Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17263Public Notice Hillsdale County Mich. to 19000 homes.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry
    Nov 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To 19000 homes in Hillsdale County Mich. Tip-off advertiser.
      Pursuant to:
      Hillsdale County Public Record/Instrument
      numbers 460124, 460125 and 460127, Liber
      1382 Pages 0516, 0525 and 0535 and actions by
      the Court in the Matter of 4770 Genesee Road
      (Issue A); and;
      Hillsdale County Public Record Liber 1364
      Page 0868 and Liber 1365 Page 0873 in the matter
      of the exercise of use of the Public Right of
      Way (Issue B):
      We, "Jerry James Stanton" of, Care of 4340
      South Allen Road, Allen, Michigan, and "Duane
      James Stanton" Care of 4770 Genesse Road,
      Jonesville, Michigan, both being over the age of
      21, a Sovereign Elector Freemen (Evert Romein
      v. General Motors Corporation, 462 N.W.2d 555,
      436 Mich. 515 (1990) Brickley, J. (concurring)
      of the organic "The State of Michigan" (1835),
      with all Rights of Man secured pursuant to the
      constitutional concept of, and Right to, a Republican
      form of government limited by OUR UNALIENABLE
      Unalienable – A word denoting the condition of
      those things, the property in which cannot be
      lawfully transferred from one person to another.
      - Bouvier's Law Dictionary (emphasis added)
      inalienable - that which cannot be given away
      or taken away. (ref. Declaration of Independence)
      – World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary 1965
      unalienable - that which cannot be given away
      or taken away; inalienable. (ref. Declaration of Independence)
      - World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary
      which must hold said Rights inviolate FOREVER
      (Northwest Ordinance (1787)) in perpetuum and
      beyond any reach of any vote of majority, legislature
      or judge:
      "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw
      certain subjects from the vicissitudes of
      political controversy, to place them beyond the
      reach of majorities and officials and to establish
      them as legal principles to be applied by the
      courts. One's right to life,
      liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press,
      freedom of worship and assembly, and other
      fundamental rights may not be submitted to
      vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
      (emphasis added)
      West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
      319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
      (Opinion, J. Jackson)
      and therefore untouchable by statute law and
      statutory Courts.
      In addition to the Default in the Public Record at
      the above Hillsdale County Record, WE the undersigned
      have experienced repeated abuses of
      our unalienable Right to meaningful due process
      of law in any government
      proceeding (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254
      (1970)) where the evidence of the Public Record,
      the evidence of the law affirming unalienable
      Rights, and written submissions Challenging Jurisdiction
      of the Courts were ignored, as if never
      filed, and not responded to as required by due
      process of law:
      "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction
      facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
      Lantana V. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188: Chicago
      V. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150
      "The parties are entitled to know the findings and
      conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or
      discretion presented on the record." (emphasis
      Federal Maritime Commission v. South
      Carolina Ports Authority,
      535 U.S 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864 (2002)
      In refusing to address us and our Due Process
      Rights as asserted, it appears that the Courts of
      Hillsdale County are in agreement with us that
      WE "Jerry James Stanton", and "Duane James
      Stanton", are not parties to actions before it in
      the names of "STANTON/ JERRY/JAMES" and
      "DUANE STANTON", who are apparently artificial
      statutory creations of government who do not
      have unalienable Rights, as Rights of Corporations
      and artificial entities only have Rights from
      statute law.
      "All subjects over which the sovereign power of
      a state extends, are objects of [authority]; but
      those over which it does not extend, are, upon
      the soundest principles, exempt from taxation.
      This proposition may almost be
      pronounced self-evident."
      * * *
      "The sovereignty of a state extends to everything
      which exists by its own authority, or is introduced
      by its permission." McCulloch v. Maryland,
      17 U.S. 316 (1819)
      The above said violations of fundamental fairness
      in due process of law and requirements of
      the Court, it is then clear that the 2nd District
      Court of Hillsdale County, in the persons of
      Judge Donald L. Sanderson, Clerks M. Grey and
      J. Snook, and others of the Office of the Court
      Clerk, Prosecutor Neal M. Brady, and Assistant
      Prosecutor Megan R.M. Stiverson (P67160),
      have violated their Oaths of Office and as Attorneys
      to provide justice to the common-law unalienable
      Rights of ourselves and THE PEOPLE of
      Michigan, and have converted the Office, Seal,
      and Flag of THE PEOPLE to function as a Civil
      Law Court for Profit, registered as a corporation
      for profit with financial rating companies, where
      the Judge commonly shares in the fines and
      penalties issued by his authority, thereby making
      him a biased jurist who cannot issue anything
      other than void judgments for violation of due
      process of law.
      These conditions being present, there is no effect
      to its edicts and orders as they violate due
      process, and due process being an UNALIENABLE
      Right, no man can create the precedent
      against the Right of any other or his children by
      consenting to such lawlessness to then cause
      lawlessness to be an accepted institution of
      In these two matters regarding;
      A. the Right to Private Property and the Right
      to Defend the Right to Have Private Property;
      and; B. the Right to Free use of the Public Right
      of Way; standing of evidence of a damaged party
      is required in due process of law in each case respectively
      only when;
      A. a Party who can evidence they have authority
      to make a claim on property (a "wet ink" contract
      proving a contract where actual real money
      was lent absent fraud in the inducement); B. a
      Party is damaged by an action on the Road;
      otherwise without standing of a complaining
      party, a court can have no jurisdiction.
      In each of these matters;
      A. where the Plaintiff Federal National Home
      Mortgage and its agents were challenged to
      make immediate presentment of the
      original "wet ink" contract prior to payment and
      prior to Sheriff's Sale; and;
      B. where there was no human being claiming to
      be a damaged party;
      standing was non existent to provide jurisdiction
      to the 2nd District Court B Division in Hillsdale
      It is a fact that the Officers of the Court of 2nd
      District Court B Division in Hillsdale County and
      the Prosecutors Office of Hillsdale County have
      taken Oaths of Office to uphold the
      Constitutions for the United States of America
      and Michigan, which were created by THE PEOPLE
      for the expressed and intent of forever supporting
      the unalienable fundamental Rights of
      the People. This fact is further supported by the
      ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Mugler v.
      Kansas, 123 US 623, 661 (1887):
      "...the courts are to obey the constitution, not the
      law-making department of government..."
      thus the statutory requirements of law in;
      A. allowing an unchallenged Sheriff's Sale of
      Property without confirming actual Right by
      presentment of "wet ink" contract proving Right
      of ownership, circumventing common-law and
      contract law rights;
      B. requirement to possess a license for commercial
      use of the Public Right of Way;
      do not override prior unalienable Rights;
      A. the Right to affirmation of the actual ownership
      of the note proving standing as part of due
      process under common-law and contract law;
      B. the Right to Not Be Tried for exercising his unalienable
      and by not holding true to their Oaths to protect
      and defend the unalienable Rights of ourselves,
      and thus THE PEOPLE of Michigan, the above
      named officials appear in every aspect committing
      Honest Services Fraud in violation of Title 18
      U.S.C. Section 1341 et. seq. by issuing VOID
      Judgments in matters where the Plaintiffs have
      not been shown to have standing and where the
      Jurisdiction of the Court has been challenged
      and not proven as required by due process of
      "..it must be considered and decided before
      any court can move one further step in the
      cause… Jurisdiction is the power to hear and
      determine the subject matter in controversy between
      parties to a suit, … to render a judgment
      or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties."
      Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,
      37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 718 (1838)
      "Indeed, the court "… should raise the question
      of its jurisdiction … at any time it appears in
      Calhoun v. United States, 98 Fed. Appx. 840, 842
      (Fed. Cir. 2004)
      (quoting Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States, 845
      F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also John
      R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 128 S.Ct.
      750, 753 (2007)
      "… a court must have jurisdiction over the subject
      matter of an offense and of the person of the
      defendant; … two … requirements … before a
      court has authority..."
      Malone v. Commonwealth,
      30 S.W.3d 180 (2000)
      Violation of Due Process of law
      renders any judgment of any Court to be a VOID
      JUDGMENT; invalid and not under any law:
      "…the judgment is void because the court was
      without jurisdiction to render it,…"
      Wilson v. Bell, 137 F2d 716 (1943)
      "Judgment is `void' … where court that entered
      it lacked jurisdiction… or entered decree outside
      of its authority in a manner inconsistent with due
      process of law."
      Grun v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 170 F.R.D. 441, 446
      (N.D. Ill. 1996)
      "A void judgment … which shows upon the face
      of the record a want of jurisdiction... Lynch v.
      State ex rel. Kellebrew, 179 Tenn. 339, 166
      S.W.2d 397."
      State ex rel. Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W.2d
      168 ,171 (Tenn. 1951)
      "A void judgment … is facially invalid because
      the court lacked jurisdiction or authority... Dykes
      v. Comption, 978 S.W.2d 529, 529 (Tenn.1998);
      Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 161-64."
      Taylor v. State 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)
      "A judgment rendered in violation of due process
      is void " Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733
      World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444
      U.S. 286, 291 (1980)
      "Void judgment is one where … entry of order
      violated due process."
      Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell,
      110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
      "Void judgment is …, from its
      inception, … complete nullity and without legal
      effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp.
      205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed
      29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill 1992).
      "A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no
      rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder…
      are not res judicata [decided by a
      Court],… And it is then as though trial and adjudication
      had never been."
      (emphasis and note added)
      Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92
      N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58)
      It must also be publicly noticed that it has been
      determined under federal law that even a County
      or Municipal Court can constitute a Racketeering
      In a Corrupt Organization (RICO), as proved in
      the case of U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304, 307
      (1987), an actions taken in RICO by government
      are not protected from Criminal prosecution.
      Be it hereby Publicly Noticed that Sheriff Stan
      Burchardt of Hillsdale County, has in the recent
      past perpetuated a program of refusal of service
      of any Mail (on at least 5 occasions) and thus refuses
      any and all NOTICES to his Office of crimes
      of Void Judgments of the 2nd District Court B
      Division of Hillsdale County, when sent to him by
      the undersigned via U.S. Mail.
      Therefore, the Sheriff is refusing to faithfully execute
      the duties of his Office by his denial of any
      and all communications and refusal of service of
      legal papers and process as part and parcel of
      his faithful duties of Office, by refusing to communicate
      with the undersigned and take notice of
      the VOID JUDGMENTS of the 2nd District Court
      B Division, is committing Honest Services Fraud
      in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 et.
      seq., and is complicit on fomenting physical conflict
      and possible death by lawless enforcement
      of VOID JUDGMENTS in violation of UNALIENABLE
      Rights, under force of arms of the Sheriff's
      We the undersigned have the unalienable common-
      law Right to be Let Alone (Olmstead v. U.S.,
      277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Opinion of J.
      Brandies) in the exercise of our Rights, especially
      in the face of VOID JUDGMENTS of the
      Court as noted above, since the Fundamental
      Law of due process was breeched and violated in
      order for the Court to proceed to its judgments.
      The U.S. Supreme Court has made it exceedingly
      clear that such usurpations of Rights by mere individuals
      under guise of government is NOT Law
      in America, as it is the basis of slavery:
      "… fundamental rights … liberty, … pursuit of
      happiness, … are secured by those maxims of
      constitutional law … the government … 'may
      be a government of laws and not of men.' For
      the very idea that one man may be compelled
      to hold his life, or the means of living, or any
      material right essential to the enjoyment of
      life, at the mere will of another, seems to be
      intolerable in any country where freedom prevails,
      as being the essence of slavery itself."
      Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370(1886)
      It therefore being established under the laws of
      America, that no Rights of any Man are to be
      held in the control of an Official of government
      outside of an actual common-law crime effecting
      life, limb, or property, the above named individuals
      acting in concert under color of law and without
      immunity are thereby in direct violation of
      their oaths of office to protect and defend the
      Constitutions of the United States of America
      and Michigan, whose sole purpose was for the
      protection and preservation of antecedent Rights
      of THE PEOPLE.
      Any and all actions taken against us, our unalienable
      Rights, Peace, Happiness, and/or our Property
      is a knowingly willful criminal act in further
      violation of the Oaths of Office taken by the
      above government officials, as no statute or
      statutory process that violates unalienable Rights
      is valid and enforceable law:
      Acts void.
      21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or
      any other article of this Constitution shall be
      With Explicit Reservation of All of OUR Rights,
      and no expressed or implied waiver of any as the
      term UNALIENABLE makes such
      impossible. (U.C.C. 1-207)
      WE are the undersigned,
      Jerry James Stanton
      Duane James Stanton
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic