This order makes it quite clear to be precise in using correct terms and properly establishing the jurisdiction of the court. The Plaintiff's arguments would fall into the category of "Redemption Method" which has been repeatedly denied by the courts. Some of his assertions sound like they come directly from Jordon Maxwell.
I am still trying to piece this together so constructive criticism is appreciated... I realize some of this is a repeat of an earlier post. I have added additional details to help substantiate my opinion.
The fact that "Redemption Method" Pleadings are denied does not mean they do not have any
truth to them, it means the Pleader does not grasp the concepts well enough to effectively plead their case. It also means that the Pleader has failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies before getting to court. Once you are in court you are at the mercy of a "Robe" and their duty is to preserve the status quo and not to the Pleader.
In effect, the Pleader failed to expose the maritime nature of the claim and failed to invoke the proper jurisdiction to hear the maritime claim because of the failure to expose the "charter" and "commerce" involved - or, especially when a Defendant, to dismiss the case.
"The definition of a “vessel,” which “has remained virtually unchanged from 1873 to the present,” Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 490 (2005), includes “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used
, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 1 U.S.C. § 3 (2000). Plaintiff clearly does not meet this definition. Therefore,
defendant’s motion to dismiss must be granted." See: Johnson v. United States, No. 07-672 C, page 8-9.
Pub. L. Vol. XLIII, Sixty-eighth Congress, Session II, Chapter 883, February 12, 1925,(codified as 9 U.S.C.A § 1) states “‘Maritime transactions’
, as herein defined, means charter parties
, bills of lading of... supplies..., or any other matters in foreign commerce which, if the subject of controversy, would be embraced within admiralty jurisdiction; ‘commerce
’, as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory
and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation
“charter” means “A basic document of law of a Municipal Corporation granted by the state, defining its rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of self-government.” See: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
“The municipal corporation, ‘The District of Columbia,’ was organized under the act of Congress of Feb. 21, 1871. 16 Stat. 419. The first section of the act creates a municipal corporation by the name of ‘The District of Columbia,’ with power to sue, be sued, contract, have a seal, and ‘exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation, not inconsistent with the laws and constitution of the United
States and the provisions of this act.’” See: Barnes v. District of Columbia
, 91 US 540 - Supreme Court (1876).
A “municipal corporation in the exercise of all of its duties, including those most strictly local or internal, is but a department of the State. The legislature may give it all the powers such a being is capable of receiving, making it a miniature State within its locality. Again: it may strip it of every power, leaving it a corporation in name only; and it may create and recreate these changes as often as it chooses, or it (the legislature) may itself exercise directly within the locality any or all the powers usually committed to a municipality. We do not regard its acts as sometimes those of an agency of the State, and at others those of a municipality; but that, its character and nature remaining at all times the same, it is great or small according as the legislature shall
extend or contract the sphere of its action.” See: Barnes v. District of Columbia
, 91 US 540, 545 - Supreme Court (1876).
"It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United States.” See: Metropolitan Railroad Company v. Dist. of Columbia
, 132 US 1, 9 - Supreme Court
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31, offers an “ELECTIVE FRANCHISE” See: TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 - SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION.
Title 42 concerns "civil rights" otherwise known as "legislative privileges" granted to former slaves.
Pursuant to Title 42 § 1982 “[a]ll citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
When the United States was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote.
Pursuant to Title 42 § 1982 the “right” to vote is intentionally omitted.
The construction of the National Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31 unlawfully strips white men with property or sufficient wealth of
the right to vote in contravention to the Organic Constitution of September 17, 1787.
“franchise” means “A special privilege to do certain things that is conferred by government on an individual or a corporation and which does not belong to citizens generally of common right.” Also “The right of suffrage; the right or privilege of voting in public elections. Such right is guaranteed by the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/franchise
"elective" means “Voluntary”.
The Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 443 was enacted into law on July 5, 1946. Tthe Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the district and territorial courts of the United States over federal claims of trademark infringement, including false designations of origin
, false and misleading descriptions of fact
, and false and misleading representations of fact
. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1121.
When facing a claim who is "charging" you? Is it REALLY the State? I do not believe so.
Is it a "political subdivision of a state" (14th Amendment citizen - corporation) that is "charging" you? Yes, I believe it is.
Do you believe you have the right to know? I believe I have the right to know.
Making inquiries to the proper authorities is the process of exhausting one's administrative remedies.
In my view the goal of exhaust one's administrative remedies is to cause the Defendant to fall silent and achieve Estoppel before going to court. This way the Robe MUST
rule according to the Estoppel already established through exhausting ones administrative remedies.
From what I have been able to establish is that "administrative courts" are the "judicial branch" of a municipal corporation. The "charter" establishes the boundaries of the corporation. If you are not a member of the corporation the corporation has no jurisdiction over you.
There is of course much more that could be said... I would appreciate some feedback.
Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or
service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] New file
uploaded to tips_and_tricks
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tips_and_tricks
File : /YouAreNotAVessel.pdf
Uploaded by : legalbear7 <bear@...>
Description : You Are Not a Vessel-Court of Claims Jurisdiction Explained
You can access this file at the URL: