The Golden Ticket

To the :

{Secretary of State} of FLORIDA:
Ken Detzner
Florida Secretary of State
850.245.6524
SecretaryofState@DOS.MyFlorida.com

{Attorney General}of FLORIDA:
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Attorney General Pam Bondi
{The Department of Justice FLORIDA}:
Tampa Office - (Headquarters):
U.S. Attorney's Office
400 North Tampa Street
Suite 3200
Tampa, Fl. 33602

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF POLK
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Statement of Facts

I, ________________________, had my children/property taken from me without my consent, under duress and against my will by the following: (Officer's, Judge's, Cps, Agencies) who violated my rights or my children's rights.
Please put here a short and concise statement of facts of how and who took your children and why.

This violated my rights and the rights of my property under UCC 1-308 formerly 1-207.

I seek remedy for recourse for the following damages in the form of immediate return of my children/property.

The filing of the Criminal Complaint is mandated by Title 18 USC § 4

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION
THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS
NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

WARNING: FEDERAL LAW AT TITLE 18 SECTION 5033 PROHIBITS THE TAKING OF ANY CHILD AWAY FROM IT’S NATURAL PARENTS WITHOUT A HEARING IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AND ANY/ONE WHO VIOLATES THIS PROVISION HAS NO IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FROM BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES
18 U.S.C. section 5033's Parental Notification Must be Immediate Upon Arrest - - Not Simply Before or After Government Interrogation.
18 U.S.C. section 5033 provides:
“Whenever a juvenile is taken into custody for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, the arresting officer shall immediately advise such juvenile of his legal rights, in language comprehensive to a juvenile, and shall notify the Attorney General and the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian of such juvenile. The arresting officer shall notify the parents, guardian, or custodian of the rights of the juvenile and of the nature of the offense. The juvenile shall be taken before a magistrate forthwith. In no event shall the juvenile be detained for longer than a reasonable time before being brought before a magistrate.”
“RCW 13.04.140 No Dependant or delinquent child as defined in this chapter shall be taken from the custody of its parent, parents or legal guardian, without the consent of such parent, parents or guardian, unless the court shall find such parent, parents or guardian is incapable or has failed or neglected to provide proper maintenance, training and education for said child.” IN RE TARANGO, 23 Wn. App. at 133. And; “Because our law was taken “substantially verbatim” from the federal statute, it carries the same construction as the federal law and the same interpretation as federal case law. Id. (“The identical question has been litigated many times in the federal courts. It is the rule that a statute adopted from another jurisdiction will carry the construction placed upon such statute by the other jurisdiction.”).” STATE v. BOBIC, 140 Wn.2d 250, 264, 996 P.2d 610 [No. 67948-7. En Banc.] (April 6, 2000); RINKE v. JOHN-MANVILLE CORP., 47 Wn. App. 222, 225, 734 P.2d 533 (March 18, 1987.) And; Thus, upon being taken into custody, section 5033 confers the right to TWO (2) immediate notifications. First, the juvenile must be advised immediately of his or her rights. Second, the juvenile’s parent(s) must be advised immediately of the juvenile’s rights and nature of the alleged
offense. Recently the 9 Circuit has made clear that: “...notification should [be] attempted immediately after the juvenile[s] [is] placed in custody. The statute identifies custody as the trigger requiring notification, not interrogation.” United States v. John Doe (“Doe V.”, ____ F.3d ____, No. 99-50250, 2000 WL 991863, at *4 (9 Cir. July 20, th 2000) (Emphasis Added).
Furthermore, the CPS Division of DSHS is violating the specific provisions of RCW 13.40.140 (2) which require the Sheriff’s who are the court’s representative’s to inform both the juvenile “and” his or her parents that YOU & YOUR CHILDREN had a right to be represented by counsel at “all critical stages of the proceedings.” See RCW 13.40.140 (2) which reads in part:
“(2) A juvenile and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian shall be advised by the court or its representative that the juvenile has a right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings.” (Emphasis added.) RCW 13.40.140 (2) clearly shows that a juvenile and his or her parent shall be advised by the court or its representative that the juvenile has a right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding. The legislative intent of RCW 13.40.140 (2) is clear in the use of the
conjunctive word “and” by stating that “A juvenile ‘and’ his or her parent, or custodian simultaneously shall be advised by the court or its representative that the juvenile has a right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings.” It is clear that an arrest, custodial arrest & subsequent interrogation of underage children without the presence of either parent or their attorney present is “a critical stage of the proceeding,” that is violative of both the parents and the underage children’s Constitutional Rights. THE 9TH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZED THAT “CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED THAT PARENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE THEIR CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT FOR THEM PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW AT 18 U.S.C. 5033. United States v. Doe, 219 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Doe V”); United States v. John Doe (“Doe II”), 862 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Doe IV”); Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581, 585 (9th Cir. 1996).

If the CPS Division of DSHS has violated your parental rights by interrogating your children out of your presence and you want to sue them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983

{Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation}

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich.

Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

{Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony}
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.

{Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986}
It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person's civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, California judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States' security.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;

And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

"CONTEMPT FOR ENFORCING RIGHTS" ?
Title 42 USC § 12203 Prohibition against retaliation and coercion
(a) Retaliation
No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.
(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation
It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.
(c) Remedies and procedures
The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III, respectively. (Pub. L. 101–336, title V, § 503, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 370.).

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
"Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about."

Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Law {For Law Is An Open Practice}
LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS ARE NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW THE NATURE OF LAWYER-CRAFT IN AMERICA AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)
The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court: ONLY authorizes, to practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)
"CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!
The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! It is a "UNION DUES CARD". The "BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION";
1. like the Actors' Union, Painters' Union, etc.
2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
3. The State Bar is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION - and dues must be current to sustain membership.
The State Bar is; an unconstitutional Monopoly. AN ILLEGAL Et CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE; Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure government as agents of a foreign entity!
It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of America. The American Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers' Guild and was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind. In 1909 they incorporated this TRAITOROUS group in the state of Illinois and had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the ABA, could practice law and hold all the key positions in law enforcement and the making of laws. At that time, Illinois became an outlaw state and for all practical purposes, they seceded from the United States of America.
The BAR ASSOCIATION then sent organizers to all the other states and explained to the lawyers there how much more profitable and secure it would be for them, as lawyers, to join this union and be protected by its bylaws and cannons. They issued to the lawyers in each state a charter from the Illinois organization. California joined in 1927 and a few reluctant states and their lawyers waited until the 1930's to join when the treasonous act became DE FACTO and the Citizen's became captives. Under this system, the lawyers could guarantee prejudged decisions for the privileged class against the lower class.
This was all made possible by the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION to favor the right and have unlawfully substituted them in place of Constitutional Laws. The Constitution was written in plain English and the Statutes passed by Congress were also in plain English, with the intent of Congress how each law should be used and not the opinions of various Judges as the codes list. Any normal person can read the Constitution and Statutes and understand them without any trouble.
The public in California was shocked to learn that the State Government has no control or jurisdiction over the Bar Association or its members. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold Bar examinations. They do not issue state licenses to LAWYERS. The Bar Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them so-called license but keeps the fees for themselves. The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer.
They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the State. Only the Bar Association or their designated committees can remove any of these lawyers from public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the Bar.
On August 21, 1984, Rose Bird, Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, another of the Bar Associations Judicial Committee's, stated in essence that the Bar should determine the legality of all initiatives before they were allowed to go on the ballot. This is contrary to both State and Federal Constitutions, as well as the Laws of this Nation instituted By and For the People as a Sovereign UNITY of Independent States of We The People, not a fraudulent Corporate entity of Lawyers. This is a tremendous amount of power for a PRIVATE union that is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois to hold over the Citizens of California or any other state. The only recourse is through this initiative process and vote by the people.
After the Founding Fathers had formed the Constitution, outlining the laws as to the way our government was to be run, Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, "This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws and run a government as well as or better than royalty and the blue bloods of Europe." The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts of America. Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, no where is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation. Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people. By RIGHT AND LAW THEY HAVE NO POWER, AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION, and must be put out of business by the good Citizens of America in their fight for FREEDOM
Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.

Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.

The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN FORM of government. Any other form of government is FORBIDDEN. No public officer or branch of government can be limited to a RULING CLASS of any kind, or the states become ARISTOCRACIES and NOT republics. Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st Class Citizens, where many public offices and branches of government are open to lawyers only. All other people are limited to only two branches of government and to only certain offices in those two branches of government, making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens.
When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution REQUIRES, (Article IV, Section 4, we the people, will NEVER rule against themselves.) In these unconstitutional courts foreign tribunals (hoodlum centers), "men" in black dresses, that are unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).
The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to people, as a fiction court or a court/corporation for profit and gain cannot reach parity with a lawful man. ONLY presidents and governors have the Constitutional Power to grant PARDONS, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting PARDONS with "immunity from prosecution." Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc. This is unconstitutional "lawyer system" only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is Bill of Attainder, NOT permitted under the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. The U.S. Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The 6th Amendment is very SPECIFIC, that the accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel and this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.
LAWYERS and LAWYER-JUDGES: Created unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" and "Hearings" to have eternal EXTORTIONISTIC litigation's, which is BARRATRY and also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, as this places defendants in DOUBLE JEOPARDY a hundred times over. Defendants only have a right to A TRIAL, NOT TRIALS.
When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED BECAUSE OF A FIX and a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY "TECHNICALITY." Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL and also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and checks and balances, because "OFFICERS" OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH. These same LAWYER-JUDGES are awarding or approving LAWYER FEES, directly and indirectly, amounting to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually, all in violation of conflict of interest laws. As long as there are lawyers, there will never be any law, constitution or justice. There will only be MOB RULE, RULE BY A MOB OF LAWYERS.
CASE "LAW' IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: As CASE "LAW" IS ENACTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is TAMPERING WITH THE JURY. He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either "Yes" or "No." The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, and rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he "rules" certain evidence and the truth to be inadmissible. This makes the trial and transcript FIXED and RIGGED, because the jury does not hear the REAL TRUTH and ALL THE FACTS. Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers and lawyer-judges. All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the unconstitutional TITLE OF NOBILITY (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), "Officer of the court." Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government but non-lawyer Citizens are limited to only 2 of the 3 branches of government. Lawyers as 1st class citizens can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government. Lawyers, "Officers of the Court," in the Judicial Branch, are unconstitutionally in 2 branches of government AT THE SAME TIME whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.
District attorneys and State's attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries FROM the people, where the people are DENIED ACCESS to the grand juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges. The U.S. Constitution, being the Supreme Fundamental Law, is not and CANNOT be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper (as recently stated by President Bush), and we would have millions of interpretations (unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges and public servants are SWORN TO SUPPORT the U.S. Constitution, NOT interpret it.
Under INTERNATIONAL ORDERS: ALL LAWYERS, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are EXACTLY THE SAME. All lawyers have to file the same motions and follow the same procedures in using the same unconstitutional "lawyer system". In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone's will and estate. When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for EACH CHILD and, at times, the lawyer fees EXCEED the total amount of the estate. An OUTRAGEOUS amount of TAX "MONEY" is directly and indirectly STOLEN BY LAWYERS. Money that is budgeted to County Boards, School Boards and other local and federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are "TRICKED" and "FORCED" into ETERNAL EXTORTIONISTIC LITIGATION.

Subject: Supreme Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law.
If you ever get attacked for practicing law without a license.
Reference Court Cases:
* Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
1. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)
2. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594). The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propria persona.
3. NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law."
4. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.
5. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases
6. Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest...
7. Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) "If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem."
8. Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.
9. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.
10. Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign',"
11. Oklahoma is a "Right to Work" State! Bill SJR1! Its OK to practice God`s law with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first! "There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God" U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)
12. "The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same....

"The following laws are still standing."

The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes--ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many americans/citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);
UCC 1-308--formerly 1-207 Title 18 USC 241 and 242

{Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights}

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified-
Or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.

NOTE: Suppression of evidence is a felony under Brady v Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

title 18 u.s c 1519 -needs to be researched or looked into for sure.....

R E C E I P T
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I, _________________________,
Case No. _____________________________________, hereby declare as follows:
On January _____, 2016, I went to the Office of the Clerk of Family Court to receive
complete records of my trial from its inception, including master tapes/ALL recordings of every hearing and of my depositions, pursuant to Rule 11, whereupon (check one):
_______ I was given my complete records
_______ I was told my records didn't exist
_______ I was not given my records (explanation below, optional:)

DATED this __________ day of January, 2016.
___________________________________
court clerk / refused* (circle one)

*If refused, the Court must file an Affidavit of Explanation within 10 days.

NOTE: Suppression of evidence is a felony under Brady v Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

title 18 u.s.c 1201., felonious restraint., right's violations.

BYARS v. UNITED STATES.
273 U.S. 28 (47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520)

American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:

16AmJur2d., Sec. 97:

"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the american, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which

were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the american in regard to person and property.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law...........

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803)
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,”
“Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.” If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

CLAIM, v. To demand as one's own; to
assert a personal right to any property or
any right; to demand the possession or en·
joyment of something ri.ghtfully one's own,
and wrongfully withheld. Hill v. Henry, 60
N. J. Eq. 150, G7 Atl. G55.

(a) not effectively connected with the conduct of a “trade or business” (public office per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) in the United States (government),
(b) not earned from sources within the geographical federal 5 territory. See Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10),
(c) not subject to reporting per 26 U.S.C. §6041 because not connected to a statutory “trade or business” (public office)
(d) not subject to withholding because not statutory “income” per 26 U.S.C. §643(b) and earned by a “non-resident non-person non-taxpayer”.

UCC - REMEDY AND RECOURSE
FULL REPORT:>>
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.

REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)
in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -in any way, shape or manner - under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone .... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous defense. You must know what it means.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to UCC 1-308

When you see "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying:
"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."

Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes - you have to accept the benefit. the government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government - federal, state and local.

If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 - the argument and recourse.

If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code , Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most importantly, it is written in plain English.

RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law .
The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 L.Ed.at page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

" the relevant cases demonstrate that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a "judicial" one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

some defendants urge that any acts "of a judicial nature" entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

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.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882
Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999

Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right's would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.
Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.
Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}............

AMERICAN CITIZEN, U.S. CITIZEN = Federal Nationality??
July 6, 2015 at 10:42pm
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

"The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government. Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia.

US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20:
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."

"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights. Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright.

"The term Liberty "... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399

If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights. Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court. Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent. PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS.

IT then becomes obvious that the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.

The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.

"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government." State v. Manuel 20 NC 122 14 CJS section 4

Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

By claiming that you are a U.S. Citizen, you are placing yourself into submission to the Federal Government, and you do not have any Rights as a Subject. To be both a Citizen of the Fed and of the state at the same time is even worse.

But if you claim your Birth State as your Nationality, it removes all those barriers, and as long as you do not deprive someone else of their Rights, yours must be protected.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] 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.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

"...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
This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;
"The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986

“[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430

and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;
"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

“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]

“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares
only that "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." Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,
which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."”
Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]

A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

“Yet, of the cases in this Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 per cent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 per cent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.”~DISSENT, Justice Hugo Black, Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 [1938]""

"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

"that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

"the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

And all that is exactly why your proclaimed "Right to Travel" and all that "Second Amendment" and all other stuff, is meaningless, until you CORRECT YOUR LEGAL STATUS. Or you can just stay right there and keep suffering and getting beaten and punished for claiming that your something that you were never meant to be....A SUBJECT.

The Natural & Common Law Right of Self Defense
"Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a
citizen, and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and
he who accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the law of the
land. There are two reasons for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and
the other to preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to the
law is the bond of society, and the officers set to enforce the
law are not exempt from its mandates." Town of Blacksburg v. Bean
104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916): Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11
(Wis 1924)
"Where officers do not conform to the 'law of the land' they have
no authority and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer,
as with a citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is
susceptible to be injured or killed; for by such acts 'they draw
their own blood upon themselves' As stated in some cases, 'where
a peace officer has no right to make an arrest without warrant he
is a trespasser and acts at his own peril." 6A CJS., "Arrest"
Section 16 page 30; A sheriff who "acts without process," or
"under a process void on its face, in doing such act, he is not to
be considered an officer but a personal trespasser." Roberts v. Dean,
187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939)
"A person has a lawful right to resist an arrest by an unlawful
authority, i.e., an officer without a valid warrant." Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)
"What of the resistance to the arrest? The authorities are in
agreement that since the right of personal property is one of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, any unlawful
interference with it may be resisted and every person has a right
to resist an unlawful arrest. * * * and, in preventing such illegal
restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary."
City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)
"It is the law of self defense and self preservation that is
applicable. "One has and "unalienable" right to protect his life,
liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm." "* * * it is not
an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer,
even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance."
Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same
right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any
other assault and battery." State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950)
"A citizen illegally arrested "cannot initiate the use of force" and
neither do "words alone justify an assault." However, "when the officer
initiates the assault by physical contact, which is usually the case,
and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the right to protect
his liberty to the extent of killing the officer." See Green v.
Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews, 266
S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)
"What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An
arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the
person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance
is to be determined as in other cases of assault. Life and liberty are
regarded as standing substantially on one foundation; life being
useless without liberty, and the authorities are uninformed that where
one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist
the aggressions of the officer, to the extent of taking the life of
the assailant, if that be necessity to preserve his own life, or
prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm." State v. Gum,
68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 464 (1910)
"It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may
resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his
own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. State v. Rousseau,
40 Wash. 2nd, 92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952); Porter v. State, 124
Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C.
476, 83 S.E. 2nd 100, 102 (1954); Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324,
108 So. 711, 712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., "Arrest",
Section 94, pp. 778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305
(1892); Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918);
Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State,
196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943); Ownes v. State, 58 Tex. Crim.
261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655,
225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)
"The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past
deciding upon the matter, has recognized that "at common Law", a
person had the right to "resist the illegal attempt to arrest him."
John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899)
1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950)
2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105
3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952)
4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954)
5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711
6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305
7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523
8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513
9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943)
10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910)
11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)
12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331
13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)
14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947)
16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939
17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829)
18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874)
19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893)
20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899)
21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412
22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914)
23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931)
24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948)
25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935
26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309
27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616

YOU CAN SUE THE POLICE FOR AN ILLEGAL ARREST AND RESIST ARREST WITH IMPUNITY!
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery."
(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense."
(State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance."
(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence."
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Resisting unlawful arrest
Individuals who realize that they are the target of false arrest might attempt to resist or flee. In most jurisdictions, it is unlawful to resist arrest, regardless of whether or not one is being falsely arrested. A few jurisdictions (i.e., 14 U.S. states, As of 2012) recognize the target's right of self-defense so as to resist unlawful arrest. Typically, this only applies when:
the arresting officer used more force than necessary to effect the arrest, and
the resistance is only to such an extent as necessary to protect oneself from great bodily harm or death.[6]
In such jurisdictions – and under the narrowly-defined circumstances described above – resisting unlawful arrest may be used as a justification for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest, flight to avoid prosecution, assault, etc). There are rare cases in which a murder charge had been reduced to manslaughter for this reason.
Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as:
the person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping or robbery.
the reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator with the intent of victimizing the defendant.

A legal remedy, also judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will.

In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (e.g. injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to an action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief.

In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim (albeit one sometimes honored in the breach) that for every right, there is a remedy; where there is no remedy, there is no right. That is, lawmakers claim to provide appropriate remedies to protect rights. This legal maxim was first enunciated by William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."

For those that dont know, Remedy and Recourse are RIGHTS contained within ANY legal system.
Remedy is the right to request evidence that proves you are guilty of a crime.
Recourse is the right not to consent, voluntarily of otherwise.
Remedy and Recourse (R & R) are the enemy of statute legislation. Therefore, by understanding R & R you will see how most statues manipulate words to circumvent our right to R & R.

Returned for Cause, Without Commercial Dishonor and No Recourse . . . and above your signature write Without Prejudice UCC 1-308.
here's valuable info :: UCC 1-308 is the remedy for any legal process under commercial law in the U.S.

Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103. Now moved to 1-308 and 1-103

“16 AmJur2d., Sec. 97: "Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the American/ Inhabitant/ Citizen in regard to person and property.The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's citizens. TO grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 L.Ed.at page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

NO JUDICIAL OFFICIAL IS IMMUNE IF THEY BREAK THEIR {OATH OF OFFICE} UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C 2381,CANNON # 7
" the relevant cases that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a "judicial" one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

some defendants urge that any acts "of a judicial nature" entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

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.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882
Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999
Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right's would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.
Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.
Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}

" Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"

We are the the Beneficiaries...

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND {WITHOUT VEXATION OR FRIVOLITY OR THREAT}.........THIS IS A LAWFUL ATTEMPT FOR RELIEF AND REMEDY FOR RECOURSE DONE BY THE STATE BY THIS NOTICE : TITLE 18 U.S.C 4 ,. U.C.C 1-308 FORMERLY 1-207 {RESERVATION OF RIGHTS}
....................................................................................................................................................................
Affidavit of Truth and Brief of Information

Statement of Facts
Affidavit of Truth
Brief of Information

I , .............YOUR NAME..........
Sworn on: _________________________

Statement of Truth of

In relation to the individual who accepts liability for the Name:

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

I, _______________: of the family __________________ (as commonly called), being the Undersigned, do solemnly swear, declare, and depose:

1. THAT I am competent to state the matters set forth herein.

2. THAT I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein.

3. THAT all the facts stated herein are true, correct, and certain, admissible as evidence, and if called upon as a witness, I will testify to their veracity.

4. THAT the eternal, unchanged principles of Law are:

a) A workman is worthy of his hire.
b) All are equal under the Law.
c) In Law, truth is sovereign.
d) Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.
e) An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Law.
f) An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgment in Law.
g) All matters must be expressed to be resolved.
h) He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.
i) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.
j) A lien or claim can be satisfied only through an Affidavit by a point-for-point rebuttal, resolution by Jury or payment.

5. THAT Commercial processes (including this Affidavit and the required responses to it) ARE NON-JUDICIAL and pre-judicial because:

I. No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof, or any other third parties whatsoever, can abrogate anyone's Affidavit of Truth; and

II. Only a party affected by an Affidavit can speak and act for himself and is solely responsible for responding with his own Affidavit of Truth, which no one else can do for him.

6. THAT the lawful seizure, collection, and transfer of ownership of money or property must be effected by means of a valid Commercial Lien.

7. THAT I am not the creation or chattel property of any person or any government agency whatsoever. I am not under any obligation whatsoever to any governmental agency, state or federal (i.e. union), or any of their self-passed laws, statutes, regulations or policies.

8. THAT any and all of the various papers, documents, adhesion contracts, or "agreements" I may have signed with any government agency or entity or any others that might be construed to indicate a conclusion contrary to my herein-below assertions were made, signed by me on the basis of mistake due to lack of full disclosure creating a deliberate lack of full knowledge, a deliberate action of fraud, non-disclosure, concealment of material fact, and misrepresentation. Such action thereby creates a stressful situation of duress and intimidation, vitiating all documents by such action of fraud.

9. THAT it is the sincerest belief and spiritual conviction of this Affiant that slavery and peonage are immoral, are violations of the First Precept of Commercial Law (a workman is worthy of his hire), that fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, intimidation, deceit, concealment of material fact, lying, and treachery are morally wrong.

10. THAT I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be a "client" (slave) of any governmental agency, state or federal (i.e. union), or any of their Principals, or the "United Kingdom," or to incur any debts or obligations to said entities for whatever "benefits" said entities might purpose to provide or seek to provide to this Affiant, or be directed by, subject to, or accountable to any parties other than my own conscience and best judgement for the purpose of preserving inviolate my unalienable/inalienable indefeasible rights to life, liberty, freedom and property while engaging in the honourable, productive, and non-harmful activities of my life.

11. THAT I, _________________: of the family _________________, am the sole and absolute owner of myself, my body, and my estate, and possess unconditional, allodial, sovereign title thereto, and that I abjure, renounce, forsake, and disavow utterly and absolutely now and forever all presumptions of power, authority, or right by any governmental agency, its Principals, over the rights, life, liberty, freedom or property of this Affiant from whatever source presumed or derived.

12. THAT I, the Affiant, am NOT a Legal Fiction Person (as defined in a Law Dictionary) _____________________ as being a Corporate Entity (incorporated or non-incorporated) or some other kind of Partnership, BUT INSTEAD a living breathing, sovereign, flesh and blood Human Being with a living soul, with a distinct Mind that is capable of possessing personal knowledge commonly called __________________: (of the family ________________, when necessary to distinguish my Clan).

13. {4} EMPHASIS ADDED.

14. THAT all parties who act against this Affiant on their alleged basis must produce the Commercial Affidavits of TRUTH, sworn by the claimants to be "true, correct, and complete (certain)," which prove the origin and foundation of their claims and include providing the contract(s) or agreement(s) with the signature of this Affiant thereon wherein this Affiant has knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily, in full legal and lawful capacity, agreed to waive or surrender rights to __________________, their Principals, or the "United Kingdom" or agreed to become subject to or the slave or property of said entities in any way or in any jurisdiction whatsoever.

15. In order for a crime to exist, four elements must exist; there must be a defined crime, there must be a victim, and that the victim must have been damaged, and the intent must be established on the part of the accused. Without proof of all four elements, no crime can said to have been committed. In this Affidavit, crimes are defined “ namely the unlawful ejection and the lack of Duty of Care, the Affiant is the victim, this Affidavit verifies the damages, and the intent is established at the end of the thirty (30) day grace period, if the respondents fail to rebut (respond to) the wrongs they have been a party to as noted herein.

16. NOTICE is hereby given, and demands made, on ____________ that:

a) ALL properties taken unlawfully, removed in violation of commerce, or otherwise converted, sold, or seized by _________________, or other Parties in collusion therewith, be immediately returned IN FULL VALUE PLUS 10% to the original Owner, the Undersigned Affiant; OR

b) All Parties who proceed to act or assist in said actions, against this Affiant, __________________: of the family _____________, without thorough, verifiable, point-by-point rebuttal of each and every point set forth in this Affidavit shall be immediately charged with criminal fraud, theft, conspiracy of extortion, theft and fraud, and commercial liens shall be placed against all their real and personal properties (defined crimes: criminal conspiracy, robbery, misprision of felony, conspiracy against the rights of peoples, extortion, fraud and false statements, and other such crimes as are related to issues of RACKETEERING plus such Constitutional violations not listed combined and described simply as TREASON); and

c) All court costs and legal fees relating to this instant case shall be paid by those who have drawn the Undersigned Affiant _______________________: of the family __________________ into this instant matter.

17. THAT failure to respond as herein required to this Affiant, within the herein a prescribed time of thirty (30) days will be deemed by this Affiant to invoke the doctrine of acquiescence and admission, to recover, in commerce, the lost or damaged properties plus damages, penalties and costs.

18. THAT this Commercial Affidavit, Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace, is the ONE AND ONLY such Notice and Warning. If all actions are not abated within thirty (30) days, or if at any time in the future any actions are reinstated, it shall be considered a wilful disregard for this Notice and Warning, and such shall engender the immediate filing of Criminal Complaints (Affidavits of Information) and Commercial Liens (Affidavits of Obligation) against all parties involved.

19. THAT the foundation of Commercial Law, being based on certain eternally just, valid, and moral precepts, has remained unchanged for at least six (6) millennia. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world, is NON-JUDICIAL, and is prior and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside or overruled by, the statutes of any governments, legislatures, quasi-governmental agencies, or courts. It is therefore an inherent obligation on all Authorities, Officials, Governments, Legislatures, Governmental or Quasi-governmental Agencies, Courts, Judges, Attorneys, and all aspects and Agents of all Law Enforcement Agencies to uphold said Commercial Law, without which said entities are violating the just basis of their alleged authority and serving to disintegrate the society they allegedly exist to protect.
CONTRACT OF LIABILITY FOR ALLEGATIONS

20. THAT if the Respondent, ________________________ fails to rebut such claims or charges, the Undersigned is LAWFULLY entitled to claim default against the Respondent. In that case, the Undersigned is fully entitled to take whatever LAWFUL steps may be necessary in order to execute this Lien.

21. THAT only I, the Human Being involved against my free will in this instant matter, can determine how much stress, harassment, and other disturbance I have suffered by virtue of being UNLAWFULLY ejected from the dwelling I was inhabiting at the time, and consequently only I am in the position of decide and dictate my desired compensation, being the amount of _________________ for all combined attempts to trespass on my absolute sovereignty, that being the sum total demanded by this Commercial Lien on the individual who accepts liability for the Name _____________.

22. THAT by specifically offering ____________________ the chance to apologise in writing (although the opportunity has always been there for the taking) via a Notice of First And Final Warning, dated _____________, in this instant matter, I come to this position with clean hands as having shown good faith.

23. THAT for all the purposes of all of the forgoing, all references to ___________________ shall be construed to refer to an individual who considers their Legal Fiction Name to be ___________________, or any variant thereof, including Names phonetically sounding the same or similar, and who can accept service via _________________.

24. THAT I, ___________________: of the family ______________________, the Undersigned Affiant, depose and certify that I have written the foregoing with intent and understanding of purpose, and believe the statements, allegations, demands and contents herein to be true, correct, and complete, commercially reasonable, and just, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

* All words herein are as Affiant defines them.

Signed and sealed this ____________________ day of ____________________, 20____.

All rights reserved.

By: ___________________ (Affiant)
___________________________: of the family ________________________, in rerum natura

(Seal)
NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF COUNTY OF______________________________________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed your name here.

This day of _________________________, 2016

Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_______________________________________

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND {WITHOUT VEXATION OR FRIVOLITY OR THREAT}.........THIS IS A LAWFUL ATTEMPT FOR RELIEF AND REMEDY FOR RECOURSE DONE BY THE STATE BY THIS NOTICE : TITLE 18 U.S.C 4 ,. U.C.C 1-308 FORMERLY 1-207 {RESERVATION OF RIGHTS}
Property Of: The Bears Law And Forensics Team For The Legal Assistant Council Of:
Title 17 USC 28, Schware V. The Board Of Examiners, 353 US 238,239,252 (1957)