Originally Posted by
Cheryl Marie
Regarding also Gavilan's post about bringing to light their corruption, I offer this interjection about the Endgame --
I know you, DM, place great reliance on the form of oath that judges take. While the oath bonds their operation of the office and their immunity, I find that it’s irrelevant to our (redeemed people) access to justice whether their published oath shows IN GOD WE TRUST or In God We Trust or that a proper witness validated it, in relation to the judge’s function with respect to the individual municipal cestui que vie trusts (designated FIRST MIDDLE LAST). We have relief. All actions are begun in commerce, on the presumption that all parties to it transact their energy in commerce. The individual CQV trusts were established by central bankers as the vessel / account for the American people to move their energy in global commerce. The 14th Amendment to the original U.S. Constitution (with Bill of Rights) was utilized by the bankers (who funded the post Civil War government’s operation – to benefit them) as the source of authority to establish those trusts, because people can choose to operate as a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States, or choose to not do so by not energizing the private currency of the bankers; to energize that currency renders one “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as a citizen.
The Congress, via the Fed Act, provides for the two separate societal capacities of the people. That contract entered into with foreign bankers (or banking cartel), for the benefit of the American people, means the people are the intended third-party beneficiaries. People themselves bond their energy as to their own societal standing. Judges who take an oath ending in IN GOD WE TRUST properly indicate they are bonded in commerce to act on those individual CQVT trusts to write orders, but they must also recognize the peoples’ / parties’ underlying capacity to bond such orders. The Congress has preserved the redeemed people’s temporary pass-through use of such trust vessel to simply impart truth about a matter to an official, but we do not move from within such vessel. Only attorneys operate a commerce-based vessel, as do people who act as their own attorney to move public-estate interests.
All judges are attorneys, being members of the Bar Association given a license to utilize the UCC. Judges try to obtain all the parties’ consent that they DO operate commerce. So one’s initial act is critically important. Upon first-instance knowledge about some proclaimed obligation that does not apply to us, we redeemed people must seek that person’s authority relied on and we must also provide that person with knowledge of our sole authority over our interests by invoking “the supreme Law of the Land” (the Decl of Indep through the U.S. Const that incorporates all of the Bill of Rights) and the Fed Act that secures our non-commercialized societal capacity as the operators of the republican form of government under the Laws of Nature’s God.
It seems to me that judges who publish an oath ending in In God We Trust are without bonding to issue judgment and order Instruments in commerce, unless it’s the litigants themselves who bond the judge’s power, which would occur most of the time.
The reviewing power of a judge’s J&O Instrument wrongly issued resides in the United States Attorney General, especially since the Bankers’ CODE no longer includes reliance on the TWEA. The ‘war’ has actually always been only on peoples’ minds. Pres Trump is with intent to boot judges who evidence misconduct in office. Until now there has been no sufficient means for us to hold judicial officers to function in compliance with “the supreme Law of the Land”–-U.S. Const, Article VI–-and the “Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof” that constitution’s mandates (i.e. the Fed Act).
In support of my foregoing humble opinion, I offer the gist of this simple update as to my encounter with the federally-franchised state-level court system (started on another thread here). Per an active case–-being now at the stage of an internal appeal in the circuit court regarding the lower-court judge’s maladministration of the NAME commerce vessel and my separate but related original claim against the harm done to my independent societal interests by the lower-court attorneys (prosecutor and presiding judge)–-the out-of-county presiding judge assigned by the State Court Admin Office has ordered the “appellant’s attorney” to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. I have previously specially motioned for this judge’s disqualification, for refusing to recognize that I am who I say I am; I had made known to this presiding officer per detailed fact-based documented evidence, filed from my Sui juris capacity, that I do not energize and am not now moving from within that NAME vessel. She has included that motion as a secondary matter to be heard per the title of her just-issued ORDER document. So, I’ve R4Cd her ORDER Instrument, because she has not referenced my “Sui juris Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant” capacity and has instead shown the appellant as moving PRO PER via the NAME that is shown as the “Defendant” and “Appellant”. This is another attempt that this presiding judge has made to induce me into consenting to arraignment, by now using the threat of dismissing my opportunity to obtain timely settlement. I then sent a copy of my R4C to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the STATE OF MICHIGAN jurisdiction. I made known to that officer that she is the obvious “appellant’s attorney” being summoned to a hearing, given that she is the highest-ranking attorney in the STATE who has superintending control power over the court system and its personnel and its operational entities (the NAME as an entity). I invoked the supreme Law of the Land as the Law commanding her to appear, to prevent the presiding judge from enslaving me and prevent her issuance of a fraudulent ordering Instrument (lacking my energy-bonding) into the Federal Reserve System / global commerce. I’ve previously provided this Chief Justice with knowledge that my societal capacity relies also on her recognition of the operation of the Fed Act. I did so because the Chief Justice must direct the State Admin Office to assign a competent and impartial officer to my cause. This current assigned judge is the second one that the SCAO assigned to preside. I disqualified the previous one for trying to conscript me into his commerce jurisdiction.