Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Solutions Exist even for the Judicial
Wed Aug 9, 2017 09:11

What would you think of a judge that does not all evidence in court?

What if that evidence was of a stabbing of an unarmed person trying to protect an unarmed 15 year old and was stabbed in the 15 year old's place, Oh yes and the stab wound was one inch from her heart?

Further evidence not allowed into court was the so called accused had a boken Matacarpal bone fracture, concussion, major bruises etc.from trying to protect himself and others. While the actual one doing the attacking had no injuries and was not even called to task? Multiple eyewitnesses could testify as to what happened but:- - -

What would you say to a cop who told eyewitnesses if they told what they saw they would be arrested? ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Location Ft Smith Arkansas
Regarding case # 17-50000512 (or what ever number the case is changed to like the last time)
incident number 170055756-00 reporting officer Hulsey #4159
'judge' Ben Beland residing set the hearing for 3rd of Augus 2017

Beland was this a retaliation for:
Rebuttal to Criminal Summons?

District Court of
Sebastian County, Arkansas
Fort Smith Division

Rebuttal to Criminal Summons:
17-01824 (and was obscured with another case #)

You lack Jurisdiction and if you proceed with this matter it will be taken to the International Court ITCCS. (See Attached list of some of the DeJure Common Law Courts that are being established or reestablished at this time. And refer to Supreme Court decision 14-1305)
“Generally, a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 1936, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Welsh v. American Surety Co., 5 Cir. 1951, 186 F.2d 16; 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra Sec. 1363 at 653. . . .” Rosemound Sand and Gravel Co. v. Lambert Sand and Gravel Co., 469 F.2d 416 (1972).
Being a member of the BAR Association is alliance if not outright FRAUD on the De Jure Courts and the People. Whether BAR calls itself the British Accredited Registry, the BAR has through the Treaty of 1947 made all American BAR association members foreign agents. And under: Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 you must declare yourself as foreign agent.
18 U.S.C. § 219 is not a registration statute, but is a conflict of interest statute which makes it a criminal offense for a "public official" of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches to be or to act as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under FARA. This does not apply to special government employees who register under FARA and obtain certification from the head of the employing agency that such employment is required in the national interest.

Furthermore due to the Court decision U.S. Supreme Court 14:1305 decision: you must present DeJure Credentials to proceed in any manner.

Since all members of the American BAR Association are under the Treaty of 1947 putting the ABA under the United Nationa. It has been found that the ABA members including Judges are foreign agents and are requited to notify parties interacted with. Which means every person going into a court room or dealing with an ABA member, should be notified ra\Judge and any BAR Association member is a foreign Agent.

Article I of ABA treaty with the UN 1947

ABA is the acronym for American BAR Association

BAR the meaning of BAR is British Accredited Registry

So far on this case:
1. Failure of timely Notification and thereby denial of Due Process. Notification for March 3, 2017 hearing not sent out until March 7, 2017 by certified letter #7014 2120 0001 2623 4883
This is called lying by omission.
It is also constructive fraud.

2. This action has no Jurisdiction in any BAR Association court.

3. This action is being taken against Virginia Charters etc. 1606, 1609, 1612 and the U.S. Constitution

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Keeping in mind that the President has the power to make treaties with the sufficient approval of the Senate. Also remembering the original 13th amendment the BAR has no right to proceed to make a treaty with foreign entities of the United Nations. Or to allow its members to violate the original 13th amendment.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

3. The mandate of actual Law under the Charters is "Do NO Harm"
As per Article VI previous:
Charters of 1606, 1609, 1612 are among the key elements meant be the 'All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.'
Main elements of these Charters are:
A. Due to being written by King James VI and I the direct Heir still must see to it that the points expressed in the Charters are adhered to.
B. These requirements include as the only real LAW of the land 'Do NO harm!
C. Certain financial mandates have been coopted with the help of the BAR to use the funds for
wrong purposes. These financial interests should be directed back to the rightful location
and that is the House of Stuart Estate which, is centered at this time in the USA.

“. . . If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he [sic] constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177-178 (1803).

Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as such species of oath or affirmation is expressly prohibited by the provisions of said article and clause, supra, and therefore, for purposes of accession to “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, void; to wit:

“. . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

The religious test required as a qualification to the office of justice of the Supreme Court or district judge in the oath or affirmation at Section 8 of the Judiciary Act taken by every such judicial officer means that no such justice or judge is authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, anywhere within the Union for failure to have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

September 24, 1789, requires a religious test as a qualification
most modern of which is 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, December 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124,

Federal, Territorial, and Municipal
Municipal: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution following incorporation of the District of Columbia February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, and municipal judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia; Congress on November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935, Congress in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15), in Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. (under which all civil or criminal proceedings are conducted), define “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” id., the object of which definition and meaning is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and omit to define “United States” in a geographical sense—and today every United States district and magistrate judge in every district court of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union is a District of Columbia municipal judge usurping exercise of general jurisdiction and declaring municipal law of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation throughout the Union with no authority to do so.

Bereft of authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, every justice of the Supreme Court and every United States district judge and magistrate judge is under the exclusive control of the legislative power (Congress), who manages the activities of such justices and judges by way of the laws of the “United States”

Beginning with the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, the People have been denied the “unalienable Rights,” The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, Preamble, of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” id., and deprived of life, liberty, and property[8] without due process of law by legislative-branch super-factotums ensconced in the so-called United States Department of Justice and district courts—courts where the power of judging is joined with that of legislating and executing and there is no separation of powers and there is no due process of law.

“kangaroo court. 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding.” Black’s, p. 359.

“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821).

The deceitfully entitled “Criminal Summons,” tacitly representing to be authorized to exercise in Ft Smith, Arkansas, and issue the summons against Property owner on title is against the above basic principle of.:
“due process. The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.” Black’s, p. 516.

Sebastian County, Arkansas, agent has no authority to exercise “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1, or take territorial jurisdiction in Sebastian County ,Arkansas, or issue said summons against Property 'owner' on Title, BELAND/BORENCASSER/O'HERN must answer for failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and (b) the summons is a legal nullity, thereby depriving the United States attorney of any evidence of any fact upon which a claim could be granted.

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ‘I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

Whereas, any oath or affirmation that has a religious test as a qualification to any judicial office under the United States operates as an automatic bar to accession to authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, there has never been a justice or judge of the United States in the history of the Republic authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., for universal failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

If a judge of the United States has not taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution and no such judge has any business sitting on the bench of any United States district court anywhere in the Union—and each and every judge who does is a rogue judge.

Failure to comply with the mandate of the Virginia Charters, other charters and treaties must be answerable to the Republic or Public not the Corporation.

Therefore the above matters are remanded over to the Common Law Court. Provision for time in the courtrooms, recordation facilities, and all that is necessary, shall be made available as soon as possible. Not to be later than June 30. 2017.

Patricia JHS
Direct Heir and successor of the House of Stuart

Not mention further harassments in various ways!!! Such as Case #DLN934826120

  • Hanford Leaking Plutonium Into The AirWilliam Mount, Wed Aug 9 04:20
    We will do our best to help you prepare for what is coming. ========== HANFORD REACTORS LEAKING PLUTONIUM INTO THE AIR ========== Hanford Nuclear Reservation has been leaking Plutonium into the air... more
    • Solutions Exist even for the Judicial — scantv77, Wed Aug 9 09:11
Click here to receive daily updates