The Courts are not the Government and have no authority lawfully over you.

Arguments to present as evidence

When you are charged with any crime` (deIinition: violation oI public policy(code)) the Iirst thing to do is
to do a debt validation or, order to show cause in the Iorm oI a Conditional Acceptance. The maxims oI law
are always true, such as 'he who does not deny, admits or 'an unrebutted aIIidavit stands as truth, and the
system oI justice is built around honor and dishonor`. When you receive a presentment` (document or
instrument) making a claim on you (CPS wants your children, or you violated a penal code or vehicle code)
you would be in dishonor iI you Iail to answer it and will receive deIault judgment. II you Iail to show up
at court it is a deIault judgment. So don`t be in dishonor and question the charge or debt owed. In the
simplest Iorm is would be making a photo copy oI the original presentment` (traIIic ticket, court summons,
Notice oI DeIault (Ioreclosure)) and writing in red pen diagonally across it 'reIused Ior cause 'per UCC 1-
308 then qualiIy your signature by putting 'without prejudice (this retains all your rights and without it
you lose your rights) then ' By: to the leIt oI your signature and then your signature and below your
signature 'authorized representative. II your all capital lettered name is on the presentment, i.e. JOHN H.
DOE then that is a ens legis, legal Iiction (not living soul) and you are the authorized representative oI that
corporate Iiction, see UCC 3-402
1
showing the authorized representative is not liable Ior the party signed on
behalI oI, i.e. JOHN DOE. Get a Iriend or neighbor or anyone not a party to the case` that is not named or
someone who will be called as a witness`, to Iill out a prooI oI service by Mail` and put you response in
the letter and mail it back 1
st
class, iI it isn`t that important, CertiIied Mail (and include the certiIied Mail #
in the prooI oI service) iI it is more important. II it is very important and will be the best Iorm oI evidence
at a court case get a green signature receipt card to go with the CertiIied Mail ($3.50 $2 Ior the green card)
as this will be allowed as evidence). II it is really important send it Registered Mail with a green card ($13
$2). Next always try and Iind a living soul who has a proven responsibility like the CEO or Board member
or ChieI, to send you presentments to, i.e. look up the CEO oI the Bank who is Ioreclosing, or the judges
name, or the clerk oI the courts name, and send it to John Doe C/O (the address or business address). That
way your contract is going to the living soul Care OII / the address and not the Iictional COURT or BANK
or STATE OF, etc. and remains on the private side, in the real world not in a Iictional world. They are then
personally responsible because the COURT which is a corporatate business cannot be sent to jail only living
souls can be sent to jail, or have liability. The statement 'reIused Ior cause is a counterclaim as they made
a claim and you are countering their claim saying you 'reIuse to contract with them, unless they can 'show
cause why you have a liability. Under the 6
th
amendment you have the right in any criminal case to know
the 'nature and cause oI the action against you. II this is a criminal charge you have the right` to demand
to know how you became liable` Ior the alleged debt to society, or to Iace the charges , ie.money owed-it`s
all about money see U.S.~CFR 72.11 all crimes are commercial`. Unless they can show points and
authorities which are statute law, case law which are judgments in court decisions, any contract you have
violated, etc. you are NOT liable and their charges are FALSE and Iraud and an attempt at extortion. II 3 or
more are in collusion, the legal deIinition oI which is to deny your rights, the charges would be
racketeering to try and extort Iraudulent claims against you.
The next level oI response which can occur later than the 3 days you have to use the reIused Ior cause`
reply would be a 'Conditional Acceptance.
The conditional acceptance is staying in honor by accepting the claim conditioned upon proving the claim.
I include an example later in this document. You will give a time period to rebut and prove or show cause`
!
UCC 3-402. SIGNATURE BY REPRESENTATIVE.: (a) II a person acting, or purporting to act, as a representative signs an
instrument by signing either the name oI the represented person or the name oI the signer, the represented person is bound by the
signature to the same extent the represented person would be bound iI the signature were on a simple contract. II the represented person
is bound, the signature oI the representative is the "authorized signature oI the represented person" and the represented person is liable on
the instrument, whether or not identiIied in the instrument. (b) II a representative signs the name oI the representative to an instrument
and the signature is an authorized signature oI the represented person, the Iollowing rules apply: (1) II the Iorm oI the signature shows
unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf oI the represented person who is identiIied in the instrument, the representative
is not liable on the instrument. |veriIied|
1
why the claim is valid. Failure to prove the claim will be evidence oI it being Iraudulent and having no
basis in Iact.
The next level oI serious authority on your part would be an AIIidavit` and SelI-Executing Contract`
In this level oI response you will get an aIIidavit notarized as an aIIidavit is more powerIul than a
declaration or statement, which the conditional acceptance is. The aIIidavit is a sworn statement oI your
own experiences (you can not include hearsay` evidence, i.e. hearsay is Bob told me the case worker
said..` because you did not hear the case worker say anything, and is only your experience or your
personal belieIs. The aIIidavit will have to be answered and rebutted with a notarized sworn aIIidavit or the
oppositions` rebuttal will not have as much authority as your sworn aIIidavit. Once the Notary puts their
seal on the instrument it is in the public record as it is recorded in an agent oI the Secretary oI States Notary
Journal. The selI-executing contract will be a perIormance contract establishing consequences Ior non-
response to your aIIidavit. Examples are provided at the end oI this document.
Now lets look at whether the courts, police and government as we know it has any authority over us and
what jurisdiction` (control) is.
One has to read and understand the United States Constitution and the CaliIornia Constitution and have a
basis oI knowledge about the LAW oI the land.
First oII, what is your status? Are you a subject oI a King?, the subject oI a Government? the subject oI a
State?, the subject oI your neighbor? Answer each oI the above questions to get an idea oI what your
knowledge about your status is in relation to the entities named.
The pilgrims coming to America circa 1700 were subjects` oI the King oI England. The King was
sovereign. Sovereign means no higher power exists and the sovereign makes the law as stated in these
Supreme Court decisions:
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns oI the
country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v.
GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL (1793) pp471-472. |veriIied|
'Sovereignty itselI is, oI course, not subject to law, Ior it is the author and source oI law; but in our
system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself
remains with the people, by whom and Ior whom all government exists and acts. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886) |veriIied|
"The people oI this State, as the successors oI its Iormer sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which
formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21
Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167;
48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
"It is the public policy oI this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct oI the people's
business....The people oI this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them."
CaliIornia Government Code, Section 11120.|Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.|veriIied|
"The very meaning oI 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American
Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.
So the King was expelled and we had no Sovereign above us and became common-law Ireemen/women.
Was there any Iorm oI law in existence? Yes the States had there own common law procedures. We created
a common-law trust the Constitution oI the united States, wherein the people were the Grantors,
BeneIiciaries and the Government employees became the Trustee`s. Their oath oI oIIice is there acceptance
oI the trustee position and promise to perIorm.We Iormed a Republic Iorm oI government
2
, which is ruled
by law. Wherever the word Law appears in the Constitution it means Common-Law
3
. All attorneys at law
"
. Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,
either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139
U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 21 wall. 175,22 L. Ed. 627" Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed., p.824.
3
see 16 Am Jur 2
nd
(pg 449,1998ed.) 74 Construction with reIerence to Common Law~ 'An important canon oI construction is
that constitutions must, or at least may, be construed with reIerence to the common law, although the reverse is not necessarily true,
2
equals attorneys at common law. Courts oI Law courts oI common law. Does that mean that a common
law Ireeman can trespass on his neighbor without consequences? No. His neighbor can accuse him oI a
trespass or other injury or loss and hold him accountable by a jury oI his peers. We live in a Republic not a
Democracy. The word democracy appears
nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and could not Ior it would be repugnant to it. Get a copy oI the CaliIornia
Constitution Irom your assemblyperson (Ior Iree) and it contains the source oI law Ior CaliIornia and lists:
the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.-common law), the Declaration oI Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the
1879 CaliIornia Constitution among others. So iI the Declaration oI Independence is law (and it is) then I
have a Right not a privilege that can be inIringed upon, to 'liIe, liberty and the pursuit oI happiness which
originally said pursuit oI property` because property ownership is crucial to Ireedom. 'All men are created
equal stated clearly in the Declaration oI Independence means iI I can`t tell you what to do, you can`t tell
me what to do or we are all equally sovereign and under common law. Think about this, II I can`t establish
a tax payable to me by you Ior any reason, please explain how I gave that right to a group oI men and
women i.e. the legislature? It is well-established Iact that you cannot give what you do not possess. Yet the
legislature would have me believe that I gave that right to them to vote on my behalI and that I would be
liable Ior any act they pass. Read the writings oI Marc Stevens Ior more on this concept. Is that true? Is
there any basis in law Ior having another man Iorce me to do his bidding at the barrel oI a gun? Can anyone
prove they have that authority with points and authorities? NO, No No.
Jurisdiction
4
is another word Ior control or slavery. II I have jurisdiction which originally was Latin Ior
oath spoken` or pledge` to the Ieudal lord, over you, then I have the right to have you obey my word.
Slavery is prohibited by the 13
th
amendment and the CaliIornia Constitution, so how does the court or State
or Federal government have jurisdiction i.e.control, over me? I guess I could volunteer to be a slave? The
14
th
amendment
5
gives us the legal deIinition oI United States Citizen. So iI you state you are a United
States Citizen you agree voluntarily to be a slave subject to the jurisdiction` oI the UNITED STATES,
INC. and it`s subsidiary corporations CA, TX, AZ., etc. Why do you think you are taught to pledge`
allegiance to the UNITED STATES?, sign every tax return as a U.S. citizen, every W2, W4, W9, Bank card
application, Drivers license, Passport, etc. The Iederal corporation wants you to testiIy you are their subject
and supply them with a Iorm oI prooI oI that. So we gave up being subjects oI the King to be subjects oI
the government. Lets look at the hierarchy oI status. God has the highest status on the list as Grantor,
Creator oI all living things,~ then Man, then Mans creation~ i.e. the Constitutions ~ then the creation oI the
Constitutions, ie. the Governments, then the creations oI the governments, i.e. licensed corporations~
subjects (you as slaves). So you are only a slave iI you volunteer and don`t upset the presumption the court
makes and the government makes that you are a slave 'subject to the jurisdiction oI them.
Now lets` look at evidence the Government is not the dejure (lawIul) government but is a corporation
Ialsely representing itselI as having authority.
The court cases shown above outline my right to claim I`m sovereign. II I have been deceived into signing a
contract giving up my sovereignty is that lawIul? What are the lawIul elements oI a contract
6
? A meeting
oI the minds or Iull disclosure is a common law requirement or the contract would be unconscionable and
void. No one would enter into an agreement where he would not know what he was bargaining Ior or
since in most respects, the Iederal and state constitutions did not repudiate, but cherished, the established common law.|veriIied|
4
JURISDICTION: It is the power conIerred by the Constitution or by law, Corby v. Dooley, 313 Ill. App.
509, 40 N.E.2
nd
581, 584 |BlksLaw4th,`68, pg.991|
$
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. RatiIied July 9, 1868 |no prooI here|.Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereoI, are citizens oI the United States and oI
the State wherein they reside.
6
CONTRACT: An agreement between two or more parties, preliminary step in making oI which is offer by
one and acceptance by other, in which minds of parties meet and concur in understanding oI terms. Lee v.
Travellers` Ins.Co. oI HartIord, Conn., 173 S.C. 185, 175 S.E. 429
It is an agreement creating obligation, in which there must be competent parties, subject-matter, legal
consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation, and agreement must not be so vague
or uncertain that terms are not ascertainable. H.Liebes & Co. V. Klengenberg, C. C.A. Cal., 23 F.2
nd
611, 612
|BlksLaw4th-1968,pg394|
3
where he would give up something oI value and receive nothing oI value so those would be unconscionable
contracts and be void. II the STATE told you that by signing a marriage license you would be giving them
total control over your marriage and give the STATE authority over the product oI the union (your children)
would you do it? Or would you get hitched the old Iashioned way in holy matrimony` beIore God, God`s
witness (the preacher) and your community oI Iellow inhabitants, thus keeping your rights to your children?
Without the Marriage license there is no legal authority CPS can take your children without your 5
th
amendment right to Due Process ie to be heard in a court and deIend your rights, or by being NOTICED
and having the opportunity to respond beIore your rights are violated. Lets look at another Supreme Court
case:
' It is one thing to Iind that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals Irom
it, and quite another to Iind that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not
expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign Iorever waives the right to exercise
one oI its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns
the concept oI sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v.
JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50
U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148 |veriIied|
So iI I am a sovereign, one oI the people and not a 14
th
, amendment 'Citizen oI the United States, even though
I did not reserve my rights I can not lose them Iorever more. II you hadn`t noticed no one has any United States
Constitutional Rights in court anymore. Would you like to get them back? I believe you can.
First Iile an aIIidavit oI truth` stating your right to claim sovereignty and renounce any presumption you are a
14
th
amendment citizen oI the U.S. and establish that you are not the ens legis, legal Iiction JOHN DOE in all
capital letters that appears on every government letter you receive and Irom every licensed corporation such as
PG&E, AT&T, DMV, BANK STATEMENTS, IRS, ect. They will never address you correctly using your
living soul, upper and lower case name John H. Doe. Want prooI you are the authorized representative oI the
trust JOHN DOE? Look with a high powered magniIying glass at the signature line on your Bank Check. It is
micro print and says 'authorized signature only over and over and is not a line at all. Your account is JOHN
H. DOE and you sign as the 'authorized signature because a legal Iiction cant sign as it has no hands to sign
with. The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a dead piece oI paper sitting on a table and cannot order you to do
anything. How can a piece oI paper or an idea physically aIIect you? But the Iiction can order (through it`s
agents) another legal Iiction (JOHN DOE) to do something. This is one reason why all court documents, Tax
bills, property tax bills, phone bills, etc come to the Iiction, the all capital JOHN DOE, and not to you.
Next the Constitution does not apply to me. I did sign it, and I am not a party to the contract trust. But I can
be iI I choose to be. The judge, the Government agents, all took an oath (as trustee) to execute the trust and it is
waiting Ior my agreement to become a binding contract to honor my rights.
Lets look at OATHS and BONDS. I go to the County Clerks oIIice and get a certiIied copy oI the DA.s Oath
and the SheriII`s oath, ChieI oI Polices Oath and the Judges oath, and write 'For you service to the community I
accept your oath oI oIIice as a binding bi-lateral contract and sign it 'without prejudice By: John Doe as
authorized representative oI JOHN DOE. Now we, ie the oath pledger and I, are in contract to honor the
Constitutions (U.S. and CALIFORNIA). This along with the Truth aIIidavit will secure my rights in court.
In addition I break any presumptions the court has about my status. oI which they have plenty, by stating when
my name is called: 'I am here on that matter (I don`t give my name) as the authorized representative oI the all
capital name JOHN DOE, the deIendant, I`m one oI the people oI the Republic oI CaliIornia ( this indicates my
sovereign status-see above), in this court oI record`(indicates common law status-see above) by special
appearance to challenge jurisdiction only and will cross the bar retaining all my unalienable rights and waiving
none by your consent judge? and wait Ior consent beIore crossing into the admiralty/equity jurisdiction which
is represented by the gold Iringed military Ilags Ilying on the walls indicating the Iorm oI law being practiced in
the court. II the judge reIuses to consent, I ask again and aIter the third time oI non-consent I state the judge is
intentionally denying my unalienable rights, they wont go there as it would void the case Ior lack my right to
due process. Once I have crossed the bar, I ask ' Will the State`s Judicial oIIicer give my his/her name? Ask 3
times aIter no response state 'Let the record show there is no State judicial oIIicer present in this court. II they
try to state you`re in contempt oI court state remain silent or state ' I conditionally accept you statement based
upon prooI oI claim oI authority and jurisdiction. I am not arguing, I talk calmly and let the judge Iinish their
4
statements beIore proceeding but I am Iirm, on my mission and bring everything written out on a piece oI paper
to go back to Ior reIerence so I don`t Iorget the points I want to address.
The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 ~ JUDICIAL SEC. 1.~ 'The judicial power oI this State
is vested in the Supreme Court, courts oI appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. So
then what is a court oI record?
'A 'court oI record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising Iunctions independently of the
person oI the magistrate |the jury| designated generally to hold it, and preceding according to the course of
common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled Ior a perpetual memorial. Jones v Jones 188 Mo. App.
220, 175 S.W. 227,229: Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , Mass. , 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky,
244 N.Y. 406,155 N.E. 688, 689 | BlacksLaw 4
th
Ed., `68,pg426|
So in common law who is the tribunal, the decider oI both the Iacts and the law? It is the Jury oI your peers.
Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES in Horning v. District oI Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920)): 'The judge
cannot direct a verdict, it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth oI both law and
Iacts. |veriIied|
U.S. SUPREME COURT (State oI Georgia v. BrailsIord, 3 DALL. 1,4): "...it is presumed, that the juries are
the best judges oI Iacts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges oI law. But still,
both objects are within your power oI decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge oI both, and
to determine the law as well as the Iact in controversy."
We see that everything is lawIully present when seen in it`s true reality. The CaliIornia Constitution requires
common law to be practiced in every court in the state and the magistrates are unlawIully applying codes and
statutes that they have no authority to apply because there is no legislated laws in CommonLaw, the law is
whatever the people on the jury declare it to be as guided by the golden rule oI 'All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye so to them; Ior this is the law and the prophets. KJV Matthew 7:12
Need more prooI :
'It may be maintained, at least plausibly, that the admission oI CaliIornia into the Union, "on an equal Iooting
with the original states," oI itselI operated an immediate transIer oI the property in the innavigable rivers to the
Iederal government, so that the property oI the state was momentary. However this may be, on the 13th oI
April, 1850, the legislature oI CaliIornia had passed an act "adopting the common law," which reads: "The
common law oI England, so Iar as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution oI the United
States, or the constitution or laws oI the state oI CaliIornia, shall be the rule oI decision in all the courts oI this
state." (Stats. 1850, p. 219.) The validity oI the acts oI the Iirst legislature oI CaliIornia, or oI rights acquired
under them, even prior to the admission oI the state, has never been questioned. Certainly, when constitutional,
those acts became valid and in operation Ior every purpose Irom the date oI the admission oI the state into the
Union. Lux v. Haggin 69 Cal 255 (1886) |veriIied | I put veriIied` next to every cite I have personally
checked. The codes oI CaliIornia were never lawIully enacted as they did not meet the Constitution
requirements. The Code oI Civil Procedure, Ior example, claims to have been "enacted 1872". The PlaintiIIs
hereby declare that it must be noted that it does not state its origin in the manner oI "Stats. 1872, ch. ???". This
is signiIicant because every valid Statute oI CaliIornia has a reIerence to its origin in the manner oI "Stats
(legislative year), ch. (number)". This method began with Stats 1850, ch. I, and has continued since. This is due
to the constitutional mandate Iound at Article V, Section 19, where it states, "The Secretary oI State shall keep a
Iair record oI the oIIicial acts oI the legislative and executive departments oI government, ..." This mandate is
in the 1849 CaliIornia Constitution as the codes were originally allegedly enacted in 1872 and the Iraudulent
1879 Constitution hadn`t been enacted yet. It was Iraudulent because while the 1849 Constitution was voted
upon by the 'Citizens oI CaliIornia, the 1879 Constitution could only be voted upon by 'United States
Citizens i.e. the subjects oI the US GOVERNMENT created by the 14
th
amendment. The 1879 Constitution
also was never accepted by Congress at the time so it`s void. Everything is public policy and applys to the
employees oI the STATE and not without consenting to it, by the people oI CaliIornia. Oh and by the way, your
probably not a 'person
7
so be wary oI that term. So is JOHN DOE a person? When the code says every
person` are they reIerring to the living soul? Why don`t they say every man` where man reIers also to woman,
or any man` instead oI any person`.
7
PERSON: Term may include artiIicial beings, as corporations, 1. Bla.Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com`rs oI
Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242, more |BlksLaw4th, `68, pg.1299|
5
In the case CHARLOTTE A. LEWIS, administratix, etc. v. FRANK H. DUNNE, judge ( 134 Cal. 291)|86
Am. St. Rep. 257, 55 L. R. A. 833, 66 Pac.478| 'Petitioner contends that the act in question is void because
violatiove oI the Iollowing parts oI section 24 oI the article IV oI the state constitution: 'Every act shall
embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in it`s title. and the decision stated 'Our
conclusion is, that, Ior the reasons above stated, the said act oI March 8, 1901 |revision oI code| is
unconstitutional, and void Ior all purposes, and is inoperative to change or in any way aIIect the law oI the state
as it stood immediately beIore the approval oI said act. So iI a revision is void Ior not stating one subject in
the title what do you believe the original enactment was? It was void because the legislature voted on an act
that included hundreds oI parts all not stated as one subject in the title and voted upon individually. The Penal
Code, Civil Code, etc are all unconstitutional and were never lawIully enacted. I subpoenad the Supreme court
Ior a legal determination oI the Code being Constitutional and they will reIused to honor my request. Open a
case or go into your open or closed case and get a supeona duces tecum and serve |in person| the Supreme
Court and the Attorney General to get a declaratory judgement and or testiIy to the lawIul enactment and
Constitutionality oI what you are being charged with and see what happens. 28 USC~ PART VI ~ CHAPTER
161 ~ 2403 '(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court oI the United States to which a State or any
agency, oIIicer, or employee thereoI is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State
affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certiIy such Iact to the attorney general oI
the State, and shall permit the State to intervene Ior presentation oI evidence, iI evidence is otherwise
admissible in the case, and Ior argument on the question oI constitutionality veriIied. You should see the
dancing around the Supreme Court and AG did to get out oI answering the simple question I posed in my
supeona.
Next up; are the government oIIicials truly government oIIicials. AIter you get certiIied copys oI their oaths
and Bonds Ior local DA, SHERIFF, POLICE at the County Clerks oIIice, Ior the Judges and Court employees
such as the CEO or ChieI Executive OIIicer (ie.Head Clerk oI the Court) Irom the Secretary oI State where they
keep them on Iile. Make copies oI the CertiIied copies and enter them into the record and bring the originals to
court Ior examination to prove it. Yours might disappear Irom the case Iile. When you enter the copy make a
copy oI title 20 section 3 oI the CaliIornia Constitution on the back to show their oath is deIective.
Their oIIice is void and vacant iI aIter 30 days they do not Iile the correct oath and bond. See that attached oath
inIo and Bond inIo. 54 oI 58 counties in CaliIornia have elected to have CSAC issue an insurance policy in lieu
oI a Bond but it only protects the county against the employee and does not protect the people Irom being
injured by dishonest activity on the part oI the state employee, which makes it unconstitutional. A Notaries
bond speciIically states it is there to protect the people Irom any bad actions on their part, that is a true
constitutional bond. You might ask why wouldn`t they just do the correct oath? Because they are not the
government and have usurped and overthrown unlawIully the true Republic. Remember the United States
Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8: Congress shall: 'coin Money regulate the Value thereoI, and oI
Ioreign Coin, and Iix the Standard oI Weights and Measures and in Article 1, Section 10: 'No State Shall.
emit bills oI credit; make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment oI Debts.. So does the State
oI CaliIornia pay any oI it`s debts with gold or silver Coin? No, then it is acting unlawIully under the
requirements oI the United States Constitution. These parts oI the U.S. Constitution have never been repealed.
In 1933 this Country went bankrupt to the Federal Reserve a private, Ioreign corporation who has never listed
it`s true owners or Iiled a Iinancial statement, or been audited by Congress and continues to print money Irom
thin air and loan` it at interest. Would that be treason? You bet. So all agents oI the Government would be
committing perjury to swear they would not engage in any activity that constituted overthrow oI the dejure
Republic oI CaliIornia. This topic could stretch out to a book the size oI a bible.
Next lets see iI the Courts are truly members oI the judiciary oI the State or just private companies running Ior
proIit. See the attached pdI Iiles showing the Superior Court oI Sonoma listed as a Business` by Manta, the
available Roster oI Public Agencies listed the Superior Court oI Sonoma as a Public Agency in 2002 and a
Public Agency is NOT the State or County.
GOV 53050. 'The term "public agency," as used in this article, means a district, public authority, public
agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state, but does not include the state
or a county, city and county, or city. |veriIied|
So iI the Court is a 'public Agency it is not the State, what is it then? Do you think the legislature is a public
agency?, The Executive Branch`s governor is a public agency?
6
GOV 53051. '(a) Within seventy (70) days aIter the date oI commencement oI its legal existence, the
governing body oI each public agency shall Iile with the Secretary oI State on a Iorm prescribed by the
Secretary oI State and also with the county clerk oI each county in which the public agency maintains an oIIice,
a statement oI the Iollowing Iacts:. (c) It shall be the duty oI the Secretary oI State and oI the county clerk of
each county to establish and maintain an indexed "Roster of Public Agencies," to be so designated, which
shall contain all inIormation Iiled as required in subdivisions (a) and (b), which roster is hereby declared to be a
public record. veriIied
The clerk oI the court gave a signed letter stating the FEIN number Ior the Sonoma County Court. They all
have them and what does that prove? The State does not have any Constitutionally requirement to pay taxes to
the Federal Government. They are independent Sovereign authorities aren`t they? The IRS states that only
business` need to have a FEIN number so why would the judiciary oIIice oI the State oI CaliIornia be
considered a business`?
So, there are 2 types oI evidence the courts are not the dejure Republic courts; 1. they are not the
constitutionally required, common-law court oI record` and 2. they are public agency/private business and not
the judiciary oI the State and their employees, i.e. judges and chieI clerks are not lawIully in their oIIices, 3. the
codes they are using were not lawIully enacted and only apply iI we consent to them.
Everything that goes on in court is let`s make a deal` contract law. 'Do you understand the charges, you say
'yes now you agreed to contract or stand under` the authority oI the court and judge. Every time you sign
anything without qualiIying your signature to retain your rights you contracted. How oIten does the DA, BailiII
and Judge give you his name? Never, but they reIuse to allow you to not name yourselI. Giving the judge your
name engages in contract with the court so don`t do it. 'I go by the name John, you may address me as John or
'I am the authorized representative oI the all capital lettered deIendant JOHN DOE, and you may address me as
'Iriend When they call you 'Mr Doe respond 'By what authority are you addressing me by that name? It
will always be a struggle Ior power and the judges are masters at word art and deception, master salesmen
getting you to give up your position because oI Iear, and they will Iinally resort to threats oI 'contempt oI
court and jail time Ior being disruptive when in Iact they are trespassing on your rights and demeaning you
with their actions without any authority to do so- the very deIinition oI criminal behavior.
Look at the Iile 'Initial arrest conIrontation in 'case law on the Court CD to see a lot oI penal code and
vehicle code that they violate when they arrest you
First thing I would do would be to Iile a conditional acceptance oI the charges. Then I would go down and get a
copy oI the docket` at the clerk oI the courts oIIice ($.50/page) aIter 15 days have elapsed Irom the arrest to see
iI a complaint has been Iiled.
The arrest: Arraignment
PEN 988. The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its
direction, and consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the deIendant and delivering to the
defendant a true copy thereoI, and of the endorsements thereon, iI any, including the list oI witnesses,
and asking the deIendant whether the deIendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the accusatory pleading;
provided, that where the accusatory pleading is a complaint charging a misdemeanor, a copy oI the same
need not be delivered to any deIendant unless requested by the defendant.
SO unless the complete complaint has been read into the record they did not conIorm to 'reading the
accusatory pleading did they? Did they give you a true copy oI the complaint? The complaint is a veriIied
sworn charging instrument. Your 4
th
amendment rights
8
under the U.S. Constitution require an oath based
8
'The issue beIore us today is oI precisely that sort. As we have recently had occasion to explain, the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition oI "unreasonable seizures," insoIar as it applies to seizure oI the person, preserves Ior our
citizens the traditional protections against unlawIul arrest afforded by the common law. See GO~CaliIornia v.
Hodari D., 499 U.S. |500 U.S. 61| 621 (1991). One oI those -- one oI the most important oI those -- was that a person
arresting a suspect without a warrant must deliver the arrestee to a magistrate "as soon as he reasonably can." 2
M. Hale, Pleas oI the Crown 95, n. 13 (1st Am. ed. 1847). See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *289, *293;
Wright v. Court, 107 Eng.Rep. 1182 (K.B. 1825) ("|I|t is the duty oI a person arresting any one on suspicion oI Ielony
to take him beIore a justice as soon as he reasonably can"); 1 R. Burn, Justice oI the Peace 276-277 (1837) ("When a
constable arrests a party Ior treason or Ielony, he must take him beIore a magistrate to be examined as soon as he
7
upon probable cause sworn to. When you get the complaint usually it isn`t signed and is blank. 'Is this a
true copy oI the complaint? 'Yes 'O.K. I demand this matter be dismissed Ior lack oI a valid complaint as
there is no complaining party. II it is signed, it will usually signed by the DA, was the DA
9
a witness to
the alleged violation? II he wasn`t there then his sworn complaint is perjury because the complainant
swears a 'warrant shall issue and his testimony is hearsay` evidence and perjury because he knows he did
not witness the violation. 'and the endorsements thereon this part is noted in penal code 872
10
. Always
request the veriIied sworn complaint be given to you at arraignment. Always challenge it as deIective. II it
is signed by the SheriII or Police note that the ALL CAPITAL NAME SHERIFFS OFFICE` and then the
signature above by a living soul is Iraud as the living soul is signing as the authorized representative Ior the
real signing party~ the legal Iiction SHERIFFS OFFICE, it would be like the words BANK OF AMERICA
are below the signature and By: Bob Henry is signed above it. Bob is signing as agent Ior BANK OF
AMERICA the named party. So did a Iiction make a complaint that you violated a code? Can they? The
SheriII would have to sign in his own capacity not as agent Ior the Iiction to be legitimate. Next the
reasonably can") (emphasis omitted). The practice in the United States was the same. See e.g., 5 Am.Jur.2d 76, 77
(1962); Venable v. Huddy, 77 N.J.L. 351, 72 A. 10, 11 (1909); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Hinsdell, 76 Kan. 74, 76,
90 P. 800, 801 (1907); Ocean S.S. Co. v. Williams, 69 Ga. 251, 262 (1883); Johnson v. Mayor and City Council oI
Americus, 46 Ga. 80, 86-87 (1872); Low v. Evans, 16 Ind. 486, 489 (1861); Tubbs v. Tukey, 57 Mass. 438, 440
(1849) (warrant); Perkins, The Law oI Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 254 (1940). CI. Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673
(1884). It was clear, moreover, that the only element bearing upon the reasonableness oI delay was not such
circumstances as the pressing need to conduct Iurther investigation, but the arresting officer's ability, once the
prisoner had been secured, to reach a magistrate who could issue the needed warrant Ior Iurther detention. 5
Am.Jur.2d 76, 77 (1962); 1 Restatement oI Torts 134 (Comment b) (1934); KeeIe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 482,
100 N.E. 558, 559 (1913); Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 57 N.E. 506, 508 (1900); Burk v. Howley, 179 Pa. 539,
551, 36 A. 327, 329 (1897); Kirk & Son v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 405, 35 A. 1089, 1091 (1896); Simmons v. Vandyke,
138 Ind. 380, 384, 37 N.E. 973, 974 (1894) (dictum); Ocean S.S. Co. v. Williams, supra, at 263; Hayes v. Mitchell, 69
Ala. 452, 455 (1881); Kenerson v. Bacon, 41 Vt. 573, 577 (1869); Green v. Kennedy, 48 N.Y. |500 U.S. 62| 653, 654
(1871); Schneider v. McLane, 3 Keyes 568 (NYApp. 1867); Annot., 51 L.R.A. 216 (1901). CI. GO~Wheeler v.
Nesbitt, 24 How. 544, GO~552 (1860). Any detention beyond the period within which a warrant could have been
obtained rendered the officer liable for false imprisonment. See, e.g., Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265, 26 A.
286, 289 (1893); Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 148, 152, 9 S.E. 607, 608-609 (1889); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520
(1871); Annot., 98 A.L.R.2d 966 (1964).GO~1} County oI Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) |Scalia
dissenting|

9
CA. PEN 740. 'Except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and inIractions must be prosecuted by written
complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be veriIied on inIormation and belieI.,
OATH: statement under penalty oI perjury |blacks law 4
th
, page 1220-|U.S. v. Klink D.C.Wyo, 3 F Supp |veriIied|
FRCrimP Rule 10. Arraignment (a) In General. An arraignment must be conducted in open court and must consist of: (1) ensuring
that the deIendant has a copy oI the indictment or inIormation; |veriIied|
'Even when the person who makes the constitutionally required "Oath or aIIirmation" is a lawyer, the only Iunction that she
perIorms in giving sworn testimony is that of a witness., The Fourth Amendment requires that arrest warrants be based "upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or aIIirmation" -- a requirement that may be satisIied by an indictment returned by a grand jury,
but not by the mere filing of criminal charges in an unsworn information signed by the prosecutor. GO~Gerstein v. Pugh,
420 U.S. 103, GO~117 (1975); see also GO~Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118
(1997) veriIied
'It is plain Irom this Iundamental enunciation, as wells Irom the books oI authority on criminal matters in the common
law, that the probable cause reIerred to, and which must be supported by oath or aIIirmation, must be submitted to the
committing magistrate himselI, and not merely to an oIIicial accuser, so that he, the magistrate, may exercise his own
judgment on the suIIiciency oI the ground Ior believing the accused person guilty: and this ground must amount to a
probable cause oI belieI or suspicion oI the party`s guilt. In other words, the magistrate ought to have beIore him the
oath oI the real accuser, presented either in the Iorm oI an aIIidavit or taken down by himselI on a personal
examination, exhibiting the Iacts on which the charge is based, and on which the belieI or suspicion oI guilt is
Iounded. 'The rule which was established was that the warrant should issue 'only upon probable cause, supported by
oath or aIIirmation oI the person making the charge, in which should be stated the Iacts within his own knowledge
constitution the grounds oI such belieI or suspicion. United States v. Tureaud, 20 Fed Rptr 623 (1884) | veriIied|
8
Complaint has to be Iile stamped within 15 days oI the arrest
11
. Once you note the misnomer oI the wrong
name being JOHN DOE instead oI John Doe they have to correct it
12
although I bet they reIuse. II they did
not Iile the complaint within 15 days demand they dismiss it and don`t let them talk you out oI it, because
they will attempt to contract with you to come back Ior any reason so they can get it together to Iile a
complaint and they WILL BACK DATE IT to be within the 15 days (guess how I know that). Remember
it`s all contract, there is no law being applied in their administrative courts, just your agreement to perIorm.
Always say 'I am here under threat and duress only, and I do not consent to contract with this court You
give the court most oI the evidence that ends up convicting you, so don`t give them any. Quit trying to
deIend yourselI, 'I am a good person, I never break the law, I have a clean record, they don`t care they are
trying to milk you Ior money and that is all, it`s a business and they want you to be a good customer and
pay. They do not want you to show the others in court your lack oI cowering beIore the judge, you deIiance
oI their authority, your challenges to their jurisdiction, etc. They will put you over till last, when everyone
is gone. Jurisdiction in my opinion is best deIined as there is none until you trespass on someone and then
it springs into existence. II you were under the jurisdiction all the time because Ior instance you 'live in the
City oI Pleasantville then you are a slave because jurisdiction is control and iI you are constantly under
control then you are a slave. Slavery is prohibited so you cannot be under the jurisdiction oI the State just
because you live somewhere. Jurisdiction is acquired when you trespass. Since a code violation is usually
a victimless crime there is no jurisdiction as there is no real party oI interest`
13
as the alleged PlaintiII. You
must complain that the PlaintiII is 'not the real party oI interest (the injured party). There rarely is a
'corpus delecti
14
. There is rarely any 'standing
15
to sue in the Iirst place by the alleged PlaintiII |People
10
PEN 872. (a) II, however, it appears Irom the examination that a public oIIense has been committed, and there is suIIicient
cause to believe that the deIendant is guilty, the magistrate shall make or indorse on the complaint an order, signed by him or
her, to the following effect: "It appearing to me that the offense in the within complaint mentioned (or any offense,
according to the fact, stating generally the nature thereof), has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe
that the within named A. B. is guilty, I order that he or she be held to answer to the same."
b) Notwithstanding Section 1200 oI the Evidence Code, the finding of probable cause may be based in whole or in part upon the
sworn testimony of a law enforcement oIIicer or honorably retired law enIorcement oIIicer relating the statements oI declarants
made out oI court oIIered Ior the truth oI the matter asserted.
!!
PEN 1382. (a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed in the Iollowing cases:(1)
When a person has been held to answer Ior a public oIIense and an inIormation is not Iiled against that person within 15 days.
12
PEN 953. When a deIendant is charged by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage oI the proceedings his true name
is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, reIerring to the Iact oI his being charged by the name mentioned in
the accusatory pleading.
!%
FRCP> Rule 2. One Form of Action There is one form of action - the civil action.
Rule 17(a) Real Parties in Interest:
'Every action shall be prosecuted in the name oI the real party in interest No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not
prosecuted in the name oI the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed aIter objection Ior ratiIication oI
commencement oI the action by, or joinder or substitution oI, the real party in interest
!&
'In every prosecution Ior crime it is necessary to establish the 'corpus delecti, i.e., the body or elements oI the crime. People
v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
"In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body oI the crime itselI-i.e., the Iact oI injury, loss or
harm, and the existence oI a criminal agency as its cause." People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) |quoting People v.
Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.|.
'Elements oI 'corpus delecti, injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be
proven by a 'reasonable probability, i.e., by slight or prima Iacie prooI. People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A.
132.
''Corpus delecti oI crime consists oI Iact oI injury, loss, or harm, and existence oI criminal agency as cause. People v. Daly, 10
Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47.
'Generally, 'corpus delecti oI crime is (1) the Iact oI the loss or harm, and (2) the existence oI a criminal agency as its cause.
People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953.
"There is no requirement oI independent evidence 'oI every physical act constituting an element oI an oIIense,' so long as there is
some slight or prima Iacie showing oI injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency." In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005).
!$
'Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements:
Iirst, the plaintiII must have suIIered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion oI a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, see id. at GO~756; GO~Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, GO~508 (1975); GO~Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727,
GO~740-741, n. 16 (1972);GO~1} and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,'" Whitmore, supra, 495 U.S. at
GO~155 (quoting GO~Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, GO~102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between
9
oI CaliIornia|. So how Iull oI holes is the average case against one oI the people? It is all about common
law
16
and whether an injury is claimed or not. OI course iI you challenge the authority oI the judge he may
order a Psych evaluation Ior you so know this usually it is a reIerral so unless he states I am ordering to see
the shrink, you haven`t been ordered. Second demand he put it in writing, he will be wary not to sign his
name to that as he has no medical degree and unless you really are mentally disordered, he can get in
trouble. II he does issue a written order, I send him a conditional acceptance that I will abide by his order
upon prooI oI claim that he has jurisdiction, a lawIul oath oI oIIice, and can make a medical determination
by providing his M.D. license.
MENTAL EVALUATION ORDERED only go iI the judge writes a wet-ink order otherwise it`s non
mandatory reIerral
PEN 1367.1. (a) During the pendency oI an action and prior to judgment in a case when the deIendant has
been charged with a misdemeanor or misdemeanors only, if the defendant's behavior or other evidence
leads the judge to conclude that there is reason to believe that the defendant is mentally disordered
and as a result may be incompetent to stand trial, the judge shall state this conclusion and his or her
reasons in the record. |you can sue as he has no authority to make a medical determination|

the injury and the conduct complained oI -- the injury has to be Iairly . . . traceable] to the challenged action of the defendant,
and not . . . th|e| result |oI| the independent action oI some third party not beIore the court. GO~Simon v. Eastern Kentucky
WelIare |504 U.S. 561| Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, GO~41-42 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative,"
that the injury will be "redressed by a Iavorable decision." Id. at GO~38, GO~43. Lujan v. DeIenders oI WildliIe, 504 U.S. 555
(1992) |veriIied|
'Art. III, 2. In order to meet the standing element oI the case or controversy requirement, appellees must allege a personal
injury that is particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable. GO~Lujan v. DeIenders oI WildliIe, 504 U.S. 555,
GO~561; GO~Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, GO~751. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) |veriIied|
!'
"Ior a man shall not prescribe in that which the law oI common right gives," Noy. 20; "for the common law is the best and
most common birthright that the subject hath, for the safeguard and defense of his rights of person and property," Co.Litt.
142, a. Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 410 (1838) veriIied
The Honourable Joseph Neilson, ChieI Justice oI the City Court oI Brooklyn 1875 'The Iact oI the matter is that there exists all
around us a great body oI law which has not ever been (nor could it be) written down in one spot. In a way, it's, it's more oI a
process which has a single guiding rule, the "golden rule," a negative rule: "Don't do something to someone that you don't want
to have visited on yourself, either directly or through the agency of a government." Though it has suIIered much at the hands
oI legislators, common law is yet Iollowed in all major English speaking nations around the world. Common law to England was
and is its very Iorce. The greatness oI England, certainly in the past, is attributable, I would say Iully attributable, to the stabilizing
and enriching institution that we have come to know as common law. This subject oI the common law is a great and wonderIul
subject: its evolutionary development and its great beneIits make it the most superior law system known in the world, as history
will readily tell.
10