Right to Travel vs. Driving Privileges
All Policeman/ women are required to take an oath of office which is held on file to get their DPSST Certification. As a part of this oath they swear to uphold the
Constitution, which is, according to
Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Law of our Land. But then like brainwashed crash test dummies, they are sent out on their job and instructed to violate their oaths of office by violating the people's lawful "Right to Travel," which in reality leaves them liable and wide open to be sued or having commercial liens placed upon their property/assets. They ignorantly assume the roll of corporate revenue agent by citing people with violations of the commercial traffic laws. There are ample case laws, to support this maxim of law.
Take for instance Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S.
116, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579,
Hertado v. California 110 U.S. 516, and
Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. I suggest that people study these and many more case histories concerning the Right to
Travel.
I do not believe that average police officers are intentionally violating the people's rights, they are simply doing what they are trained to do. And they have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that they are just enforcing the law. Ask any policeman you know if he can tell you the difference between Law and Color of Law.
The difference is no small issue as it pertains to ones rights. Granted it is likely that their superiors know the truth, but these men and women are still just being used as pawns in a fraudulent revenue extraction scam, carrying out the criminal orders as dictated to them by the shareholders of the corporation that employs them.
Some other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the
"right" of the citizen to travel and the government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of
Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey
(Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v
Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
Folks, when you were fraudulently compelled to acquire that "Driver's License," without being told that you don't need one to "Travel," you surrendered your right, and gave jurisdiction to the State to regulate your every move through contract law, or administrative law. Officer's can do what they do, as long as you have that License to drive. Do not give them jurisdiction. By the way, I suggest that all law enforcement research my information, as they are in violation of Title 18, section 241, 242, and
Title 42 section 14141, amongst other's.
"Driving," is a commercial act as is
"Operating a Motor Vehicle." "Motor
Vehicle," as defined in Blacks Law, 4th Ed., is a taxi, omnibus or any variety of motor vehicles exclusively used and designed for commerce.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. Just enter Right to Travel in your search window, and study the Law. One more thing, Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v
Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v
City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte
Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche
Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. One more thing, Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) states that The Constitution of these United
States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution of
America is null and void.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943)No
State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US
262 (1963)If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927)Unlawful search and seizure, your rights must be interpreted in favor of the Citizen.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
(1886)An unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protection, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th
Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
And finally just for laughs, Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
1

"An action by Department of Motor
Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void. "Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.
"Agency, or party sitting for the agency,
(which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract. "Schomig v. Kaiser, 189
Cal 596.
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568
F2d 284.
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.
"Traffic Stops" - 18 Additional Points in
Common Law
1. "Detention must be based on specific, articulable facts (SAF) and rational inferences. Unparticularized suspicion and inarticulate hunches alone are not good enough. A valid investigative stop must be based on "reasonable articulable suspicion"
(RAS) - U.S. v. Briggman, 931 F2d705
(1991) (Supreme Court)
2. "Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment." -U.S. v. Eldridge,
984 F2d 943 (1993)
3. "Officer's questions must relate to the purpose of the stop, or detention of driver is unreasonable." - U.S. v. Barahona, 990
F2d (1993)
4. "You may refuse to provide the police
I.D. or information." -U.S. V. Brown, 731
F2d 1491 (1984)
5. "The right to privacy includes an
"individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." -Whalen v. Roe, 429 US
589 (1977)
6. You may not be arrested solely to ascertain your identity -Arrington v.
McDonald, 808 F2d 466 (1988)
7. Your refusing consent of a search is not basis for RAS, nor Probable Cause to search or impound your vehicle. -U.S. v.
Manuel, 992 F2d 272, (1993)
8. Unless your answers to questioning provide Probable Cause, you are free to go.
Once your documentation (if offered) is returned, you are free to go. - Parker v.
Strong, 717 F. Supp 767 (1989)
9. You do not have to be suspected or accused of criminal behavior to enjoy your
4th Amendments protections against unreasonable search or seizure. - U.S. v.
Erickson, 991 F2d 529 (1993)
10. Even if your vehicle is stopped legitimately, the police may not search it without probable cause (or your consent). -
U.S. v. Wanless, 882 F2d 1459 (1989)
11. A Terry Frisk (pat down search) may only be for weapons, not to reach in pockets. Officers must first believe a threat is posed. -U.S. v. Santillanes, 848 F2d 1103
12. Government must prove alleged consent to search, and that consent was
2

given freely and voluntarily. -U.S. v.
Villareal, 963 F2d 770 (1992)
13. Waiver of rights must be knowing and voluntary (not under threat and duress)
-White v. White, 925 F2d 287 (1991)
14. You may verbally challenge the officer's actions or ask for his ID. -Gainor v.
Roberts, 973 F2d 1379 (1992)
15. If police falsely arrest you without
Probable Cause, they have no qualified immunity. -Malley v. Briggs, 475 US 335
(1986)
16. A Federal officer who uses excessive force acts in bad faith and may be resisted.
-U.S. v. Span, 970 F2d 573 (1992)
17. Police supervisors are liable if they authorize or approve unconstitutional conduct of offending officers. -White v.
Farrier, 849 F2d 322, (1988)
More about the Right to Travel vs.
Driving Privileges
All Policeman/ women are required to take an oath of office which is held on file to get their DPSST Certification. As a part of this oath they swear to uphold the
Constitution, which is, according to
Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Law of our Land. But then like brainwashed crash test dummies, they are sent out on their job and instructed to violate their oaths of office by violating the people's lawful "Right to Travel," which in reality leaves them liable and wide open to be sued or having commercial liens placed upon their property/assets. They ignorantly assume the roll of corporate revenue agent by citing people with violations of the commercial traffic laws. There are ample case laws, to support this maxim of law.
Take for instance Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S.
116, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579,
Hertado v. California 110 U.S. 516, and
Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. I suggest that people study these and many more case histories concerning the Right to
Travel.
I do not believe that average police officers are intentionally violating the people's rights, they are simply doing what they are trained to do. And they have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that they are just enforcing the law. Ask any policeman you know if he can tell you the difference between Law and Color of Law.
The difference is no small issue as it pertains to ones rights. Granted it is likely that their superiors know the truth, but these men and women are still just being used as pawns in a fraudulent revenue extraction scam, carrying out the criminal orders as dictated to them by the shareholders of the corporation that employs them.
Some other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the
"right" of the citizen to travel and the government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of
Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey
(Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v
Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
Folks, when you were fraudulantly compelled to acquire that "Driver's License," without being told that you don't need one to "Travel," you surrendered your right, and gave jurisdiction to the State to regulate your every move through contract law, or administrative law. Officer's can do what they do, as long as you have that License to drive. Do not give them juridiction. By the way, I suggest that all law enforcement research my information, as they are in violation of Title 18, section 241, 242, and
Title 42 section 14141, amongst other's.
"Driving," is a commercial act as is
"Operating a Motor Vehicle." "Motor
Vehicle," as defined in Blacks Law, 4th Ed., is a taxi, omnibus or any variey of motor vehicles exclusively used and designed for commerce.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. Just enter Right to Travel in your search window, and study the Law. One more thing, Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v
Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v
City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte
Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche
Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. One more thing, Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) states that The Constitution of these United
States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution of
America is null and void.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943)No
State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US
262 (1963)If the State converts a liberty
3

into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927)Unlawful search and seizure, your rights must be interpreted in favor of the Citizen.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
(1886)An unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protection, it creates no office.It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th
Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
And finally just for laugths, Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
"An action by Department of Motor
Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void."Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.
"Agency, or party sitting for the agency,
(which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract."Schomig v. Kaiser, 189
Cal 596.
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE
583.
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."ASIS v. US, 568
F2d 284.
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protectedinterest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute."Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.
"Traffic Stops" - 18 Additional Points in
Common Law
1. "Detention must be based on specific, articulable facts (SAF) and rational inferences. Unparticularized suspicion and inarticulate hunches alone are not good enough. A valid investigative stop must be based on "reasonable articulable suspicion"
(RAS) - U.S. v. Briggman, 931 F2d705
(1991) (Supreme Court)
2. "Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment." -U.S. v. Eldridge,
984 F2d 943 (1993)
3. "Officer's questions must relate to the purpose of the stop, or detention of driver is unreasonable." - U.S. v. Barahona, 990
F2d (1993)
4. "You may refuse to provide the police
I.D. or information." -U.S. V. Brown, 731
F2d 1491 (1984)
5. "The right to privacy includes an
"individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." -Whalen v. Roe, 429 US
589 (1977)
6. You may not be arrested solely to ascertain your identity -Arrington v.
McDonald, 808 F2d 466 (1988)
7. Your refusing consent of a search is not basis for RAS, nor Probable Cause to search or impound your vehicle. -U.S. v.
Manuel, 992 F2d 272, (1993)
4

8. Unless your answers to questioning provide Probable Cause, you are free to go.
Once your documentation (if offered) is returned, you are free to go. - Parker v.
Strong, 717 F. Supp 767 (1989)
9. You do not have to be suspected or accused of criminal behavior to enjoy your
4th Amendments protections against unreasonable search or seizure. - U.S. v.
Erickson, 991 F2d 529 (1993)
10. Even if your vehicle is stopped legitimately, the police may not search it without probable cause (or your consent). -
U.S. v. Wanless, 882 F2d 1459 (1989)
11. A Terry Frisk (pat down search) may only be for weapons, not to reach in pockets. Officers must first believe a threat is posed. -U.S. v. Santillanes, 848 F2d 1103
12. Government must prove alleged consent to search, and that consent was given freely and voluntarily. -U.S. v.
Villareal, 963 F2d 770 (1992)
13. Waiver of rights must be knowing and voluntary (not under threat and duress)
-White v. White, 925 F2d 287 (1991)
14. You may verbally challenge the officer's actions or ask for his ID. -Gainor v.
Roberts, 973 F2d 1379 (1992)
15. If police falsely arrest you without
Probable Cause, they have no qualified immunity. -Malley v. Briggs, 475 US 335
(1986)
16. A Federal officer who uses excessive force acts in bad faith and may be resisted.
-U.S. v. Span, 970 F2d 573 (1992)
17. Police supervisors are liable if they authorize or approve unconstitutional conduct of offending officers. -White v.
Farrier, 849 F2d 322, (1988)
18. A search incident to arrest is limited to the area within your immediate control
(i.e. not entire car if cuffed in the rear) -
U.S. v. Vasey, 834 F2d 782, (1987)
I had a Liaryer, (a BARristers club stooge) pipe up and ask me how I would go about enforcing my Fee Schedule when I mentioned serving it on a public servant in the course of any encounter with one. This question was posed on this same post I put up in one of the many groups I'm in. So I'll address this question here also.
I would use the lien process to enforce my fee schedule. After going thru the
Affidavit/ Notice process using the services of my local Notary Public, I would file all the necessary documents from that process in a court of record, then I would publish them in the classified section of a largely circulated local news paper under public notices. Then I would send certified copies to every credit agency applicable, bonding companies etc. Myself, personally, I'm not really worried about getting paid per say.
Just deterring bad conduct. And putting the screws to a public servants credit rating within their cherished little fraudulent world of commerce, and attacking their bond, because the lien renders them unbondable, and therefore unemployable, is just a fine kick in the pants that satisfies my thirst for remedy from those who would seek to do me harm financially or otherwise. In every case I would always make every effort to convince the "PERSON" acting upon me under color of law, that I'm not their average Joe Blow huckleberry payer who puts up with being extorted from and that the end result of any attempt to harm me isn't going to end well for them. However, it is very important for folks to understand that if you are going to use the lien process for remedy, every affidavit you swear out under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability, must always be your carefully worded truth. Be proactive, and assert your right to effect remedy, but keep in mind that it is always important to respond from a position of honor. One should never mean to harm another in any fashion, as long as they do no harm to you.
And if you get caught up in swearing to false and or slanderous statements on an affidavit, claims for which there's no viable proof, well... Just don't do it. If you would like to learn about the process of effecting a commercial lien click the link here. This video seminar is the best training on the subject I've found. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJ
CIGPnoTU
'Challenging jurisdiction is your best defense against the thugs in kangaroo land, because if you use the right argument and they proceed against you anyway, (as many criminal black robed thugs in the municipal administrative tribunals do), than you will have laid the ground work to have their bull**** conviction overturned on appeal.
Most people are simply oblivious to this fact. Which in my view, is probably one of the main reasons why they have become such bold violators of peoples right(s). And
5

I've never met or heard of a Lawyer that would tell anyone anything about this because they are all sworn agents of the crown, sworn to uphold the fraud.
If they attempt to tell you that you can't question their jurisdiction, it would be best to have already filed an affidavit of challenge demanding dismissal that incorporates the use of the following case sites in support of your challenge and demand.
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v.
US, 505 F2d 1026.
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.
"The law provides that once State and
Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S.
Ct. 2502 (1980).
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
The following is an example of how one might defend his right(s) if bullied, coerced, or otherwise threatened to appear before a kangaroo tribunal. Note I refuse to refer to them as courts, because they aren't.
(Disclaimer) I an not a BAR Attorney, and this is not legal advise. It is meant for informational purposes only And undoubtedly I won't claim it to be all inclusive. If any of my learned Sovereign brothers or sisters can think of any questions or statements they believe should be added to this, please feel welcomed and encouraged to note them in the comments section.
Questions and Statements of Fact for the
Record:
Question - Are we on the record? Is there an official record being made of these proceedings? (And don't say anything further until you can be certain there is.)
Important Note: (It may be your best bet to hire your own certified court reporter or video record the proceeding if possible.
And... If possible, having a host of supporters sitting in on their kangaroo proceedings who will also swear out affidavits as to what they saw and heard is another powerful method of holding their feet to the fire, Not to mention the fact that those affidavits can be used as attachments in support of your brief on appeal if that becomes necessary)
Statement - For the record, I am here under duress, I do not want to participate in these proceedings, and I do not consent to your presumed jurisdiction over me the natural man.
Statement - For the record, Are you ordering me to participate against my will?
If so,Than for the record, I am here, by special appearance only to challenge jurisdiction, and to have this matter dismissed with prejudice on that basis.
Statement - For the record, I believe this court lacks both personam and subject matter jurisdiction to proceed, and I want to see proof of jurisdiction duly placed into evidence on the record.
(As usual the black robed thug will argue that he has jurisdiction to proceed) It's a bluff and a lie!
What???
Statement - So for the record, you sir, the administrator of this tribunal, presume to have jurisdiction to proceed with no facts presented as evidence for doing so, in direct contravention of well established law?
Question - Where is the competent fact witness?
Question - Where is the damaged party?
Question - Who brings the claim?
Question - Who is underwriting this action?
Question - Where is the verified complaint against me, sworn under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability?
Question - For the record sir, do you have a sworn oath of office to uphold the federal and state constitutions on file with the secretary of state? Do you have a liability bond?
(He may or may not respond, if he does, he will likely affirm) if so
Statement - Than for the record sir, I accept your oath and bond.
Statement – Furthermore, and for the record, I do not stand under the nature and cause of any accusations or charges that have been made against me here, until
6

such time as the charges have been properly alleged on a lawfully verified charging instrument, and placed on the record of these proceedings.
Statement - Therefore, for the record, I am unable to make a plea to the charges until the aforementioned conditions have been met as stated. Wherefore I would have an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against every element of the charges. Whereas I do not propose the ability to rebut any unstated or unsubstantiated presumptions.
Statement - Furthermore, for the record,
As the living man, if I stand accused by law, than I stand here with the presumption of innocence, non guild in any way.
Statement - For the record, I am a man, not a corporation or a legal "person" nor have I any wish to be the surety for one.
This is not me. (hold up a copy of the birth certificate)
Statement - For the record, I Wish to see the contract wherein I knowingly, willingly, and with full disclosure of the terms therein, consented or otherwise agreed to be surety for the state created fiction? (again hold up the birth certificate)
Statement - I see your military flag, putting myself and all others who enter here on notice that this is an administrative tribunal under the law of merchant, and that only contractual disputes in commerce under admiralty law are settled here. - so again I'm asking you sir,
Question - On the record, where is the contract that binds my participation in this tribunal? Where is the Form 1099 OID?
Question - On the record, How does an administrative tribunal which has only been empowered to settle contract disputes between corporate fictions, presume to have authority over myself, a flesh and blood living man with a soul?
Statement - Again, for the record, I AM
THE LIVING MAN with a soul, I am not a dead thing. I am not the corporate fiction that was created by means of deceptive fraud against my parents, when an agent of the corporate de facto state stole my intellectual private property (my name) at some point after my natural birth on this land. And I do not consent to being the surety for this dead corporate fictitious entity. (again hold up the birth certificate)
Statement - for the record, I hereby reserve all rights as a living man, at all times, in all places, waiving none. However,
I do waive the implied benefits and privileges associated with any state created corporate fiction.
Statement - Therefore, on the record, I respectfully Wish the dismissal of this action with prejudice, due to lack of jurisdiction.
*********************************
*******
NOTE: The following two statements could be incorporated in the event you are ordered to seek legal re-presentation.
Statement - For the record, I require no re-presentation by any member of the BAR
Association, a closed shop monopoly that operates in violation of the Taft-Hartly Act,
(Pub.L. 80-101, 61 Stat. 136, enacted June
23, 1947, officially know as the Labor -
Management Relations Act.
Statement - Furthermore and for the record, It is my understanding that all such
BAR Attorneys at law are only authorized to re present dead fictions, (hold up a copy of the birth certificate) or in other words this piece of paper, and not me the living man standing before you now.
*********************************
*******
Some additional cases that support the challenge of jurisdiction.
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek,
17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553
(1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT.
L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27
S. Ct. 236 (1907).
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188;
Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged,
7

cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d
906, 910.
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v.
Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d.
368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211
P2d 389.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469
F2d 416.
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329;
Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In
Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re
Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance."
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los
Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed.
1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934,
937.
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris."
Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
Special Appearance vs. General
Appearance
1. If a defendant by his appearance insists only upon objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person and confines his appearance for that purpose only, he has made a “special appearance,” but if he raises any other question, or asks any relief which can only be granted upon hypothesis that court had jurisdiction of his person, he has made a
“general appearance.” Bank of America Nat.
Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Harrah, 248 P.2d 814,
815
2. While a special appearance may be made to attack court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s person, joining therewith of attack on plaintiff’s affidavit renders appearance a “general appearance” waiving all objections to such jurisdiction. Sowl v.
Union Pac. R.Co., 72 F.Supp. 542, 543
3. A defendant, who files an answer to the merits or in any manner attacks plaintiff’s case, thereby, makes a “general appearance,” and gives the court full jurisdiction over the person of such defendant. Jefferson Park Realty Corp. v.
Kelley Glover & Vale, 12 N.E.2d 977, 979
4. A voluntary appearance whereby a defendant obtains an extension of time in which to plead is a “general appearance.”
Youngblood v. Bright, 91 S.E.2d 559, 561
5. A special appearance by defendant for purpose of filing a motion to dismiss restraining order and bill to enjoin collection of judgment did not constitute a “general appearance.” McFarlane v. McFarlane, 293
N.W. 895, 897
6. If an appearance be for purpose of objecting to jurisdiction of court and is confined solely to such question, appearance is “special,” but any action of defendant, except to object to jurisdiction which recognizes the action as in court, will amount to a “general appearance.” Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 192 P.2d 307, 308
7. A “general appearance” may be entered by making a motion, by filing an answer, and in other ways. Welter v.
Bowman Dairy Co., 47 N.E.2d 739, 744
8. Where defendant filed an answer, it made a “general appearance,” and thus conferred jurisdiction of the court over itself from the date of the appearance. Hart v.
Rigler, 295 N.W. 308, 310
8

9. A general demurrer, filed without protestation is a “general appearance.”
Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 59
S.E. 468, 469
10. An appearance made only for the purpose of moving to dismiss an action on one of the grounds specified in section of
Code of Civil Procedures is made only on the hypothesis that the party is not properly before the court and is a “special appearance.” Frohman v. Bonelli, 204 P.2d
890, 893
11. A party who appears for the purpose of applying to have proceedings set aside for want of jurisdiction waives nothing by such appearance. McCaslin v. Camp, 26
Mich. 390, 391
12. A party’s appearance with a statement that he appeared “specially” is a
“special appearance,” though no objection to the jurisdiction was specified. Marr v.
Cook, 111 N.W. 116, 117
13. A “special appearance” is an appearance for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, to the proof, or to some other specific matter, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court as to any other matter. National Furnace Co. v. Moline
Malleable Iron Works, 18 F. 863, 864
14. A “special appearance” must be made for purpose of urging jurisdictional objections only and must be confined to a denial of jurisdiction. Blake v. Union Ins.
Exchange, 46 N.E.2d 141, 142
15. An appearance for any purpose other than questioning the jurisdiction of the court is “general” and not “special” notwithstanding that the appearance is accompanied by the claim that the appearance is only special. The Ucayali, 47
F.Supp. 203, 206
16. A demand for a copy of the complaint constitutes neither a “general appearance” nor a “special appearance.”
Lisle v. Palmer, 29 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976
17. Party desiring to challenge jurisdiction over his person waives “special appearance” and enters “general appearance,” by calling into action powers of court over subject-matter of controversy.
Application of Goorich, 68 P.2d 597
18. The appearance of an attorney for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the action for irregularities in the proceedings is a “special appearance,” and the right to dismiss may be insisted on. Woodard v. Tri-
State Milling Co., 55 S.E. 70, 71
19. An appearance is “special” when its sole purpose is to question court’s jurisdiction. Behr v. Duling, 260 N.W. 281
20. Appearance for sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction over person is
“special appearance.” Robinson v. Glover,
244 N.W. 322, 323
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
"The Truth Will Set You Free" State courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever
over the people! This is a bold statement, so here are the FACTS!
11th Amendment Immunity1.) The 11th
Amendment under the US Constitution reads as follows: “The judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
2.) On December 9, 1945, International
Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. This law makes all public officials foreign citizens, barring them from judicial power. All public officials are administrative agents of the US
Corporation. They have no judicial power whatsoever.
3.) 22 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign
Relationship” states that oath is required to take office.
4.) Title 8 USC 1481 states, once oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus the oath taker becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, even all political subdivisions; i.e., every single court is considered a separate foreign entity.
5.) Title 22 USC, “Foreign Relations and
Intercourse”, Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
6.) All "judicial power" of the "inferior courts" comes from the Judiciary Act of
1789, as did the Attorney General position.
"Judicial power" comes from Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution. The Eleventh
Amendment removed all "judicial power" in law, equity, treaties, contract law, and the right of the State to bring suit against the
9

People. The positions of Attorney General and Prosecutor, of both the United States and the several states, come under the
Judicial Branch not the Executive branch of the government. All attorneys come under the Judicial Branch and are judicial officers under the Supreme Court, not under the
Secretary of State as licensed professionals, which means they can only represent the
Court and not the People or the State. The
Eleventh Amendment removed all "judicial power" from the "inferior courts" and the prosecutor’s office as well as from all court officers in law, equity, and so forth.
7.) The Eleventh Amendment also makes a foreign state separation from the position of the Public Office positions to throw off the People. The People have Eleventh
Amendment immunity, because there is no
"JUDICIAL POWER" of the "inferior courts" and the People have Foreign Sovereign
Immunity.
8.) The defendant/affiant/petitioner holds the inherent right of the 11th
Amendment, which states in part: “The judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted by a Foreign
State.”
9.) Municipal, county, or state court lacks jurisdiction to hear any case under the foreign state definitions, coming from the
11th Amendment under the US
Constitution. This jurisdiction lies with the
United States District Court under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)
Statutes pursuant to 28 USC 1330.2
10.) The fact that public officials are not citizens, but rather, foreign citizens, all of the cases must be dismissed because the court lacked and lacks jurisdiction to enforce judicial power. This court is an administrative court and not a criminal court. In other words, no judicial power makes this court an administrative court.
Also, this following act proves that this court is an administrative agency: The
Administrative Procedures Act, Title 5 -
Government Organization and Employees
Administrative Procedures Act part I - the agencies generally chapter 5 subchapter ii - administrative procedure º551. Definitions.
For the purpose of this subchapter - * (1)
''agency'' means each authority of the
Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency.
Additionally, "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah
Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910. And the court cannot ignore lack of jurisdiction.
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek,
17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553
(1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut. L.
Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct.
236 (1907).
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v.
Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368
(Fla 2nd DCA 1985)"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct.
250.
"A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329;
Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732."Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of
Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.3If any
Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. (See
Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT
42.
“The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.)According to
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes, “The U.S. Constitution and treaties as the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” Every judge and public official
10

took an oath of office to uphold and defend the US and their state’s Constitutions, so every judge is indeed bound to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
“Any law that is repugnant to the
Constitution, shall remain forever ’colorable’ and is null and void.” (See Marbury v.
Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176 (1803).
“According to Cohens vs. Virginia, 19
U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821),
“No one can war with the Constitution.” To war with the constitution constitutes the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, which is treason in violation of
Title 18 U.S.C, Section 2381.
“Where Rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule - making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” (See Miranda v. Arizona
384 US 436, 125.)
5 U.S. CODE § 3331 - OATH OF OFFICE
US Code
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I,
AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law'. https://www.facebook.com/notes/jerry...
82827338485026
11