Note by Admin:  I felt that this document spoke to a subject that is not widely enough discussed. The fact is that Terrorism is a creation JZOG, Jesuit- Zionist Owned Government and has been used a sculpting tool to shape the world in to a state that serves JZOG. That being molded from JZOG Terrorism is the Greater Israel Plan and the destruction of: predominately white christian nations and the notion of Representative Government which is the antithisis of the One World Order that  JZOG has been working on building for a 2000 years!  

Talmudism, Imperialism, Terrorism

by Taxi

Talmudism, that old desert ideology with its celebration of fire and brimstone and genocide needs to be urgently and openly addressed by concerned citizens and by the global intelligentsia alike.

Evidently, Talmudism is not confined to Judaic orthodoxies, indeed it has infiltrated the three Abrahamic faiths to the core.  It is an arcane ideology that is at war with modern Universalist principles, the very principles that if practiced would naturally lead to peaceful unification instead of the violent segregation of humanity.

Talmudists, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, should really all be viewed as members of a single violent cult.  They have everything and more in common with each other and they are currently all participating in steering the world into senseless, cataclysmic warfare.

Jewish Zionism, Christian Zionism and Muslim Takfirism (or Muslim Zionism) – all have been allowed by the world at large, willingly or otherwise, to flourish especially over the past seven decades – since the forced establishment of the state of Israel, to be more precise.  Yes, people in the Middle East and in America were always religious folk, but they were not so radicalized and liberally, openly practicing religious prejudice the way they are nowadays.  It would seem to be the case that the immoral creation of the state of Israel revived with it the decrepit Talmudic desert superstitions and narcissistic tribalism that have directly led to the violence and terrorism we are witnessing today.  Talmudism is now in its most dangerous state:  it has evolved from a hapless fringe sub sect and into a powerful and destructive military instrument hellbent on creating the darkest of shackles for humanity.  Hellbent on ‘cleansing’ the world from its (complex) sins – purging the stains of humanity through merciless fire.

Annihilating populations in the name of religious conformity; mass-murdering in the name of an invisible so-called god.  This is the essence of Talmudism, as a mind-set.

But it’s worse than that.  Now we have secular empires and global politicians (contemporary imperialists) in partnership with global Talmudists – both warring against independent Universalist individuals and institutions that aspire to create an all-inclusive, equitable and tolerant world.

The horrific violence we are all so appalled to witness these days has been caused by this unholy alliance between Western imperialism and global Talmudism as they both seek larger control and subjugation of humanity.

It is by now common knowledge that the Takfiri terrorist army and its sleeper cells around the world are the creation of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France and the UK.   The blood of the innocent victims of terrorism is on these governments’ hands as much as it is on the hands of individual terrorists themselves.

There should be no differentiation.  Evil is evil is evil.

Civilians need to understand:  voting for Imperialists or Talmudists in shiny suits will continue this nightmare trend that is taking us and the world to a very, very dark future.

The bastards will never willingly give up their seats of power.  They must be expelled.  By ballot box or by revolution they absolutely must be expelled.

And if we do not expel them, we have no right to complain about terrorism.



It was Marcus Tullius Cicero that reportedly stated that:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” 

This enemy within has enslaved Americans and America by legal deception that starts out by its administrators deliberately mis-characterizing each American at birth as a foreigner to ensure that each and every American would end up being legally deprived of their Sovereign Birthright American National and state National superior status throughout their ensuing lives.

Americans have been held under a condition of Mixed war in which the lawful civil authority was deliberately suspended.  A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority, and on the other by mere private persons. 1 Hill (N. Y.) 377, 416.

The phrase “MIXED WAR” means a war carried on between a nation on one side and private individuals on the other [Words & Phrases, Vol. 27].

"Mixed war occurs whenever the government of a nation is an enemy of, and at war against, its own People. The most insidious and perfidious type of mixed war exists when the government acts against the People under guise of protecting the People’s rights and upholding the nation’s most cherished values and ideals. In such case, government officials are “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” occupying positions of prestige and power, with the support of the People, while treasonously betraying that trust. This is an ideal confidence game whereby arch-charlatan criminals can engage in piracy on an ongoing basis under color of law and be tolerated or even treated as heroes by their victims."



It is a fact that we (America and all nations) are ruled by a deeply evil parasite class now well described as the Khazarian mafia. This is the case in America for the last 150 years. The parasite class SELF exposed itself at the Secret Treaty of Verona of 1822 and their confession was read in congress in 1916. They were further exposed at the the Act of 1871 in which the world can see they and many of their own have come forward to expose their agenda and mission as exposed at this site! As far as this writer is concerned those behind this millennia old plot should be banished on a small baron island forever and cut off from the rest of the world, all technology, modern services and left to thieve off each other. The rest of us can then build heaven on Earth and move our word forward that has been stunted by the parasite class for the last since the parasite classes created the Vatican system! 

Despite the LIES TOLD AMERICANS ALL THEIR LIVES Americans are in fact NOT subject to the laws of the foreign District of Columbia UNITED STATES Corporation or its Sub Corporation STATE equivalents.

It is a fact that despite Americans NOT being subject to these foreign rules and codes Americans have been duped in operating under them through outright RICO, deceit, treachery and tyranny and the instrument of this evil is the CROWN BAR and the FEDERAL RESERVE MONEY CRIME CARTEL.

It is a fact that somewhere over 320,000,000 people have no business supporting Criminal enterprises as the Nurremburg Protocol spelled out at the end of World War II.  

Only some 700,000 that live in the District of Columbia and some 10 - 15 Million people across the states that are working for the de facto Government corporations have ANY legitimate reason to be a member of the UNITED STATES corporation or its Subs Corps. 

The rest of us have no reason to do so and each American  will have to decide whether they want to be a member of the foreign owned RICO operation, a Crown - Vatican controlled corporate slave dependent plantation masquerading as a government that has lied to the American people and the world for 200 years and carried out Genocide to please its Bankster masters, or whether they wish to instead band together under a loose confederation of people defined as private American national, state nationals. Th term IDP's spells out the fact that we have been Internally Displaced from our own law form, status, standing and capacity by a parasite class illegally operating in America.

IDP's of every other nation on Earth are now coming together and uniting such that between us we can organize for our common welfare and the good of humanity without interference and control from what is nothing but a parasitic plague of individuals driven by a demonic need to steal, control and dominate all resources and all people while they themselves do no useful work for humanity or do anything to enhance and uplift humanity.  They are parasites! 

This is the reality of those that would rather control, steal from you than do an honest days work for themselves. It is time to let the parasites feed of each other while the rest of us get on with building heaven on Earth. 



...I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

...if you do so, you will do well, and that which you are obliged to do to their Highnesses, and we in their name shall receive you in all love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives, and your children, and your lands, free without servitude, that you may do with them and with yourselves freely that which you like and think best, and they shall not compel you to turn Christians, unless you yourselves, when informed of the truth, should wish to be converted to our Holy Catholic Faith, as almost all the inhabitants of the rest of the islands have done.

And, besides this, their Highnesses award you many privileges and exemptions and will grant you many benefits.

But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us.

And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition.

While the vast majority of politicians since the birth of America have shrunk in terror and fear from the Jesuits, a brave few have stepped forward to warn us of the dangers. Consider what the inventor of the telegraph and Morse code had to say about the Jesuits:

“Popery [refers to the Jesuit-controlled pope and Vatican] is more dangerous and more formidable than any power in the United States, on the ground that, through its despotic organization, it can concentrate its efforts for any purpose with complete effect; and that organization being wholly under foreign control, it can have no real sympathy with anything American. Popery does not acknowledge the right of the people to govern, but claims for itself the supreme right to govern people and rulers by divine right. Popery does not tolerate the liberty of the press. It takes advantage, indeed, of our liberty of the press to use its own press against our liberty; but it proclaims in the thunders of the Vatican, and with a voice which it pronounces unchangeable, that it is a liberty never sufficiently to be execrated and detested. It does not tolerate liberty of conscience or liberty of opinion. They are denounced by the Sovereign Pontiff as a most pestilential error, a pest of all others to be dreaded in the State. It is not responsible to the people in its financial matters. It taxes at will, and is accountable to none but itself.”

Sadly, more than 150 years later, even with all the warnings from keen observers and insiders and egregious Jesuit behaviors, Americans still have not gotten the message, much less understood and acted on it. This unfortunate phenomenon is a grand testament to how brilliantly the Jesuits’ PR machine functions.

The Jesuits’ political reign of terror continues to this day, to ensure they maintain complete control over, and manipulation of, the entire political spectrum, not to mention every sector of American society.



Homes across America are being stollen from Americans by application of Roman civil Law which is the law of the DC lex fori, and not the law of the state. Law of the California physical state is American common law. What is American common law and what is it not:

*The term “our common law” is defined as local customs decided by the people for the people and is unwritten. Expressly not stare decises or statutory law.

Let's go to a Law Dictionary, and look up a definition for The Common Law. It really doesn't matter which one, because they all say pretty much the same thing, such as:

"That part of the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old common law courts based originally on the common customs of the country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to statute law (the law laid down by Acts of Parliament); to special law (the law administered by special courts such as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and the civil law (the law of Rome). It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers'. It is not local law, nor the result of legislation".

So, read that again ... and again ... until it sinks in. The important bits are 

(a) What The Common Law is NOT, and 
(b) That is it UNWRITTEN (because it's in our Common Sense), and that 
(c) It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers'and we are as capable of continuing that tradition as were our forefathers. Because they had Common Sense, and we have Common Sense. Assuming, of course, that we stick to the same ideas as they did!

Now let's look at what someone else says. From Kenn d'Oudney at Democracy Defined:

People who want to restore the genuine ways of true justice must first learn the straightforward FACTs about what Common Law is, and then they will be able to recognise for themselves the modern mendacious ruse that deliberately mis-educates people into the despicable deceit that "the rulings of (JUDGES - actors - not real judges - which means an Independent trier of facts) are 'Common Law'." Not so, indeed!

Jurors must be randomly selected from the adult population local to the alleged crime; and then vetted (by plaintiff, defendant and decided by fellow jurors) to exclude partial individuals. "Volunteer jurors" are generally not disinterested, and are utterly excluded by Common Law. Such "volunteers" are comparable to a lynch-mob. (See full explanations in TRIAL BY JURY ISBN 9781902848723) 



The genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern government has corrupted by legislation; a counterfeit which is "common law" in name only.

Common Law does not include any statutes made by government or decisions made by judges which immediately goes to show that the improper law was imposed on Home Owner and Trusts in this case. 

Common Law is emphatically neither "government-made" nor "judge-made." Quite the contrary: it is exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people. Modern usurpation notwithstanding, Common Law does not consist of case precedents (stare decisis), for juries decide the law, which includes the sentence, in each individual case. Nor is it comprised of judicial rulings, decisions or interpretations of statutes.

Common Law does not ever or in any way come from government judges. Indeed, Common Law is the antithesis (the ‘opposite’) of judge-made law ['judge-made decisions'. Having declared it as the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'judge-made law'], and it is supposed to free all the people equally from the shackles of arbitrary government and their bidden owned employees. 

Common Law is the law of all the people: it forms the Supreme Law which binds government and legally controls the personnel of government’s modus operandi. In recognition of this latter fact, the Common Law Trial by Jury is inserted into the Constitution as the sole justice system for all crimes (infractions of laws and regulations), civil, criminal and fiscal. 

It should be noted that JURY TRIAL is a statutory tool of the DC UNITED STATES applicable only in their foreign lex fori of the 68.34 Sq. Miles DC Cesspool which is a Kangaroo court - Star Chamber styled trial where judge manipulates the facts, the law and the jury.  When the jury makes a ruling that the Judge does not like she/he will badger the Jury until he/she gets a ruling that she may like! How does the writer know this - In around 2009 I was foisted in to a trial trial where the jury decided to throw out the law and the charges and the judge - Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told the jury that they could not. She forced a misdemeanor out of the jury which is known as tampering with the Jury! 


Here are some references confirming the common law is legem terræ and vice versa.

Sir Matthew Hale: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terræ, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terræ; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III, chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliæ, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari,' etc. (We will that the laws of England be not changed.) Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, chap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III, chap. 5 (4) and infinite more records and statutes." (Hale’s History of the Common Law, p. 128)

[Veronica’s Note: Sir Matthew Hale didn’t know what the Common Law ACTUALLY WAS … he only knew what it had been called within Statutes! Quoting from Statutes, as Hale did, is total DOUBLE-THINK. It was after reading Hale’s shit, that John Harris originally threw up his arms in despair (I seem to recall)! Actually, there’s a certain amount of DOUBLE-THINK going on in all of these quotes ... including those below … they are generally making no distinction between the Magna Carta TREATY 1215, and the subsequent Magna Carta STATUTE 1297. The 1215 TREATY explicitly makes the 1297 STATUTE completely irrelevant]

Crabbe: "It is admitted, on all hands, that it (Magna Carta) contains nothing but what was confirmatory of the common law, and the ancient usages of the realm, and is, properly speaking, only an enlargement of the charter of Henry I, and his successors." (Crabbe’s History of the English Law, p. 127)

Blackstone: "It is agreed by all our historians that the Great Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they mean the old common law, which was established under our Saxon princes." (Blackstone’s Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstone’s Law Tracts, p. 289)

Coke (a High Court judge): "The common law is the most general and ancient law of the realm. The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta, and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in the original writs, in judicial records, and in our books of terms and years." (Coke’s Institutes, p. 115)

Coke: "It (Magna Carta) was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England. They (Magna Carta and Carta de Foresta) were, for the most part, but declarations of the ancient common laws of England, to the observation and keeping whereof the king (the government) was bound and sworn." (Preface to Coke’s Institutes, p. 3)

Nota Bene: To judge the law, i.e., its fairness, validity, applicability, and legal meaning (interpretation), the Jurors are the sole legal judges prescribed by constitution and Common Law.

For example, see the following from Gilbert: "This position" (that the matter of law was decided by the justices [judges], but the matter of fact by the pares [peers, i.e., jurors]) "is wholly incompatible with the common law, for the Jurata [jury] were the sole judges both of the law and the fact." (Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, note, p. 70)

And "The Annotist says, that this [i.e., whether jurors reflect upon the question of law] is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well as the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law." (Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p. 57)

Having established what Common Law is, one must note the extent to which the term "Common Law" has been abused. It is an opprobrium to misinform people that "Common Law" is a product of judges, stare decisis, and government courts.

Worse though: it is utterly wrong to allow government to rob the people of their true Common Law and its power of emancipation.

It is unconstitutional to amend in effect The Constitution’s installation of the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System by co-opting the Common Law by legislation into a body of law legislated [ 'the body of Legislation' Having declared is the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'body of law legislated'] by Congress or Parliament, or made by judges. For this has been the illegal means of burying Common Law and the authentic Trial by Jury, to enable government to obliterate the People’s ability (peacefully) to protect their liberties for themselves as has been done in every case undersigned has been foisted in to since 2005. It moreover supplants the model justice system of Trial by Jury with the flawed, one-sided, inherently illegal despotic system of trial-by-judge.

Whereas statutes may express some of the Common Law, this latter itself contains no statutes of governments, nor rulings of judges. Legem terræ Common Law became the pan-European, and subsequently pan-Occidental phenomenon which prescribes and defines Trial by Jury as its central tenet and sole justice system. 

See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance, by d’Oudney & Spooner, ISBN 9781902848723.

And the constitutional, historical and law texts of Blackstone, Crabbe, Palgrave, Kelham, Mackintosh, Millar, Coke, Gilbert, Hume, Turner, Hallam, Stewart, Hale, et al.


The authentic Common Law recognises and provides for the fact that the people have a perpetual obligation to enforce Common Law and protect themselves from lawlessness and injustices inflicted by criminals who acquire positions of power or government. 

Hence, Common Law (expressed as Articles 24, 39, 40 and 61 of Magna Carta [Veronica’s Note: That’s the 1215 Treaty], etc.), installs the People as the legal force to police, indict, punish and otherwise obtain redress. [Veronica’s Note: That’s exactly what it did, and it is gobsmacking that so few people actually "get it". The Magna Carta 1215 blocked, once and for all, the tyranny of any idea of "Divine Right to Rule", by any single individual (Monarch or Judge, etc) and said that - from then onwards - The People ruled themselves via Grand Juries and Petty Juries]

It has been the perjurious ploy of dishonest statist politicians, lawyers and judiciaries to try to miseducate the Western people en masse into the wrong idea that ‘law’ derived from judicial precedents is ‘Common Law’; and that their so-called ‘Common Law’ is ‘made’ by government judges. 

As explained, Common Law does not come from judges. To say it does, is a lie which the enemies of equal justice, rights and liberty repeat and want the people to believe, in order to give politicians arbitrary power to rule over the population; and to deprive the people of genuine Common Law Rights and Protections.

Only feloniously-inclined (or in some cases ignorant) people ‘deny’ that legem terræ is the genuine constitutional  Common Law which reigns supreme over written laws, governments, all men and women, including those who legislate.

Such a denial by state personnel is itself a criminal contravention of the Common Law and the Constitutional Supreme Law, and must always be suspected of being a premeditated judicable act of mens rea [Veronica's Note  'Intent'].

Definition: judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law.

Because the legislature can pass legislation which reverses or overrules those (non-Common Law) judge-made precedents and decisions which the governments perjuriously misname "Common Law", in a further act of criminal mendacity, by employing their premeditated abuse of the term ‘Common Law’ the statists come up with the warped speciosity that as government statutes can overrule their judges' counterfeit ‘Common Law’, that therefore, ‘Parliament/Congress is sovereign!’ [Note: It's The People who are sovereign, not Parliament or Congress, government are our servants and BAR attorneys by virtue of the Amendment XIII are seditionist and traitors accordingly per TONA]

This criminal ruse and intended mind-manipulation (‘brain-washing’) serves the purpose of those malicious villains in government who want to make people feel helpless and completely inundated by the tide of government regulation, insidious misinformation and arbitrary control. It is only effective amongst those people who, for career, pay and self-interested motives, judicably collude and participate in the Illegality of the Status Quo, and with those who are duped into ignorance of what Common Law actually is.

Government does not ‘grant’ or ‘bestow’ the right and power to do justice: upholding justice is the inherent duty of every citizen.

Government does not even have a right ‘to do justice’ for that is exclusively the Trial by Jury power, right, duty and procedure of the randomly selected Jurors.

The rôle of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) in the justice system is executivenot judicial: that is, government carries out the judgements, sentences and decisions of the Jury. 

[Note: The role of the Government is also to PROTECT the true Common Law, the ensure that it stays pure to the fundamental principles. The fact that Politicians have done THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this … for centuries … is why we are suffering in America ]

Only that government is legitimate which upholds the authentic Common Law and its Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System



Author unknown - republished here with thanks ...  

"If a Government claims itself to be the supreme organiser of a country, then it cannot (by definition) be beholden to any other entity"

If, however, a Government is beholden to Banking Institutions, then the Government cannot claim to be supreme, simply because the Banking Institutions must be supreme.

And, if the Government's claim to supremacy is false, then why should anyone vote for it, or even take any notice of it?

If the later is the case then it is also evident that the Country is controlled by the BANK, and if thats the caae then why should anyone vote for it, or even take any notice of it?

Why should people not say

"Oh, I need the Right to vote for the Directors of the Banking Institutions, because they are the ones who are - ultimately - directing my life"?

The plain fact is that a Government SHOULD BE supreme. And that means it should create the country's Money Supply.

And not, in any way, shape, form, be beholden to Banking Institutions. A Government must be beholden solely to its Electorate. Period.

Both Abraham Lincoln and British Chancellor Lloyd George discovered that was the truth. 

Of course, IT WORKED SO WELL, that Lincoln was shot, and Lloyd George was told (in no uncertain terms) to swiftly revert to "Banks in the loop". 

Based on what transpired in this case we can conclude the Bank not only owns the Government - it is the government. It not only owns the legal system - it is the legal system!  

There is a reason the Federal Reserve Eagle Sits over the door of the Alameda Court House because it owns the Court House and the Black Robed Robbers within it that have just trampled on the home owners rights to the common law as remedy and Trial by Jury per the 7th Amendment.

Now - based on the above we can see the Home Owners were defrauded by parasites not fit for public purpose. Another word for this is fraud. The beauty of fraud is it vitiates all acts as the following cites explain to the point where a fraudulent order is not merely voidable - its VOID on its face. Since this the case then the Home Owners right to Common Law and Jury Trial et al has still yet to be exercised and now will be exercised.



  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
  • Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
  • Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
  • U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346: If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
  • Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
  • Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
  • Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
  • Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “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 been passed.”
  • Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
  • Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
  • United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806): “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.”
  • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958): “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
  • “A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’”
  • “...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.): 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. US v. Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 L.Ed2nd 392, 406 (1980)
  • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
  • Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
  • S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
  • United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876): “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.”
  • Grosjean v. American Press Co., 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 297 U.S. 233, 80 L.Ed 660: “Freedom in enjoyment and use of all of one’s powers, faculties and property.”
  • ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972): “The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment… is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.”
  • U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
  • Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”
  • 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”

Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted: 

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. 

… It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) 

–Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. 

Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.


As we have noted - the Physical state of California is a common law state, not subject to statutes, BAR attorneys per TONA yet these injustices have been foisted over the nation since the Coup of the 1860's. Even though this is the case - illegal orders even a de facto Court of the UNITED STATES Federal Corporation are VOID per settled law on void judgments.  
  • A judgment is void on its face if the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief that it had no power to grant. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a trial court by the consent of the parties. (Summers v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal. 2d 295, 298 [1 Cal. Rptr. 324, 347 P.2d 668]; Roberts v. Roberts (1966) 241 Cal. App. 2d 93, 101 [50 Cal. Rptr. 408].)
  • The court may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.’ (For a discussion of the 1933 amendments to section 473 see Estate of Estrem, 16 Cal. 2d 563, 572 [107].
  • “Motions to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment.”(County of Ventura v. Tillett, supra, 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110.).
  • “[A] court may set aside a void order at anytime. An appeal will not prevent the court from at any time lopping off what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree—a void order.” (MacMillan Petroleum Corp. v. Griffin (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 523, 533 [222 P.2d 69]; accord: People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 467 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]; Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. App. 2d 638, 641 -642 [239 P.2d 650]; and see: 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 7, pp. 4024-4025.)
  • Time limitation does not apply where the judgment is based on a fraudulent return. (Washkov. Stewart, supra, p. 318; Richert v. Benson Lbr. Co., supra, p. 677.).
  •  it is true that the statute of imitations does not apply to as uit in equity to vacate a void judgment. (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, supra, p. 569; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368, 374 [181 P. 648].) This rule holds as to all void judgments, in two other cases, People v. Massengale and In re Sandel, the courts hearing the respective appeals confirmed the judicial power and responsibility to correct void judgments (in excess of jurisdiction).
  • “Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud.” (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.). Courts also have inherent power to set aside a void judgment. (Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.).
  • “...the eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raises due process issues and can not be heard as part of summary unlawful detainer proceeding. Issues extrinsic to the right of possession are generally excluded even though they arise out of the parties’ landlord-tenant relationship. E.S. Bills, Inc. v Tzucanow (1985) 38 C3d 824, 830, 215 CR 278; Saberi v Bakhtiari (1985) 169 CA3d 509, 515, 215 CR 359. However, an action for unlawful detainer may coexist with other causes of action in the same complaint, as long as the entire case is treated as a regular civil action and not as a summary proceeding. Lynch & Freytag v Cooper (1990) 218 CA3d 603, 608–609, 267 CR 189 (rejecting defendant’s contention that unlawful detainer proceeding can be converted into regular civil action only when possession of the property is no longer in issue).[Judges Benchguide 31, 2011]
  • U.S. Supreme Court precedents hold that fraud upon the court vitiates the case that all orders and judgments are regarded as nullities and void. (See U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64, 66 (1878); Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920)).
  • In the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08, it was found that the payments that the County was making to the judiciary violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution as only the State Legislature could “prescribe” the “compensation” of judges,
  • The U.S. Supreme Court held that Judge Benjamin should have recused himself. It stated in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), Slip Opinion page 16, in relevant part: Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.
  • CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) mandated such judge’s disqualification. Such Section states: A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
  • Canon 3E(2) requires the judge to: disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
  • Canon 3E(1) requires the judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.”
  • After the Sturgeon decision, the legislature enacted Senate Bill SBx2-11, which recognized that the County payments to judges were criminal. Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave retroactive immunity, effective 5/21/09, from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to a “governmental entity, officer, or employee of a governmental entity,” including judges who were paid or received “judicial benefits.” The retroactive immunity did not extend to the judge’s actions of presiding over cases in which the county who paid them was a party. Nor, did it extend to county payments received after 5/21/09. At all times, judges who accepted “bribes” from an interested party were biased. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct.1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.
  • Further, the judge receiving the payment may be prosecuted for violating the intangible right to honest services under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ____ (decided 6/24/2010), Slip Opinion pages 48-49, that § 1346 encompasses bribery and kickbacks; that if the Federal Court Judges and/or Magistrates were not likewise involved in these frauds;
  • Redress is defined in Black’s Law 5th Edition as:“ Redress. Satisfaction for an injury or damages sustained. Damages or equitable relief. See Recovery; Restitution”. Recovery is defined in the same as being: “In its most extensive sense, the restoration or vindication of a right existing in a person, by the formal judgment or decree of a competent court, at his instance and suit, or the obtaining, by such judgment, of some right or property which has been taken or withheld from him. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wood, 242 Ark. 879, 416 S.W.2d 322, 327.This is also called a “true” recovery, to distinguish it from a “feigned” or “common” recovery.” And indeed Restitution is defined as the: “Act of restoring; restoration; restoration of anything to its rightful owner; the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury; and indemnification. State v. Barnett, 110 Vt. 221, 3 A.2d 521, 525, 526. Restoration of status quo and is amount which would put plaintiff in as good a position as he would have been if no contract had been made and restores to plaintiff value of what he parted with in performing contract. Explorers Motor Home Corp. v. Aldridge, Tex.Civ.App., 541 S.W.2d 851, 852. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. Restatement of the Law, Restitution, § 1.”
  • Regular on its Face—“Process is said to be “regular on its face” when it proceeds from the court officer, or body having authority of law to issue process of that nature, and which is legal in form, and contains nothing to notify, or fairly apprise any one that it is issued without authority.”


  • In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
  • “A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”.
  • A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
  • In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
  • A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736).
  • A ‘fundamental defect’ includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256); or where service of proceedings never came to the notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [1963]). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494).
  • A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]).
  • In Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667] 85 E.R. 81, pp.87:88 it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated.
  • It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can never be void unless the ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ is ‘limited’ in situations where it is expressly shown to be so. In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130). However, where the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Court’s power by an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667]; Halsbury’s Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply.
  • Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER).
  • The main differences between a ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ order or claim is that:
  • (i) a ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside; and
  • (ii) a ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court.
  • A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]).
  • The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order, although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where damages may also be claimed.
  • Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943].
  • A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
  • A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601).
  • It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
  • In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court.
  • In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
  • It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the cherry’; and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew).

Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:


In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:

(i) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.


In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:

(i) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.


Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]:

(i) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.


In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:

(i) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;

(ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and

(iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.


In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that:

(i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not;

(ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party.


In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [1961] Lord Denning confirmed that:

(i) a void order is automatically void without more ado;

(ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside;

(iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void.


In Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:

(i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;

(ii) a nullity cannot be waived;

(iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and

(iv) a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.


In Firman v Ellis [1978] Lord Denning confirmed that:

(i) a void act is void ab initio


Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths 1979 – page 77, states:

(i) although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead”.


Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461:

(i) a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary.


In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that:

(i) a void act is void from the outset; and

(ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it.

Conclusion based on the case laws referred to above:

(i) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order;

(ii) the setting aside must be done under the Court’s inherent power to set aside its own void order;

(iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;

(iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void;

(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;

(vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages may also be claimed;

(vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act;

(viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning;

(ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary;

(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;

(xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act;

(xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament.




Pope Pius Creating NORTH AMERICAN ACT to take control of North America for the HOLY SEE




This Section is from that which details theft of a Home by corrupt judges in Alameda County. Full page can be found here: 

The real truth about this case and America today!

(Excerpt from page dedicated to theft of 3012 Partridge Avenue)

legal v's lawful, Martial war powers, military courts, Mixed War, American Common law v Kangaroo courts - Star Chambers, administrative courts

Concerning the above three commandments; foreign CROWN BAR US JUDGES (not real judges for they are banned from setting foot in America per TONA) never got the memo on the ten commandments, particularly the reference to thou shall not steal

America is UNLAWFULLY being operated under foreign imposed WAR POWERS, not because we the people government effected this system out of necessity on ourselves to protect our nation and help it recover from some traumatic war or other event.  THIS SCAM WAS ESTABLISHED OVER US, NOT BY A WE THE PEOPLE GOVERNMENT BUT BY  traitors and seditionist operating for a PRIVATE GLOBAL CRIMINAL CARTEL, a PARASITE CLASS made up of handful of Old World Order families that  owns the Crown Corporation of London and the HOLY SEE Corps. that created UNITED STATES Corporation in DC in 1871 (SEE HOME PAGE). 

These parasitic families are generally known as the Black Nobility. Their paid hired hands ( MALCOLM X THE HOUSE NEGRO AND THE FIELD NEGRO ) have been keeping Emergency War Powers over America which was initiated by a President Lincoln who was ineligible to be a President because of TONA and the fact he was a BAR attorney (Illinois BAR). War powers have been foisted on America since the civil war and they were championed and directed by the Rothschild Crime Cartel that manufactured the civil war to coup America and create WAR DEBTS to burden a post war government corporation that they could control. They relied on the Relying debts to Bankrupt their CORPORATE de facto government that they created illegally in 1868 in league with those panning the coup of America since The Secret Treaty of Verona of 1822. This age old Rothschild scam is one that the Rothschilds have relied on to enslave the people of many nations who they would eventually make responsible for their deliberately amassed debts when these were never the responsibility of the American people WHO WERE NEVER PARTY THE DC US BANKRUPTCY!

This age old scam has allows the parasite BANKERS running the country to pretend they have a debt to be collected and that is the basis behind this very  case. Home owners home is being stollen by bankers OUTSIDE THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE LAND and the American Common Law because some LOW LIFE SCUM bankers MANUFACTURED a bankruptcy that was re-enacted in 1930 by Jesuit controlled FDR who was shoe horned in to the role of President and CEO of a DC corporation called UNITED STATES.  As a result everyone in America is now being held to pay the Banksters because of that phony manufactured International Bankster manufactured Bankruptcy and the false debt that Americans were never a party too! 

There is a minor problem with their plot that AVR has now spelled out to the parasite bankers! The American people or the states were never a party to the DC UNITED STATES Corporation bankruptcy which was merely masquerading as a we the people government when it has never been any such thing since the early 1860's when Lincoln ILLEGALLY came in to office in violation of TONA! Since they were never a party to it - they can never be a lawful party to its debts! Yet - we have been paying these debts for decades which makes us the Primary Creditor not the debtor! THE US COURTS ARE THE ONES that act as international receivers for the UN/IMF as debt collectors for an illegal debt never the debt of the American people. 

This fact can be verified by the fact that the current UNITED STATES corporation successor was originally created under the Act of 1871. Let us also note that at the "CIVIL WAR"  No war was ever declared by congress. It was a coup of America by enemies foreign and domestic and the American legal system and governance has been corrupted every since and operated by parasites and psychopaths to benefit THEIR parasite class, not the American people. 

As a result this trustee does not consent to this fraudulent theft of the home held in foreign trust to protect it from the likes of CARPET BAGGERS wearing BAR badges. 

Those seditionist and traitors still running America through a foreign US corporate governance system and legal system have violated every letter of the American organic common law system. War powers - MIXED WAR, has been foisted on Americans - because TRAITORS to the nation (ongoing) wanted an efficient way to THIEVE from the products of American labor, ingenuity as in this case - and to get something for nothing just like the common Horse and Cattle Rustlers of the old West. We know what vigilante justice did to them under the practice of common custom.

Now lets compare stealing a home using OBVIOUS fraud as we will show the American people occurred in this case,  to the crime of stealing a cow or a horse! 

Everyone named in this complaint has engaged in some aspect of helping foreign parasites steal a home so that they can profit from it by making the couple that built the home and lived in it for 14 years homeless. Lets look at the crime in this instance in a little more detail: 

The Home owners that applied for a LOAN in 2003 that he never got, that was funded by the borrower himself on collateral that the BANK stole from the homeowner; which he was never informed about; who paid a deposit down on the home, who paid years of interest and principal payments, that maintained the home, BUILT THE HOME from the rot up over nearly two years at great expense;  that protected the home; that expanded the home, defended the home over the last seven years from foreign attorneys banned from ever operating in America who were trying to steal it; and that spent tens of thousands in legal defenses in foreign courts foisted on Alameda in several cases enacted to preserve his property defending against unalienable rights violations which are still protected under American law.... is the one that now should get NOTHING for all of his efforts because BANNED BAR attorneys manufactured counterfeit paper that said there was a debt on the home - when their is none according to the banks documents!  Those issued by the Bank that prove that there is no debt owed and that all bank paper was counterfeited by a notrious well known counterfitting firm as exposed on this site! 

Now this crime that was reported to the STATE AG, the FBI, the Alameda attorney, the County Recorder, the Sherriff, the Oakland Police Department et al... all of whom stayed as quiet as a mouse .... why? Because this is how their system is supposed to work! PARASITE foreign banks waging war on the states from DC BAR attorney low life scum operating in the foreign courts illegally operating on our Countys are LICENSED to wage war on Americans! So called law firms get to steal our stuff and the American people - that bought and lived in their homes get NOTHING for their efforts! 

This crime is s of course a thousand fold worse than anything the American people suffered at the War of Independence as laid out here! 

Now - the owners of the property are now supposed to go off quietly - except their fate and find a tent to live in somewhere under a bridge and start all over again while someone else benefits from living in the very unique house that the home owners built, nurtured and cared for and Derek t Joe and partner walk off with $200 K. DO you really think so! WE THINK NOT!  

Investigators like this TRUSTEE to the foreign trusts that own the  home long ago realized that America is being occupied and that the US legal system is not merely corrupt to the bone - its been deliberately established to war on Americans and steal our PROPERTY, CHILDREN, LIVES, MONEY, IP. THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE OR A LEGAL ERROR. Trustee warned Home owners how the system worked so we documented everything over the last six years to reveal this to the American people after taking every possible measure to protect the property! There has been as many as 17 Kangaroo Court cases that expose STATE, BANKRUPTCY and FEDERAL Courts as similarly corrupt to the BONE by design and all are in the business of thieving of Americans in violation of our natural rights and organic law form. 

After the owners of the real property were educated on this state of affairs they spent THOUSANDS of hours educating themselves on the actual law of the land and realized one will get no remedy in the foreign BAR Kangaroo courts. One must rely on the Organic laws of America, the physical states and the American common law and Exclusive American equity, equitable process to protect ones home and property. 

As a result, every lawful right has been exercised to protect the home and at the end of the day foreign LAW FIRMS banned from ever operating in America in BED WITH a Kangaroo Court operated by a BAR attorney forever banned from every operating in America GAVE THE HOME AWAY - AFTER IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT ERIC T JOE has no claim and BANKS claim is beyond bogus as we will demonstrate to the world to FULLY EXPOSE the sociopaths and Phsycopaths that have seized our nation! 

What this tells us is the court and Eric T. Joe and his co-conspirators including parasites at Scheer Law Group - WILL OPNELY  ignore FACTS proving the home is stollen; and evidence that proves STATE, BANK, COURT - Eric T. Joe is engaged in THEFT, sedition, treason and what their system calls RICO!   

Eric T. Joe paid some $400K knowing that if they IGNORE the facts and the law that they could walk with $200K by stealing another mans home! At the end of the day - they willfully, knowingly used ever crooked tool in the system to force out the real owners of the home relying on BAR-stitutes and DUMBED DOWN ARMED MEN that call themselves OAKLAND POLICE FORCE who worked for a couped judiciary made up of FOREIGN AGENTS, according to TONA are engaged in SEDITION AND TREASON. The hired thugs work for the parasite class that own the CROWN and the HOLY See Corporations that created UNITED STATES waging war on Americans and relying on dumbed down Americans like those in OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT to wage an unlawful war on their own brothers and sisters who are fully in their rights to protect their own property GIVEN AWAY BY A FOREIGN COURT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF THE LAND WHICH IS AN ACT OF TREASON! 

The CROWN BAR imposters, traitors and seditionists running foreign US Courts on American soil never got the memo that Administrative courts operating in America, are all ILLEGAL. They are operating in violation of the law of the land, controlled from England and illegally forcing Martial Law - Mixed War Conditions on the American people FOR NO LAWFUL CAUSE - in violation of the law! They are doing it because they get to live high on the hog by looking the other way! After all it is easier to STEAL that which you did not work to create and its easier to rape and pillage a people USING PAID ARMNED THUGS and the instruments of A FOREIGN STATE to war on the people that will be murdered if they resist this tyranny. 

We have shown on this site to effect a war on a people you must first dumb down the people; make sure they do not know who they really are; what their rights are and then you lie to them about their organic law and founding acts that created America, the Union and the states and tell them that FOREIGN CORPORATE LAW is the now the law. That is exactly what has been done to America and those running the plantation school system are part of this MIND coup! 

The history supporting this state of affairs proves a foreign crime cartel is waging war on the world from DC, London and the Vatican city. A band of common thieves that created a system to steal from Americans and thieve their resources FOR NO LAWFUL CAUSE and without any lawful right.

While some Americans have chosen to live high on the hog they too are victims of the war on America. They just do not know it yet. When the Chines, Bolsheviks launched their wars on China and Russia at the hands of the same criminal cartel waging a war on America - the first to be taken out were those running their POLICE, ARMY et al! People should really learn who their friends are and who their real enemy is. The American people are not the enemy of the police - the DC CROWN Cabal is. If you doubt this please study Vaccinations, Energy Weapons - Directed Energy, Poisoned Municipal water, Chemtrails - weather warfare - HAARP and the FEDERAL RESERVE for starters! 

So - the take away: Foreign US Courts are under MILITARY control for no lawful cause than foreigners want to steal the product of American labor! All Administrative Courts are illegal in America;  here is proof that the courts on American soil are operated from the CROWN Corporation of London. It should be noted that the CROWN is foreign to England i.e. Crown Corporation is Occupying England as well as America and all nations and it imposing its legal Tyranny on all nations in violation of natural law, the common law of America, England, Canada, Australia, NZ, SA et al.

The home owners in this case have suffered similar losses to the TRUSTEE (Theft of Home, theft of children and all property by STATE Criminal cartel under the FOREIGN BANNED BAR) and we have access to records documenting the same crime in as many as 2500 other cases across California and Washington state! In all cases - STATE Actors DID NOTHING and are complicit in the crime and not fit for public purpose! 

These crimes are the result of Jesuitical agents of a parasite class that have vowed to inflict these very crimes on the American people - those that are opposed to Babylonian, satanic, Talmudic anti-life, anti American Khazarian mafia that stood up the UNITED STATES Corporation when Americans were still picking up their dead at the Rothschilds manufactured civil war:  

Lets look again a the words of those that follow the satanic Talmud that have taken control of our nations ... we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us (click on text for full excerpt and links to original texts).