 (L. 1907, c. 19) cede exclusive jurisdiction to any land acquired by the United States, for certain enumerated purposes, the State retaining concurrent jurisdiction only for the service of process in civil and criminal proceedings.

Plaintiffs further contend that these acts preclude a County Court from committing any inhabitant of the two federal bases to a state hospital and preclude the county adjuster from processing applications for such commitments.

Defendants, however, contend that N.J.S.A. 30:4-27 to 31 permit the county court to commit any person believed to be mentally ill to a state hospital, whether a resident or non-resident, and notwithstanding the person may be an inhabitant of one of the military bases; that said base residents are entitled to care in a state hospital, and that the county adjuster is not precluded by any law from processing such applications for their commitment.

455
*455 The United States of America has filed an amicus curiae brief with the court in which it joins with these defendants in contending that the inhabitants of the federal bases are entitled to the services involved.

Plaintiffs contend that the Federal Government has created the problems which exist with respect to the welfare of residents of federal enclaves, and by shunning its responsibilities the Federal Government seeks to place the burden upon the taxpayers of adjoining sovereignties.

Plaintiffs further contend that no federal legislation has been enacted to attend to the needs of children resident upon federal territory, and the only pertinent welfare legislation in effect is a provision of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 721) which requires the several states to participate in child welfare programs in order to receive benefits from the Federal Government. Plaintiffs feel that the absence of legislation does not mean that the Federal Government should be permitted to cast upon the states a portion of its responsibilities with respect to needy children and the mentally ill resident upon federal territory.

Plaintiffs make the further argument that because some states have accepted the authority to oversee the welfare of inhabitants of a federal enclave does not mean that the responsibility thereof rests with the states, and if the states failed to cooperate it is extremely likely that the Federal Government would then assume its responsibility by means of enactment of necessary legislation.

The New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services is the state agency required to provide care, custody, guardianship, maintenance and protection of children, and welfare services, or maintenance, or both, for dependent and neglected children under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1 et seq.

Whenever the Bureau receives an application on behalf of any child "within this State," pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11, setting forth that the child is of such circumstances that his welfare will be endangered unless proper care and custody is provided, it may, following verification of the facts of the
456
*456 application, accept and provide such care and custody as the circumstances of the child may require.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15, if, after the Bureau accepts a child into its care and custody, it appears that the best interest of the child requires that he be placed under guardianship, the Bureau may file a petition for guardianship with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the county "where such child may be at the time of filing of such petition." Upon completion of the hearing in such action, if the court is satisfied that the best interests of the child require that he be placed under guardianship, the court, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-20, shall make an order committing the child to the guardianship and control of the Bureau.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-30, the cost of maintenance provided for any child under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1 et seq. "shall be shared equally by the State and by that county where such child may be or may have been at the time of the filing of an application seeking care or custody, or at the time of the filing of a petition seeking guardianship," and payments from county funds for the county share shall be made monthly by the county treasurer to the Bureau on the basis of commitments for such county upon bills furnished by the Bureau.

While plaintiffs do not deny the existence of these statutes, they contend, however, that these provisions do not apply to children who live at Fort Dix or McGuire Air Force Base, the two military bases located in Burlington County. They contend that N.J.S.A. 52:30-2 or, in the alternative, L. 1938, c. 354, precludes the court from invoking its jurisdiction over any infants living at the military bases, and also supersedes N.J.S.A. 30:4C-30, with the result that Burlington County cannot be held liable for its share of the care and maintenance of such children.

The State of New Jersey receives federal monies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 726, to spend for research, training, or demonstration projects in the field of child welfare. The State also
457
*457 receives federal monies under 42 U.S.C.A., § 727, for day care services for children whose parents are absent from home or unable, for other reasons, to provide parental supervision. It should be noted that under 42 U.S.C.A., § 723(b) (2), the payments to a state for the above purposes will only be made if it shows it is extending child welfare services in the state with a view to making child welfare services available for "all children in need thereof."

---

Quote:

---

N.J.S.A. 52:30-2 provides:

"Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any lands so acquired by the United States is hereby ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service of process issued out of any of the Courts of this State in any civil or criminal proceeding."

By the special cession act of June 14, 1938 (L. 1938, c. 354) the State of New Jersey ceded to the United States of America lands in Burlington and Ocean Counties known as Camp Dix. The act reserved to the State concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said lands for the execution of civil and criminal process and exonerated said lands from all taxes, assessments and other charges levied or imposed under the authority of the State.

Pursuant to the general cession act of March 29, 1907 (L. 1907, c. 19, §§ 1 through 3) the United States of America acquired McGuire Air Force Base. See N.J.S.A. 52:30-1 et seq.

The central thrust of plaintiffs' argument is that the State of New Jersey, by ceding the above lands, ceded "exclusive jurisdiction" to the Federal Government in "all" matters and hence is without authority to administer welfare relief to residents of said military reservations.

Considering the counts of the complaint in reverse order, we must first look at N.J.S.A. 30:4-27, which provides in part:

"A person believed to be mentally ill may be admitted to and hospitalized in any mental hospital in this State in an action brought
458
*458 by a person interested in the admission of the patient by reason of relationship or marriage, * * *"

It is undisputed that in each instance alleged in the case at bar the application for commitment was made by a blood relative or a relative by marriage.

N.J.S.A. 30:4-31 provides:

"A non-resident of this State may be committed to a mental hospital in this State in the same manner as residents may be admitted and committed."

And N.J.S.A. 30:4-57 provides:

"If the patient shall be found to be mentally ill and to have no legal settlement in any county in this State, the Court may commit him to a mental hospital owned by the State."

A reading of the above statutes clearly indicates that insofar as the commitment of a mentally ill person is concerned, residence is of no significance. Certainly, any person living on a United States military base located within Burlington County is either a resident of New Jersey or a non-resident. In any event, he may be committed to a mental hospital under the above statutes. The wording of the statutes is plain and clear and their meaning obvious.

The New Jersey statutory scheme concerning mentally ill persons is consistent with cases in other jurisdictions which have held that the state's power over the mentally ill derives from the necessity of assisting and protecting such individuals and the community, and is, therefore, not confined to persons who are residents of the State.

In the case of Bliss v. Bliss, 133 Md. 61, 104 A. 467 (Ct. App. 1918), the court enunciated this policy:

"* * * the jurisdiction of courts of equity to issue writs de lunatico inquierendo is exercised for the protection of the community, and the protection of the person and property of the alleged lunatic, there is no reason why it should be confined to cases in which the unfortunate persons are residents of or have property in
459
*459 the state. It is their presence within the limits of the state that necessitates the exercise of the power to protect their persons and the community in which they may be placed * * *" (104 A., at p. 471)

Finally, it should be noted that New Jersey enacted the Interstate Compact on Mental Health in 1956. Pursuant to this act, N.J.S.A. 30:7B-1 et seq., an expeditious method is established for the treatment of the mentally ill and their interstate transfer. N.J.S.A. 30:7B-3 provides:

"(a) Whenever a person physically present in any party State shall be in need of institutionalization by reason of mental illness or mental deficiency, he shall be eligible for care and treatment in an institution in that State irrespective of his residence, settlement or citizenship qualifications." (Emphasis added.)

The tenor of the law as it exists in this State definitely illustrates that mentally ill and mentally deficient persons located in New Jersey shall receive necessary care and treatment regardless of their residence or citizenship.

The question which disturbs plaintiffs and which requires a determination is whether the cession of the land in question created "exclusive jurisdiction" within the federal enclave so as to preclude inhabitants therein from benefiting from state welfare legislation.

It should be noted that the United States Government is not raising the question of the invasion of its sovereignty. The Government by its amicus curiae brief denies the invasion.

Plaintiffs are enveloping themselves with the federal mantle and arguing that to pay the claimants the relief money would constitute an invasion of federal sovereignty. See Board of Com'rs of County of Arapahoe v. Donohoe, 144 Colo. 321, 356 P.2d 267 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 1960) where the court commented on a similar position taken by an appellant and held that a civilian resident of a federal enclave was entitled to be a recipient of relief benefits, and in referring to exclusive jurisdiction said:

460
*460 "`Exclusive legislative' jurisdiction does not operate as an absolute prohibition against state laws but has for its purpose protection of federal sovereignty, we conclude that it does not operate to prohibit the payment of relief to a resident of [a military enclave]. The conferring of a benefit required by federal law cannot be construed as an act which undermines the federal sovereignty. Indeed, by paying relief in these circumstances, the federal policy to recognize citizens of the United States is fostered and promoted."

It should be repeated at this point that plaintiffs admit that no federal legislation has been enacted to attend the needs of residents of federal enclaves who fit the category for which our state statutes have made provision, so that such persons would be without benefit of any law for their relief. A comparable situation arose in In Re Kernan, 247 App. Div. 664, 665, 288 N.Y.S. 329 (App. Div. 1936), affirmed 272 N.Y. 560, 4 N.E.2d 737 (Ct. App. 1936), where a mother sought custody of her daughter who was held by respondent father in a federal military enclave where he was an Army officer. The court pointed out that there was an absence of authority for a federal court to grant a writ of habeas corpus to determine the custody of the child and that it followed that since jurisdiction to grant relief rested in the first place in the courts of the ceding state (New York) within which the child whose custody was sought was found, it should remain there.

It appears to be settled law that the cession or purchase of territory does not create an absolute exclusive sovereignty within the federal enclave — as contradictory as the term may appear.

The modern view is that the term "exclusive" as used in U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17, relates to protection of the Federal Government against conflicting regulations. See Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617, 87 L.Ed. 748 (1943); Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628, 87 L.Ed. 761 (1943); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208, 82 L.Ed. 155 (1937).

461
*461 The fact that the United States acquires exclusive jurisdiction over property purchased with the consent of a state does not necessarily divest the state of all power with respect to it; on the contrary, so long as it in no way interferes with the jurisdiction asserted by the Federal Government, the state may continue to exercise its power. 91 C.J.S. United States § 7.

It seems that state laws passed for the public welfare should be applied to federal enclaves within the state, for the state is best fitted to know the requirements of its particular locality and to deal with them. Such measures, it appears, would not interfere with the function of the Federal Government. See 12 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 80, at p. 92.

The desirability of permitting the state to retain jurisdiction for local purposes involving no interference with performance of governmental duties is becoming more and more evident as the activities of the Federal Government expand; the United States should not be compelled to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all property it acquires. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the public policies of this State as expressed in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1, are illuminative. That statute declares the public policy of New Jersey to be:

"* * * * * * *

---

.............

Quote:

---

(d) that wherever in this State necessary welfare services are not available to children who are dependent or adjudged delinquent by proper judicial tribunal, or in danger of so becoming, then such services should be provided by this State until such time as they are made available by private and voluntary agencies." (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs also contend that under the doctrine of James Stewart and Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596 (1939), only those state laws which were in effect at the date of the cession continue in effect after the cession. More specifically, the contention is that the legislation regarding
462
*462 the Bureau of Children's Services (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1 et seq.) and the legislation regarding commitment of mentally ill persons (N.J.S.A. 30:4-23 et seq.) were enacted after the cession of land to the United States for McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix. That argument is unpersuasive. New Jersey has a history replete with examples showing a concern for neglected and dependent children as well as for mentally ill individuals. The concept of relief or welfare is not new in New Jersey. In 1899 the New Jersey Legislature created a State Board of Children's Guardians (L. 1899, c. 165), although other legislation concerning the welfare and safety of children had been enacted even before that. See L. 1879, c. 122; L. 1881, c. 196. The responsibility and authority of the Board was periodically enlarged, see L. 1902, c. 160, and L. 1910, c. 13, until 1951 when the Legislature created the "Bureau of Children's Services."

According to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-2 (L. 1951, c. 138, § 2) the Bureau of Children's Services:

"Means the State agency for the care, custody, guardianship, maintenance and protection of children * * * and succeeding the agency heretofore variously designated by the laws of this State as the State Board of Child Welfare or the State Board of Children's Guardians."

A 1962 amendment to the act, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-2.1, provided:

"Except as otherwise provided by this act, the Bureau of Children's Services shall in all respects and for all purposes be deemed a continuation of the agency heretofore known as the State Board of Children's Guardians * * *" (L. 1962, c. 197, § 39; emphasis added)

For a comprehensive analysis of the development of relief and welfare activity in New Jersey, see Leiby Charity and Correction in New Jersey (Rutgers Univ. Press 1967). Also see L. 1926, c. 51; L. 1928, c. 105; L. 1918, c. 147; L. 1919, c. 97.

463
*463 The same traditional concern was shown by the New Jersey State Legislature for the mentally ill. See L. 1901, c. 186; also L. 1906, c. 323, and L. 1918, c. 147, pp. 372-425.

For the reasons stated, the court finds no basis for the relief sought by plaintiffs and the complaint is dismissed. Judgment for the defendants on the counterclaim will be entered; no costs.

---

.............

Thank you for posting that. I am looking it over again and trying to discern what you are trying to get across? Perhaps you could restate the point of showing us the article, or collection of citations.

Quote:

---

Plaintiffs further contend that no federal legislation has been enacted to attend to the needs of children resident upon federal territory, and the only pertinent welfare legislation in effect is a provision of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 721) which requires the several states to participate in child welfare programs in order to receive benefits from the Federal Government. Plaintiffs feel that the absence of legislation does not mean that the Federal Government should be permitted to cast upon the states a portion of its responsibilities with respect to needy children and the mentally ill resident upon federal territory.

Plaintiffs make the further argument that because some states have accepted the authority to oversee the welfare of inhabitants of a federal enclave does not mean that the responsibility thereof rests with the states, and if the states failed to cooperate it is extremely likely that the Federal Government would then assume its responsibility by means of enactment of necessary legislation.

---

Meanwhile what you bring to mind is the Eleventh Amendment and how an Individual cannot sue the United States or a State, as a corporation. More like, like can only name like. An individual is in sin, and choosing sin means separate and separation is sin - and round and round we go into insanity...

Ergo I highlight mentally ill and upon the territorial claim at the same time. Distinctly separate from reality. In reality one is whole... in delusion one can imagine that debt has substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/40-...es/41a-24.html



I was looking for the basis or fundamental law that gives authority to govern, cops seem to be always asking where do you reside. Look at the above cited section, it's the inhabitants that are the body politic (and corporate). The next section, tells you it's the registered voters who approve the direction of gov.



I haven't come across anything that says U.S. citizens are the prerequisite people to the organizing of county government.

---

Counties are typically subdivisions of a state. A county or a state can have both exterior boundaries and interior boundaries. AFAIK counties, cities and villages are public. Public is the opposite of what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Meanwhile what you bring to mind is the Eleventh Amendment and how an Individual cannot sue the United States or a State, as a corporation. More like, like can only name like. An individual is in sin, and choosing sin means separate and separation is sin - and round and round we go into insanity...

Ergo I highlight mentally ill and upon the territorial claim at the same time. Distinctly separate from reality. In reality one is whole... in delusion one can imagine that debt has substance.

---

David, when I was last arrested the cops kept asking me where did I live, where did I reside? To me it was obvious, I live in my body, but I have a residence in NYC and place of abode in NJ. But choosing to not say anything that could be used against me, I chose to remain silent.

In court, the hearing officer kept asking me what was the zip code for the place where I live? Color me confused, I told him I didn't understand what he meant. He sent me to county jail to be examined by the psychiatrist. At county jail, I asked the psychiatrist if he worked for the state, he said yes. Then I said, I respectfully choose to stay silent.

The point is that there is a clear puzzle as to how they have structure this system that I have not been able to figure out completely.

I believe in God, I believe in the Scriptures, but I am having a tremendous struggle with my pride and ego. I have walked away from all my wealth, and yes, I have experienced a tremendous sense of Liberty and Freedom. Yet, here I am asking the Lord to please guide me to the next step according to His will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Counties are typically subdivisions of a state. A county or a state can have both exterior boundaries and interior boundaries. AFAIK counties, cities and villages are public. Public is the opposite of what?

---

Private? Yes?

Your trust is well placed. I carry the Redeemed Lawful Money stamp and it is usually adequate for my signature all alone. In my mind this is a removal (redemption) from the district in which the Fourteenth Amendment US citizen is presumed to reside:

Attachment 4080

Attachment 4081

Attachment 4082

Attachment 4083

Attachment 4084

P.S. That does not mean that in the "court's" mind it is so.

I once heard a suitor plead guilty - just to get back into the system. The judge ruled so but suspended all sentencing so he could get licensed up. The prosecutor R4C'd the ruling apparently and will not dismiss the charges...

Some times these lessons take a while to become obvious, what the lesson really is. And I can only say I have arrived because of how many times I have arrived already.

My advice about gathering certified copies of the actor's oaths is also on the presumption you have the Register of Action. Go to a room in the courthouse called RECORDS and have the clerk show you the entire case file. There should be a document, maybe Summary of Actions or Docket. Get a certified copy of that. Do both of these things in the same outing, gathering oaths and the Register of Action because you may tip off the DA and scared people are unpredictable; as you already know.

What I am encouraging is that you build the record on testimony from the source clerks responsible for providing it. You can then enter a Criminal Complaint in the federal courthouse for $46.

Attachment 4086


Not much has become of these, but they do seem to stop further activity. So I suggest that you sign it in front of a notary, open the Miscellaneous Case file with the original and the Commission Certificate original too. Get the Commission Certificate from the Secretary of State too. This way, even if the notary strikes through "Judge", you have a fully verified signature and it causes contortions so to avoid cognizance, so I believe your right to citizen's arrest kicks in when you have a fully verified signature.

Decide what the charges are only after you get the first errand done. If there are bogus oaths (likely so) then you can sue the "judge" individually. Keep in mind that attorneys will understand this posted approach much better than you or I do. So remember that forgiveness is the only safe way off the battlefield.

That part (I get it) about you have lost everything. That is the song of the misguided patriot nutjob. Radical responsibility, only yourself to blame, and then readily forgive yourself because if you cannot love yourself you cannot love your neighbor or God. That guilt and fear God is angry - start treating THAT as sin, and go back to your Bible reading; it will make much more sense.

David, thank you for posting your observations!

Just want to say, I did not lose everything. I chose to give up my wealth when I discovered that my family were being hostile to each other because of it. I gave it all away to them willingly and with full faith that the Lord would give me even if I was completely destitute. This is the thing, I can become wealthy again easily if I were to choose it if I walk back into the system, can't do that though, my conscience tells there is another way, the Right way. Which is the way I choose to follow, if I am to die broke, so be it. However, my desire is to love my neighbor as I love myself, and my unconditional love for the Lord.

Yes, I am struggling, and every single day I ask for guidance and the proper way for me to help myself and help my neighbor according to His will.

You know, I am no longer angry, I pray for those that persecute me and those like me for our faith because they don't understand that there is tremendous joy and happiness beyond material wealth, clearly they see that as mental illness.

Now, don't get me wrong, material wealth is essential to accomplish may useful things. Wealth is a tool, for which you must choose its purpose, i.e., to aid or to harm others.

Thank you for your perspective and correction into reading the Bible, I welcome it gladly and with joy into my heart.

I am also working into implementing your suggestions. Again, I can't say thank you enough, wish you could bear my heart's gratitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

David, thank you for posting your observations!

Just want to say, I did not lose everything. I chose to give up my wealth when I discovered that my family were being hostile to each other because of it. I gave it all away to them willingly and with full faith that the Lord would give me even if I was completely destitute. This is the thing, I can become wealthy again easily if I were to choose it if I walk back into the system, can't do that though, my conscience tells there is another way, the Right way. Which is the way I choose to follow, if I am to die broke, so be it. However, my desire is to love my neighbor as I love myself, and my unconditional love for the Lord.

Yes, I am struggling, and every single day I ask for guidance and the proper way for me to help myself and help my neighbor according to His will.

You know, I am no longer angry, I pray for those that persecute me and those like me for our faith because they don't understand that there is tremendous joy and happiness beyond material wealth, clearly they see that as mental illness.

Now, don't get me wrong, material wealth is essential to accomplish may useful things. Wealth is a tool, for which you must choose its purpose, i.e., to aid or to harm others.

Thank you for your perspective and correction into reading the Bible, I welcome it gladly and with joy into my heart.

I am also working into implementing your suggestions. Again, I can't say thank you enough, wish you could bear my heart's gratitude.

---

I have helped hundreds of people setting up evidence repository in the federal courthouse. PM when you think you have a handle on some source testimony. Even if you do not want restitution, we can prevent this sort of abuse in the future.

Quote:

---

The other night I was headed home on a motorway in Colorado in a car with one headlight, no left turn signal and was caught speeding 70 mph in a 50. The emergency lights flashed and they "officer" came up and I handed the docs and he said that he would just give me a warning for the headlight. He left to his car and returned in less than 5 minutes and handed me a warning and said have a good night. He never mentioned a warning for the speeding, which usually raises the most cash. This type of occurrence has come up several times and they waived prosecution for a reason, not quite sure as what it is. But if I had to guess it would be the challenge of the LOR along with the other claims made. There has to be something as I have not even received a ticket for numerous instances. To further state that the local Courts just want me gone and have bent over to see me off with the least amount of further damage. It is simply bizarre as others familiar with the legal ideas I presented with the help of others, some of them e-mail on this "club". So then officials speak with me they get confused as to what is going on as the system just backed down.

Thanks again ----- ----- and David Merrill.

---

That suitor was headed for jail in two counties and that was compounded by probation violations... messy!


Once you walk in the Redemption that you have been reading about in the Bible, you will watch the LORD work in your life daily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

Private? Yes?

---

Exactly. AFAIK, if John Quincy lives on private land but says that he lives in the county, in "the city" (Metro?), in the State of XXX or in the United States such would be a lie--false witness against oneself is no good IMHO. Consider the word 'resident'. Someone getting out of medical school goes through so many years of residency until they get to the point that they belong there. If an immigrant goes through residency before citizenship then why are people equating citizenship and residency? I mean .... seriously.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...3&d=1465488876

Quote:

---

And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth -- from whom do they receive custom or poll-tax? from their sons or from the strangers?' Peter saith to him, 'From the strangers.' Jesus said to him, 'Then are the sons free; Matthew 17:25-26 (YLT)

---

Quote:

---

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Matthew 17:25-26 (KJV)

---

Quote:

---

He said, "Yes." When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their children, or from strangers?" Peter said to him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Therefore the children are exempt. Matthew 17:25-26 (Word English Bible)

---

Might proof of residency be evidence of oath of office for the resident?

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...0&d=1465488760

Note the wording of the definition. The Englishman is not a resident of England but instead with respect to a polity that is alien, though subordinate, to England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Once you walk in the Redemption that you have been reading about in the Bible, you will watch the LORD work in your life daily.

---

Amen.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in flesh I live in faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave up Himself for me.

Gal 2:21 I do not render useless the grace of God: for if righteousness come through law, then Christ died uselessly [for nothing].


He who surrenders to the Administration of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ - lives under the Shadow [Direction] of the Almighty. Juxtapose that against living according to ego [man's Own]. Just take that Own up the mountain and be willing to put a knife to its throat - enter a substitute - for the lesser cannot redeem the greater.

For by the graces and mercy of the Lord is the creature transformed and resurrected in mind, spirit and body. But it is the work of God in the ONE LIFE. For if we beg that our life is apart from God then we are poly-theist. Being monotheist begs ONE LIFE.

Exactly why the images are saved to disk Allodial.

Now here is the home rule. - Consider when the home rule city gets so large that it covers the entire county. Now you have a municipal jurisdiction instead of a state jurisdiction. I have touched on this over the years but believe you have set me up so that a reader might actually get it.

LEVI - I Chronicles 6 - and now Hebron/NY Moscow/Tel Aviv etc. are all the same jurisdiction. This is how my "perpetual inheritance" through the 1629 Charter can actually manifest within that law boundary, and be proven out by precedent waiver of tort by NY CITY CODE. In lieu of proper bonding a bill becomes a true indictment. - A true bill against any official with a bogus oath who causes harm to the Lord's own.


P.S. Ask the rabbi;

If two men are floating past in the river, and you can save only one:

One is named Levi, and the other Melchizedek - which one do you save?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Amen.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in flesh I live in faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave up Himself for me.

Gal 2:21 I do not render useless the grace of God: for if righteousness come through law, then Christ died uselessly [for nothing].


He who surrenders to the Administration of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ - lives under the Shadow [Direction] of the Almighty. Juxtapose that against living according to ego [man's Own]. Just take that Own up the mountain and be willing to put a knife to its throat - enter a substitute - for the lesser cannot redeem the greater.

For by the graces and mercy of the Lord is the creature transformed and resurrected in mind, spirit and body. But it is the work of God in the ONE LIFE. For if we beg that our life is apart from God then we are poly-theist. Being monotheist begs ONE LIFE.

---

You are RIGHT ON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You are RIGHT ON!

---

DaViD - Beloved
MaR-eL - God is my Teacher.

MiCHa-eL - Who is like God.
JoSePH - He gives the Increase.

Destiny

Hmm, gives perspective into the saying: "You have to know who you are."

No wonder, they use one's own ignorance to get one's confession into their municipal jurisdiction. Lol, who are they to tell you who you are, when one's is telling them who one is. Very slick and cagey on their part. I wonder if the low level workers know this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

Hmm, gives perspective into the saying: "You have to know who you are."

No wonder, they use one's own ignorance to get one's confession into their municipal jurisdiction. Lol, who are they to tell you who you are, when one's is telling them who one is. Very slick and cagey on their part. I wonder if the low level workers know this?

---

This is where it always ends up for me and my filters. God is Love because the Holy Spirit will always deliver the correct interpretation out of the infinite ocean of information delivered in allegorical metaphor.

VAN - ben/son of
PELT - palt Patron = Patroon

Son of the Patroon.

The survey (Charter of 1629) is cited on the Bill of Exchange calling for world wide redemption (forgiveness of debt). That original was delivered to the Chairman of the NY Stock Exchange which in turn was shut down for three days (Bankers' Holiday) due to the Trading with the Enemy Act, now "Omitted" from the Cornell Law (trusted) website.

It may take an hour or two of your time but toward the end of the document you might start grasping how the Court of International Trade is in Levite supervision and why the Levite priestcraft is having trouble with publishing my Claim on Jubilee on PACER.

The assistant (customer service) is not responding at all to my inquiries. It seems to me that if the clerk had rejected it and mailed it back, everybody would be quite eager to let me know so maybe to avoid publications by chat room like:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...before-the-CIT

Attachment 4096




Attachment 4097

David, impressive file, over 37MB.

You know, it seems to me that you need an executive summary to get the point across efficiently, mainly this- For a judge to become a judge and render judgement, he must have sworn and executed a proper oath. Else, he is no judge, simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

David, impressive file, over 37MB.

You know, it seems to me that you need an executive summary to get the point across efficiently, mainly this- For a judge to become a judge and render judgement, he must have sworn and executed a proper oath. Else, he is no judge, simple as that.

---

Yes. Thank you.

That is coming up soon. I am waiting for publication and that is being somehow thwarted. I presume people are reading here who are behind the thwart. By making the document available anyway, I feel that I am not being thwarted but you should realize that big as it is, it really should not pass rules of evidence in your court, beyond that you trust me. Check out my new thread, for some convincing photos.

I like to have clerk markings from PACER on Docs before I start showing them around. So I am not going to show what is coming until and unless it aids in the publication process, if needed. Like Gold is Money too.

In other words that is what I am up to. Telling people and many will believe me, even though it does not qualify as testimony. Here is the sticker that came back from the US Supreme Court clerk:

Attachment 4098

David,

It occurs to me: If they had indeed inadvertently not followed the prescribed form, how would they go about correcting the error?


Think about all the affected parties, certainly the law must provided for instances of inadvertent error, no?

P.S. Clearly it would cease to be inadvertent once you had provided notice, then their actions would become deliberate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

David,

It occurs to me: If they had indeed inadvertently not followed the prescribed form, how would they go about correcting the error?


Think about all the affected parties, certainly the law must provided for instances of inadvertent error, no?

P.S. Clearly it would cease to be inadvertent once you had provided notice, then their actions would become deliberate.

---

You might just be on to something. There are those who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with original jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...8&d=1465581570

---

Interesting how they endorse the document/bill on the back like a check rather than the typical front-page stamp. So why was 1935 the year that the U.S. Supreme Court Police became trustee over the U.S. Supreme Court? Any relation to 1933?

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court...

---

This is why I want members here and other readers to take some time and read it. Enjoy it.

We are only looking at a few pioneers at this point, in the CIT. But the NOTICE and CLAIM to the US Supreme Court, comprising the last half of the document describes the criminal syndicalism as throughout the state district, most of Colorado and including collusion of all the federal judges too. Then we get into the trial court where the basic response by counterclaim was completely ignored and see I was spending a great deal of time and trouble seeking any qualified judges at all; alerting the Secretary of State, Attorneys General and the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

The solution is right there in both THEREFORE conclusions. The Secretary of State i thes to monitor the oaths so that they conform to law.

So I feel for you.

You see that this is extremely interesting but you just do not have the time to paw through it for the findings of fact I am presenting. Do I have to pay you $400 too - so that you will be obliged to read it? I say in the main thread - opening post:

Quote:

---

I sincerely hope you will find at least an hour of your time to enjoy reading it.

---

I am trying to be polite. So Click Here and spend some time. This truly is a fascinating aspect of this immanent Jubilee!

I just peppered the entire staff at the CIT to tell me please what is happening before the weekend so I do not have to wonder. Twenty minutes until they close in NY at 5:00. If they do not get back I will likely be publishing this myself - here, Gold is Money and beyond.

Keep in mind that there is a religious interest (Christianity) in correcting oaths of office back so that the "ever-living God" is again included as a witness.

To answer your question however. Notice two of the Actors have filed and published bogus oaths of office mid-term! There is no need to refile an oath during the term legally. They are culpable as attorneys knowing what they are doing for dodging bond requirements, together in conspiracy.

David, I am not being dismissive, I have already downloaded the file and read some of it.

You have to know this, the average man does not have the immediate ability you have develop to comprehend and wield the law and procedure that you are carrying out now.

Most of us are at baby steps, the obvious to you has not yet become so to us. So, I ask your patience and indulgence as you forge ahead.

Just as a side comment, witness Peter Eric Hendrickson author of Cracking the Code, he would gather so much more support to his cause if he was able to tone down his intellectualism and tried to communicate to the struggling people.

Many a guru wants to live large and make lots of money from sharing his knowledge, look at Karl Lentz he claims that he knows how to carry a common law court to prosecute his an action, yet fails to gather enough supporters because they cannot even comprehend the very simple maxims of the Common Law.

This is a marathon not a dash, the creators of the system have been laboring for it for thousands of years, it's only with the advent of the Internet that the mass of people have finally able to easily access this knowledge.

I could have left it:

Quote:

---

To answer your question however. Notice two of the Actors have filed and published bogus oaths of office mid-term! There is no need to refile an oath during the term legally. They are culpable as attorneys knowing what they are doing for dodging bond requirements, together in conspiracy.

---

I usually don't take the time to reread anything myself. So the week-long delay filing and publishing may be a blessing. Yesterday morning I decided to pick up my copy and carefully read through it, imagining what a clerk of court would think of it. And as I finished up an hour later I thought, "This is amazing! I wrote that? Wow!"

I mean what an interesting journey I have been led to live!

So please take some time to enjoy it.

I figure snarcasm is the opposite of orgasm, so please accept my apologies for getting bossy. I have dedicated a good part of my career to writing out this journey so that any attorney can easily get it. All I heard was, "If you just shorten the whole thing down to a few sentences, people will listen."

I am just putting it out there because the Clerk of Court malfeasance. So please understand this is written to hold all the components of a formal accusation of criminal syndicalism, to be understood by trained attorneys who will probably see this as a major overhaul of the Federal Reserve system - and hopefully this immanent run will prove them right.


Listen to MJ; learn about Jubilee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I could have left it:



I usually don't take the time to reread anything myself. So the week-long delay filing and publishing may be a blessing. Yesterday morning I decided to pick up my copy and carefully read through it, imagining what a clerk of court would think of it. And as I finished up an hour later I thought, "This is amazing! I wrote that? Wow!"

I mean what an interesting journey I have been led to live!

So please take some time to enjoy it.

I figure snarcasm is the opposite of orgasm, so please accept my apologies for getting bossy. I have dedicated a good part of my career to writing out this journey so that any attorney can easily get it. All I heard was, "If you just shorten the whole thing down to a few sentences, people will listen."

I am just putting it out there because the Clerk of Court malfeasance. So please understand this is written to hold all the components of a formal accusation of criminal syndicalism, to be understood by trained attorneys who will probably see this as a major overhaul of the Federal Reserve system - and hopefully this immanent run will prove them right.


Listen to MJ; learn about Jubilee.

---

For those interested in learning about Jubilee - they can listen to the last six or seven calls found at the following link: Download the calls and share them with others. It appears to me that the business plan has been telling their folks for years that the law has been done away with and in doing so they have removed the birthright from the people. It is a shame that many have bought into this deception. But if one will study carefully one will notice that St. Paul not only knew Roman Law, but also Greek Law and Hebrew Law. These are never done away with and it is a fact that no priest will have standing before God that does not know the law!

I warn you that I get a bit passionate at times, as does gary-ray, as I feel the time for "gentle talk" or as Jimmy H. used to say "let us stop talking falsely now the hour is getting late" is over. So I apologize in advance if some of you have tender ears.

Link: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=83169&cmd=tc

Shabbat Shalom,
MJ