Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Twitter what is so wrong with my being able to post?
Wed Nov 1, 2017 09:08
172.242.13.247

What is interesting to me is the lack of prosecutiion. Such as the article in the National Examiner 'Charles confesses to Queen "Why I Had To Kill Diana!" And to this date it appears there has been no prosecution? September 18 2017 the article came out yet nothing done???
-144 So every character is to many?

When trying to respond to:

Patricia JHS‏ @scantv77 May 19
⦁ Go to: ⦁ http://apfn.org and read ⦁ http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=157641;title=APFN … 'This is the Shape the Judicial System is in'

Twitter do not consider yourself alone, you would have to include facebook, chat groups, Blogs, Vlogs, forums, my space, you name it. What is it 'they' are so afraid might be said by me?


Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
scantv77
This is the Shape the Judicial System is in!!!
Mon May 15, 2017 12:43
172.242.14.164
Judge Ben Beland
Sebastian County District Court-Fort Smith District (State District Court)
Department- 2
Congressional District: District Three
Sebastian Cty Courts Bldg. 901 South 'B' Street
Fort Smith, AR 72901
Phone Number:(479) 784-2429
Fax Number: 479 784-2438

To All BAR Association members:
Copy to:
Arkansas Justice Building
625 Marshall Street, Little Rock, AR 72201
501-682-9400 (AOC) | (501) 682-2147 (Library)
And all appropriate Officials.
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).
This is called lying by omission.
It is also constructive fraud.
Municipal judges (every justice and judge of the United States is a District of Columbia municipal bench officer) have authority to exercise general jurisdiction, but only in the District of Columbia.

Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;" and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425.

"When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void." 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved:

"State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

I have a right to question and challenge any activities by government as to their validity and legal standing:

"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority." The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

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. II Section. 2
He (President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,

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]

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"
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:
1. 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.
2. These requirements include as the only real LAW of the land 'Do NO harm!
3. 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 at centered this time in the USA.

Thank you for the attack since it gave the opportunity to respond directly to the De facto version cf court that has been considered as real for far to long. It is time for the duly Ratified Consitution for the united States of America be adhered to, including actual Comon Law Courts. Not the so called type the BAR associates try to consider as the replacement for the DeJure Common Law Courts. Arrests for the 'officials who continue to perpetuate the fraud upon the people are on going at this time . It is just a matter of a short while until the Due Process can be followed the charges and arrest the ones contiuing to not carry out the basic Principles of the founding documents. And each will be answering for the use of the courts in the past for not only monetary collections but the political retaliation or mis and dis use of court systems and all other 'Official' positions in the DeFacto Government.




Patricia JHS
Direct Heir of the House of Stuart
Chief Justice USA Common Law Court





* Asterisk indicates that Common Law Courts of Justice are operating or are being established in these nations
Canada*
United States*
Mexico
Guatemala
Brazil
Ireland*
England*
Scotland
Sweden
Denmark
Holland*
Belgium*
France
Spain
Portugal
Italy*
Poland
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Greece
Egypt*
India*
Fiji
Australia*
South Africa*
And in these sovereign indigenous nations:
Squamish
Cree
Anishnabe-Ojibway
Mohawk-Six Nations
Metis
Maliseet

  • Click here to receive daily updates