POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT

MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE

VOLUME 2 (a)

F.R.C.P.-RULES 7 to 12

 

RULE 8

GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING
STARTS: PAGE R 8        8-8


[8]  1987 Amendments.


(b) DEFENSES, FORM OF DENIALS:    (PAGE 8-8)

A party shall state in short and plain terms [his] the party’s defense, (“TO EACH CLAIM ASSERTED”), and shall admit or deny the Averments upon which the adverse party relies…. or [he] may generally deny all averments, (“EXCEPT SUCH DESIGNATED AVERMENTS OR PARAGRAPHS AS [he] THE PLEADER EXPRESSLY ADMITS”).

[HE] THE PLEADER, MAY MAKE A GENERAL DENIAL, “SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN F.R.C.P. RULE # 11”.

(4) (Page 8-10) Rule #8:        The pleading rules are designed to eliminate delay….(5) and permit either a Plaintiff or a Defendant to “OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THERE IS NO BONA FIDE CLAIM OR DEFENSE”.

IN THIS CASE, THE DEFAULTED PARTY (S) HAVE NO MERITORIOUS DEFENSE”.

(7) (PAGE 8-10) “LOOSE PLEADING”; is a cry to punish the 
    client for choosing a Lawyer who chanced to be a poor 

pleader. The real importance of the pleading rules is that

they make pleadings, in and of themselves, relatively
unimportant.

 

“CASES ARE TO BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS”

(Page 8-15)  Rule # 8:

(3) General Denials are permissible when the Pleader,
(“IN VIEW OF RULE # 11), on signing of pleadings, can HONESTLY CONTROVERT “ALL” AVERMENTS. (16) “THEREBY CERTIFYING”


“BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY SIXTH EDITION”

PERJURY (PAGE 1139)

 

PERJURY: IN criminal law, the willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness “IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING” as part of evidence, either upon OATH or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an Affidavit, or otherwise, such assertion being material to the issue or point of inquiry and know to such witness to be false. “A FALSE STATEMENT KNOWINGLY MADE IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OR CONCERNING A MATTER WHEREIN AN AFFIANT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE SWORN AS TO SOME MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE OR POINT IN QUESTION.

(Henry V. Deen. 310 N.C. 75, 310 S.E. 2d 326, 335).

A PERSON IS GUILTY OF PERJURY IF IN ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING HE MAKES A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH OR EQUIVALENT AFFIRMATION OR SWEARS OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTH OF A STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE, WHEN THE STATEMENT IS MATERIAL, AND HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE.

Model Penal Code, S 241.1.  See Also:  18 U.S.C.A. s 1621, 1623.

SUBORNATION OF PERJURY IS PROCURING ANOTHER TO COMMIT PERJURY. SEE:  18 U.S.C.A. S 1622

For Unsworn Declarations under penalty of Perjury, See 28 U.S.C.A. 1746.

MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE

(“RULE 11”)

EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1993

SUPP.

RULE #11: SIGNING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND OTHER PAPERS;

      REPRESENTATIONS TO COURT; SANCTIONS.

PAGE (1) OF SUPPLEMENT:

SUBDIVISION (A); Must have a signature on pleading by at least One Attorney/Party.

SUBDIVISION (B): Representation to court: By signing, filing, Submitting, a pleading, or other paper, “AN ATTORNEY IS CERTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES”.

SUBDIVISION (C)  “SANCTIONS”; If after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, “THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUBDIVISION (B) HAS BEEN VIOLATED, THE COURT MAY, SUBJECT THE ATTORNEYS TO SANCTION AS WELL AS THE LEGAL FIRM OR PARTIES THAT VIOLATED SUBDIVISION (B)”.

RULE # 11.  SUPPLEMENT, 1993, (PAGE 6)
F.R.C.P. RULE 11, Continues to require litigants to “STOP AND THINK” before initially making a legal or factual contention(s). It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential Sanctions……

 

“DEC 1, 1993 SUPP.  (PAGE 7) RULE # 11”


 [“A PARTY, SHOULD NOT DENY AN ALLEGATION IT KNOWS TO BE TRUE”].

Without any investigation required. Respondent (s) know for a fact, the following statements and facts in this Petitions Contract/Claim/Remedy, is 100% True.

“RESPONDENT(S) IS SCIENTER”: SEE ERNST AND ERNST V. HOCHFELDER, ILL. 425 U.S. 185 96 S.CT 1375, 1381,47 L.ED.2d 668.

(“SCIENTER ACT(S) IS ON-GOING WITH THIS RESPONDENT(S)”).
SEE MYZEL V. FIELDS, C.A. MINN. 386 R. 2d. 718 734.

SEE AM JUR VOLUME 15 (A) CLAUSE #20, (PAGE 469)

“OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH”

“THIS CODE, IS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE “GOOD FAITH” AND PREVENT FRAUD”.

“ONCE AGAIN, THIS PETITIONER, “MOVANT”, has the right to move the review of this Case, utilizing Administrative Law and The Uniform Commercial Code, (UCC) as the main components

for review. Also, without doubt, this Petitioner embraces the

United States Constitution and all Amendments and Articles within.

“BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION”

LETTER“, (PAGE 903)

LETTER: A dispatch or Epistle; A written or printed message; a communication in writing from one person to another at a distance.

Respondent(s)/Defaulted Parties, is by Contract, Mandated to respond to all statements and inquires by: AFFIDAVIT, POINT FOR POINT, UNDER UNLIMITED LIABILITY OATH, SWORN AND ATTESTED TO; AND RETURNED BY U.S. POSTAL REGISTERED MAIL TO PETITIONERS NOTARY ACCEPTOR.

SEE NOTARY(S) NOTICE OF NON- RESPONSE

“SHAM ANSWER” SEE BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION, (PAGE 91).

SHAM ANSWER: One sufficient on it face, but so clearly false, that it presents no real issue to be tried. One good in form, but false in fact and not pleaded in good faith. (SEE ALSO RULE (37 A) F.R.C.P.)

UNSWORN DECLARATIONS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY U.S.C.A. TITLE #28 #1746.

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any Rule, (Rule #11), Regulation, order, or “Requirement made pursuant to law”, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established or proved by Sworn Declaration, verification. Certificate, Statement, Oath or Affidavit, in writing of the person making the same, such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the Unsworn Declaration, Certificate, Verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, “AS TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY”…..

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VOLUME # 2

ANSWERS

 

ANSWER(S), CLAUSE # 291, (PAGE 305) RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS.

Responsive pleadings in actions commenced by private parties, by stating that when private persons are the moving parties, “MOVANT”, other parties to the proceeding……”MUST GIVE PROMPT NOTICE OF THE (“ISSUES”) controverted in Fact or in Law….that if no Answer is filed to a complaint, the allegations are deemed admitted and true.

The important fact that is directed to the court concerning this clause is: the word (“ISSUES”). “PLEASE NOTE THIS WORD IS USED IN THE PLURAL CONTEXT, MEANING MORE THAN ONE”.

AM JUR VOLUME 2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CLAUSE # 298, (PAGE 311) NO RIGHT TO FORMAL HEARING:

The Defaulted Parties does not have an absolute right to a hearing. “ESPECIALLY” WHERE THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE TO MATERIAL FACTS.

THE DEFAULTED PARTIES TO THIS CASE HAVE NO MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.

 

RESPONDENT(S) IS MANDATED TO ANSWER BY AFFIDAVIT

 

AN AFFIDAVIT PER BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY ON PAGE 58 IS;

A written or printed declaration or “STATEMENT OF FACTS”, made voluntarily, and confirmed by The Oath or Affirmation of the party making it. Taken before a person having authority to administer such oath of Affirmation.

State V. Knight, 219 Kan 863 ( 549 P. 2d, 1397, 1401)

AM JUR VOLUME #3, CLAUSE # 20, (PAGE 404)
THE COURTS MUST ACCEPT AN AFFIDAVIT AS TRUE IF IT IS UNCONTRADICTED.

“IF, AN AFFIDAVIT IS UNCONTRADICTED, THE REVIEWING COURT, MUST ACCEPT ITS CONTENTS AS TRUE”. (THERE EXISTS, NO WHERE ON THIS EARTH, AN OPPOSING AFFIDAVIT TO PETITIONERS AFFIDAVIT/COMMERCIAL CLAIM C0NTRACT, RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT (S).

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

MOORE’S VOLUME 2 (A)

CHAPTER 8, PAGE 8-1

GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING

(B) DEFENSES; FORMS OF DENIALS; A party, shall state in short and plain terms, the party’s defense to “EACH CLAIM ASSERTED” and shall admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies.

Page 8-7, HISTORY OF RULE,  8.01 [3]

Rule # 8, requires a good pleading. Requires the pleader to

disclose adequate information as the basis of his claim relief as distinguished from a bare averment. That he wants relief and is entitled to it.

 

CHARACTER OF PLEADING RULES

PAGE 8-17  8.06

RULE 11, INSISTS UPON HONESTY IN A PLEADING “SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Motions to dismiss for “Failure to State a Claim and for Judgment on the pleadings, are transformed into motions for “Summary Judgment”.

THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO DISPOSE OF CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND ISSUES THAT HAVE NO MERITS, AND TO SIMPLIFY THE ISSUES THAT REMAIN, PURSUANT TO “RULE # 56” SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner MOVANT, moves the review of this Case, utilizing Administrative Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, (UCC), Petitioner, also embraces the United States Constitution, its Amendments and its Articles.

The Respondent(s)/Defaulted Parties, is Estopped by Acquiescence and Tacit Procuration and are impeached from the issues of this case.

This Petitioner has researched extensively, utilizing and bringing forth evidence from Moore’s Federal Practice, American Jurisprudence, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Case Law and Amendments and Articles of the United States Constitution, to prove “BEYOND DOUBT”, the defaulted parties “SET UP NO DEFENSE” to the claim/contract.

Petitioner holds an Irrefutable Commercial Contract, protected by Article I, Section 10, Amendment (s) I, V, IV, of the United States Constitution.

 

 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF LAW

FROM BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

 

1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION, (PAGE 97)
APPEARANCE:

In civil action, the parties do not actually appear in person, but rather through their attorney (who enter their appearance by filing written pleadings), or a formal written entry of appearance……

COMMON LAW CLASSIFICATION: Either Compulsory or Voluntary…


2. PLEADING’S: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (PAGE 1152)

The formal (“ALLEGATIONS”) by the parties to a law suit of their RESPECTIVE CLAIMS/ DEFENSE…..(SPECIAL NOTE; Allegations is used in the plural context), meaning. Respondent(s) is to answer each Allegation, “Point for Point”.
(” RESPONDENT (S), DO NOT, AND IN DOING SO, DO NOT SET UP A

DEFENSE TO THIS PETITIONERS CLAIM(S).

3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (PAGE 60)

“UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE… “ALL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES”, MUST BE RAISED IN THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING/ANSWER”…


SPECIAL NOTE; “RESPONDENT(S)/DEFAULTED PARTIES, DID NOT SET UP AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE

4. DEFECTIVE PLEADING: PER BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION. (PAGE- 418)

Complaint, Answer, Cross Claim, Counter Claim, etc., “WHICH FAIL TO MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OF SUFFICIENCY OR “ACCURACY IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE”.

 

Summary: Respondent(s)/Defaulted Parties, are mandated within the Commercial Claim Contract, with specificity, they are to “RESPOND BY AFFIDAVIT” POINT FOR POINT, UNDER UNLIMITED LIABILITY OATH, SWORN AND ATTESTED TO BY A NOTARY AND RETURN RESPONSE, WITH PROOF OF DENIALS, BY REGISTERED U.S. POSTAL SERVICE”.

“RESPONDENT(S)/DEFAULTED PARTIES, FAILED EACH MANDATE”

5. ANSWER:  PER BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (PAGE 91)

As a verb, the word denotes an assumption of liability, as to “Answer” for the debt or Default of another.

DISCOVERY: A person who fails to answer, or “ANSWERS EVASIVELY OR INCOMPLETELY, DEPOSITION OR INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS, MAY BE COMPELLED TO DO SO UNDER F.R.C.P. (37).

In pleading, under the codes and Rules of Civil Procedure, the Answer is the formal written statement, made by the Defendant; “SETTING FORTH THE GROUNDS OF HIS DEFENSE”…….

“SHAM ANSWERS” One sufficient on its face, but so CLEARLY FALSE that it presents no real issue to be tried. One good in form, “BUT FALSE IN FACT AND NOT PLEADED IN GOOD FAITH”

6. FRIVOLOUS ANSWER: CONTINUED ON (PAGE 91)

(“ONE WHICH ON ITS FACE SETS UP NO DEFENSE”). On motion of a party, the court may order stricken from the pleading any sufficient defense.  See F.R.C.P. 12 (f).

“The letter(s), set up no AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OR MERITORIOUS DEFENSE” The Letter(s) meet Black’s Law Definition, “ A DEFECTIVE PLEADING.
The letter (s) is EVASIVE AND INCOMPLETE
, “SETTING UP NO DEFENSE“.

The Letter(s) is a “SHAM ANSWER“, ABSOLUTELY 100% FALSE IN FACT AND NOT PLEADED IN GOOD FAITH. The Respondent(s) is committing Perjury.

MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE

SECOND EDITION

VOLUME 6

RULES 54-56

“RULE 55 (A) DEFAULT “

RULE (B) (1) DEFAULT JUDGMENT”

(POINTS AND AUTHORITIES)

 

Petitioner researches and brings to this court for Judicial Notice, the following Points and Authorities, regarding specific Points of Law, Regarding, F.R.C.P. 55 (A), DEFAULT, AND F.R.C.P. 55 (B) (1), DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

1. (PAGE 55-10): An appearance, (12), does not prevent a party

from becoming in Default for failure to plead or otherwise Defend (13).

2. (PAGE 55-13) Rule 55 (a), the defending party either fails

to make any appearance in the Case at all or “FAILS TO PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND” against a claim. THUS, IT CAN FAIRLY BE SAID, THAT THE DEFENDING PARTY HAS EVIDENCED NO INTENTION OF OPPOSING THE CLAIM, AND THIS JUSTIFIES THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT.

3. (PAGE 55-14) Where the Default is sought for a party’s failure to plead or otherwise defend, AN AFFIDAVIT ESTABLISHING THAT FAILURE AND REQUESTING THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT, SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK, UNDER RULE 55 (A). (6)., AND IN CERTAIN CASES, THE ENTRY OF THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ITSELF, MAY BE MADE BY THE CLERK UNDER RULE 55 (B) (1).   (7)

 

It should also be noted, that there is authority that the NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RULE (55) B 2, ARE INAPPLICABLE WHEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT AS A SANCTION.           ‘

4. F.R.C.P. (37)  (B)  (2) (C); authorizes Default Judgment itself, as a sanction, “ALSO, AUTHORIZES THE DISTRICT COURT TO STRIKE THE PLEADING OF THE OFFENDING PARTY.  (9).

5. (PAGE 55-15) THE CLERK IS TO ENTER THE DEFAULT OF A PARTY AGAINST WHOM A JUDGMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF IS SOUGHT, WHEN THE PARTY HAS FAILED TO (“PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND”), as provided by Federal Rules and that fact, is made to appear by AFFIDAVIT, or otherwise. (2)

6. (PAGE 55-15) If the Defendant. “PRESENTS NO DEFENSES”, within the period allowed by F.R.C.P. # 12 and has received no Extension of time. That Defendant is in Default under Rule 55.

7. (PAGE 55-18) Under Rule 12 (a), an answer establishing a

defense,(in this case. Respondent(s) is mandated to answer with an AFFIDAVIT), must be served in 20 days. Respondent(s) did not meet Rule 12 in this case as evidence shows.

THUS, THE PLAINTIFF, WHO SEEKS A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MUST ESTABLISH THE FACT OF DEFAULT BY EVIDENCE, AND THIS EVIDENCE CAN TAKE THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT.

8. (PAGE 55-18) The rule to enter a Default: Generally to make a request, supported by Affidavit.

 

 

9. SPECIAL NOTE; (PAGE 55-18)  (ITEM #14)

RULE 55 (A), DOES NOT STATE ANY REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE TO THE DEFENDING PARTY OF A MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF THE DEFAULT…..

Therefore, it has been held that even if the defendant has appeared in the action, THE CLAIMANT NEED NOT PROVIDE ANY PRIOR NOTICE OF A MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT UNDER 55 (A).

10. (PAGE 55-19) The mechanics for entry of a default by the Clerk, are not prescribed by Rule 55 (a)….Nor is there an official form….the fact is simply noted on the Docket. (17)

11. (PAGE 55-19) SPECIAL NOTE: THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 55 (A), (“APPLY TO ANY CLAIM FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF”)  (18)

12. (PAGE 55-26) Where the Clerk enters the Default Judgment under Rule 55 b 1, “THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE TO THE DEFAULTING PARTY”.   (23)

13. (PAGE 55-31) [3] where a party has appeared:

AN APPEARANCE DOES NOT KEEP A PARTY FROM BECOMING IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND”.  (2)

 

14. (PAGE 55-33) No extensions is given to Respondent(s) in this case for time in answering.

15. (PAGE 55-35)

    H.F. LIVERMORE V. AKIENGESE II SHAFT GEBRUDER V. LOEPFE.(1)

RESOLUTION OF LITIGATION IS ON MERITS AND NOT BASED ON TECHNICAL PLEADING RULES……THE DILIGENT PARTY, MUST BE

PROTECTED, LEST HE IS FACED WITH INTERMINABLE DELAY AND CONTINUED UNCERTAINTY TO HIS RIGHTS……

“THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT REMEDY SERVES SUCH A PROTECTION”

16. (PAGE 55-60) DEFAULT JUDGMENT; “RELIEF”

It is well settled that the Doctrine of res judicata is fully applicable to Default Judgments.  (2)

17. (PAGE 55-75)

THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS HELD; THAT WHERE THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFAULTING PARTY IS CULPABLE, RELIEF FROM DEFAULT MAY BE DENIED ON THAT BASIS ALONE, AND NO CONSIDERATION NEED BE GIVEN TO THE ELEMENTS OF PREJUDICE OR MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.    (26)

SUMMARY

The Petitioner has toiled for hours to come up with the correct analysis for determining what the significance is for the word appear/appearance within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is Ambiguous and difficult to Interpret without excessive study.
Per F.R.C.P. 55 (a); This rule is crystal clear; SEE (Page 55-10),

AN APPEARANCE DOES NOT PREVENT A PARTY FOR BECOMING INTO DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND.

“THE DEFAULTING PARTIES TO THIS CLAIM HAVE NO DEFENSE”. Each and every claim made by this Petitioner is made Under Unlimited Liability Oath and “IS 100% TRUE”.

This Petitioner, utilizing Administrative Law, Uniform Commercial Code, Black’s Law Dictionary, Moore’s Federal Practice, (which outlines all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), American Jurisprudence, Case Law and The United States Constitution with its Amendments and Articles is finding that he is indeed holding an Irrefutable Contract, set in Commerce and is protected by Article One, Section 10, (“IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS”), under the United States Constitution.

Petitioner meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rules: (4) (7) (8) (12) (55) (a) and 55 (b) (1).

This Petitioner/”MOVANT” is completing and utilizing for review and Adjudication, Administrative Law and the Uniform Commercial Code as the main component’s of law for the review.


SECTION (2), ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

 

THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE(S), IS ALL LOCATED WITHIN: UNITED STATES

CODE ANNOTATED VOLUME: “CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I”; TO BE USED AS POINTS OF LAW IN DETERMINING THIS CASE.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
U.S. CONSTITUTION

CLAUSE # 3 PURPOSE: (PAGE 881)

It was the object of this clause to protect rights, and not mere incidental advantages, which may effect a contract. This clause is intended to protect benefits and rights of a party under contract and not to interfere with legislation which merely relates to subject matter of contract.

Underlying concern of Constitutional Provisions, “FORBIDDING IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS” is that; Legislature or Court, will render invalid rights and obligations, which parties agreed in their contract.

CLAUSE # 5, NATURE AND SCOPE: (PAGE 881)

“PROVISION”, THIS CLAUSE “GUARANTEES” AGAINST GOVERNMENT CONDUCT THAT IMPAIRS CONTRACT(S), NOT THAT WHICH IS INTENDED TO PRESERVE THEM.

CLAUSE #6, OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT DEFINED: (PAGE 882)

By obligation of the contract, is meant the means which, at the time of its creation, the law affords for its enforcement.

Nelson v. Police Jury, LA, 1883, 4s.  CT. 648. 111 U.S. 720, 28 L. ED. 575. See also, Louisiana V. New Orleans, 1880, 102 U.S. 203, 12 OTTO.  203, 26  L. ED. 132; Walker V. Whitehead, 1872, 83 U.S.  314, 16 Wall.  314, 21 L.ED. 357.

THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CLAUSE IS A VALID SUBSISTING OBLIGATION, NOT A CONTINGENT OR SPECULATIVE ONE.

 

SECTION (2) ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

CLAUSE # 6, CONTINUED ON (PAGE 882)

THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT IS THE LAW WHICH BINDS THE PARTIES TO PERFORM THEIR AGREEMENT.

Ogden V. Saunders, LA, 1827, 25 U.S. 312, 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L.ED 606.
CLAUSE #6 CONTINUED ON (PAGE 882)
“OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS” is defined as the Law or Duty which binds the parties to perform their agreements, and “CONTRACT IS IMPAIRED WHEN A PARTY IS DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF HIS CONTRACT BY LAW”.

Northwestern Nat. Life Ins, Co. V. Jordan, D.C.  Nev. 1978, 447 F. Supp. 856.  See Also, Tower Plaza Investment LTD. V. Dewitt, 1973, 508  P. 2d 324,  109  Ariz.  248, appeal dismissed,  94 S. CT.  853,  414 U.S.  1118, 38  L.ED. 2d  746; (Per Hale J., with Three Judges concurring and Hamilton, C.J., concurring in result.)

 

CLAUSE #6 CONTINUED ON: (PAGE 882)

“OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT” is means provided by law for enforcement thereof, and any law which materially changes binding force of contract Impairs it.

See: McNee V. Wall, D.C. FLA.  1935, 13 F. Supp. 326, Affirmed 87  F. 2d  768.

 

SECTION (2) ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

CLAUSE # 8 (PAGE 882) “FEDERAL LAWS IMPAIRING CONTRACTS”

CONGRESS IS WITHOUT POWER TO IMPAIR OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS BY LAWS ACTING DIRECTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY TO THAT END.

This CLAUSE #8 of Article I. Section 10, is a limitation on State rather than federal Action, but a measure of protection against contract impairment by the Federal Government, is given by Amendment #5. See page 883.

CLAUSE # 9 (PAGE 883) “FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAWS IMPAIRING CONTRACTS”

A law unconstitutional because it impairs the obligation of contracts is null only so far as the “RIGHTS OF THOSE PERSONS” are concerned. The obligation of whose contracts are thereby impaired and as to all other rights and all other persons, “IT IS ENTITLED TO FULL FORCE AND EFFECT“.

Moore V. New Orleans, 1880, 32 LaAnn, 726.  See Also. Barry V. Iseman, 1866.  14  Rich.  L. S.C. 129.

CLAUSE # 31  (PAGE 885 “GENERALLY”

If a contract when made, was valid by the constitution and laws of the State, as then expounded by the highest authorities, whose duties it was to administer them, “NO SUBSEQUENT ACTION BY LEGISLATURE OR JUDICIARY CAN IMPAIR ITS OBLIGATION”

Havemeyer V. Iowa County,  Wes. 1865, 70 U.S. 294. 3 Wall. 294, 18  L.ED.  38.

“CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS, APPLIES TO CONTRACT(S) WHICH ARE COMPLETE AND CLEARLY PROVIDED“.

Public Service Co. of OKL. V. Caddo Elec.  Co-Op., OKL.  1970. 479   P. 2d.  572.

 

SECTION (2), ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

CLAUSE # 78 (PAGE 896) — “JUDGMENTS”

“A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT DUE UPON CONTRACT DOES NOT TERMINATE ITS OBLIGATION”, but the debt remains contractual in character, and its payment is as much within the obligation of the contract after the Judgment as it was before.

Lamb V. Powder River Livestock Co., C.C.A. Colo. 1904, 132  F.434,


Clause # 153, (Page 908) “CLARIFICATION OF PRIOR LAW”

A law enacted after the making of a contract which merely clarifies a prior law, “DOES NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT”.

Garland Co.  V.  Filmer, D.C.,  Cal.  1932,  1  F. Supp 8.

 

CLAUSE # 161  (PAGE 911)  “TORT LAWS”

A law affecting the right to maintain a Civil Action to recover damages for a tort, or taking it away, “DOES NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT“.

 

Eastman  V.  Clackamas County,  C.C. or 1887,  32 F. 24.

CLAUSE # 186  (PAGE 915) “DIMINUTION OF CONTRACT VALUE”
“WHERE A STATUTE LESSENS THE VALUE OF A CONTRACT”
, to the parties, (“THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST LAWS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION IS VIOLATED”).

Portland Sav. Bank  V. Landry,  ME  1977.  372  A. 2d  573

SECTION (2), ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

CLAUSE # 187  (PAGE 915) “DIMINUTION OR DEPRIVATION OF VESTED RIGHTS”

Obligation of a contract is impaired by law which renders them invalid, or release or extinguishes them, and impairment has been predicated of laws, which without destroying contracts, derogate from substantial contractual rights, “OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS”(“BEING THE LAW. WHICH BINDS PARTIES TO PERFORM THEIR AGREEMENT”).

Brown  V. Ferdon.  1936,  54  P. 2d  712,  5 Cal.  2d  226.

CLAUSE # 188  “INTENTIONS OF PARTIES”

Rescission/Rescind; Where all parties to a contract “MUTUALLY AGREE” to amend, rescind or abrogate a contract.

Minneapolis Gas Co.  V. Zimmerman, 1958,  91  N.W.  2d 642 Minn. 164.

***SPECIAL NOTE: At no time, did the parties to this case ever have a mutual agreement to rescind this contract(s). Petitioner, under Unlimited Liability Oath, declares, there is no document(s) that exist to a legal Rescission in this case.

CLAUSE # 202 (PAGE 921) “TIME OF STATUTORY ENACTMENT/NEW LAWS

Contract Clause, protects contract obligations already in existence at time of new Disputed Legislation is passed.

CLAUSE # 291  (PAGE 934) “GENERALLY“A CHANGE IN THE REMEDY TO ENFORCE A CONTRACT, MAY BE MADE WITHOUT IMPAIRING ITS OBLIGATION“.

Wilson  V. Standerfer. Tes.  1902,  22  S. CT. 384, 184 U.S. 415, 46  L.ED. 612.  See Also;  Savings, Etc., Assoc.  V. Alturas County, C.C.  1893,  65 F.  677.

 

 

CLAUSE # 392  (PAGE 958) “JURISDICTION”

Implicit in this clause, is ability to enforce Remedy.

 

SECTION (1) INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

VOLUME: CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

“IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS”, STARTS ON PAGE 879

BY

WEST PUBLISHING CO., ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

COPY-RIGHTED BY WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1987

 

1987, MARKED THE TWO HUNDREDTH YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE DRAFTING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

“THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”

THE CONSTITUTION HAS PROVEN TO BE LIVING JURISPRUDENCE, EVOLVING SO AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

ALL LAWFUL POWER, DERIVES FROM THE PEOPLE AND MUST BE HELD IN CHECK TO PRESERVE THEIR FREEDOM(S) TO ENSURE LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

The text(s) of the Constitution appearing in this volume(s) corresponds exactly with the true copy of the Constitution in custody of the Library of Congress and the Amendment(s) to it in the custody of the Archivist of the United States.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT AND THE OBLIGATION(S) OF CONTRACT(S) IN; ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, THE “FIRST”, “FIFTH” AND “FOURTEENTH” AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

THIS PETITIONER EMBRACES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. HE UTILIZES ALL PROVISIONS WITH THESE AMENDMENTS AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10, ENABLING THIS PETITIONER IN PROOF BEYOND DOUBT, THAT HIS CLAIM(S)/CONTRACT(S), IS ENFORCEABLE BY THIS JUDICIAL FORUM, WHO’S PRIMARY LOYALTY, “UNDER OATH OF ALLEGIANCE”, IS TO ENFORCE THIS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. SEE: Article II Section (1), and Article VI UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

 

SECTION (3)

“FIRST AMENDMENT SECTION”

TAKEN FROM

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS 1 TO 3

BY

WEST PUBLISHING CO.

1987

“PETITION  OF  GRIEVANCES”

CLAUSE # 431  (PAGE 932)  “GENERALLY”

“RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES IS RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE “FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION”

Boling V.National Zinc Co. D.C. OKL. 1976, 435  R.Supp. 18
See Also, U.S. V. State of Mich., D.C.  Mich. 1978, 460  F. Supp. 637.

CLAUSE # 441  (PAGE 933) “PRISONER(S)”

Prisoners, like other individuals, have the right to Petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which include access of prisoners to the Courts, for the purpose of presenting their complaint(s).

Cruz V. Beto, Tex.  1972, 92 S.CT. 1079, 405 U.S. 319, 31 L.ED. 2d  263

Prisoners do not lose all their Constitutional Rights, and they are entitled to Petition the Courts to Redress their Grievances.

Diamond V. Thompson, D.C. ALA.  1973, 364 F. Supp.  659, Affirmed 523 F.2d 1201.  See Also, Timmerman V. Brown, C.A.S.C.  1975, F.  2d  811.

 

SECTION (3) “FIRST AMENDMENT”

CLAUSE # 446  (PAGE 935)  “ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES”

Right to Petition the Government for a redress of grievances, “GUARANTEES EVERY CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO PETITION, ANY DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT”.

CLAUSE # 447  (PAGE 935)
“RIGHT TO ACCESS TO COURT IS BUT ONE ASPECT OF RIGHT TO PETITION”

CLAUSE # 482  (PAGE 942) “LIABILITIES OR SANCTIONS FOR ASSERTION OF RIGHT GENERALLY”.

This Amendment protects right of an individual to associate with others, and Petition his government for redress of grievances, and “IT PROTECTS HIM FROM RETALIATION FOR DOING SO”.

Gavrilles  V. O’Connor, D.C. Mass. 1984, 579 F. Supp. 301.

* * * *“PEOPLES RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, IS A CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES”.

Webb V.  Fury, W. VA. 1981, 282  S.E.  2d  28.

“END OF FIRST AMENDMENT POINT’S”

 

SECTION (4)

“FIFTH AMENDMENT SECTION”

TAKEN FROM

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (5)

BY

WEST PUBLISHING CO.

1987

(“A CONTRACT IS PROPERTY”)

 

AMENDMENT V. DUE PROCESS OF LAW; *** NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; **********

LIBRARY REFERENCES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Development of due process clause, see Koch, Administrative Law and Practices Item  7.1 et seq.

CLAUSE # l “GENERALLY” (PAGE 520)
 This clause should be liberally construed in favor of citizen.

U.S. ex rel Flannery V. Commanding General. Second Service Command. D.C.N.Y. 1946, 69 F.Supp. 661. See Also. U.S. V. Hoffa. D.C.N.Y. 1957, 156 F.Supp.  495.

CLAUSE # 4  (PAGE 520) “COMMERCE CLAUSE”

Courts cannot invalidate federal legislation, because it places a burden on interstate commerce, since Congress, within limits of this Amendment, has authority to burden Commerce if that seems to it a desirable means of accomplishing a permitted end.

Morgan  V. Com. of Val,  Va. 1946, 66  S.CT. 1050, 328 U.S. 373,

90  L.Ed. 1317.

The exercise of Commerce Power is subject to this clause.

 

SECTION (4) “FIFTH AMENDMENT”

CLAUSE # 5   (PAGE 521) CONTRACT CLAUSE
“See notes of Decisions under note numbers 1318 to 1326”

NOTE 1318 CONTRACTS-GENERALLY ON (PAGE 820)

The contract clause, Art. 1, Section 10, cl. 1, is a limitation on state rather than federal action, but a measure of protection against contract impairment by the federal government is given by this amendment.

John Mcshain, Inc. V. District of Columbia.  1953, 205 F.2d 882, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 358, certiorari denied 74 S.CT. 227, 346 U.S. 900,  98 L.Ed. 400.

“LIBERTY” protected by this amendment and Amend. 14, Item 1, includes the right of individual to contract and to engage in any of the common occupations of life.

Churchwell V. U.S., D.C.S.D. 1976, 414  R.Supp. 499, affirmed 545 F. 2d 59.

“VALID CONTRACT(S) ARE PROPERTY, WHETHER THE OBLIGOR BE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, A MUNICIPALITY, STATE OR THE UNITED STATES“…..

CLAUSE # 10  (PAGE 521)“PURPOSE”

“DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS PRIMARY AND INDISPENSABLE FOUNDATION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM”.

 

APPLICATION OF GAULT, ARIZ. 1967. 87  S.CT. 1428, 387 U.S. 1, 18  L.ED. 2D  527.

THIS AMENDMENT AND AMEND. 6 ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM GOVERNMENTAL OVERREACHING.

SEE; U.S.  V. La Monica, C.A. Ariz. 1972, 472  F. 2d  580

 

SECTION (4) “FIFTH AMENDMENT”

CLAUSE # 13  (PAGE 5235) “GENERALLY”

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, FORBIDS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM DEPRIVING ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, (“A CONTRACT IS PROPERTY”),WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Bloom  V.  State of Ill.,  Ill. 1968,  88 S.CT. 1477, 391 U.S. 194, 20  L. Ed. 2d  522.

CLAUSE # 17  (PAGE 523) “PERSONS PROTECTED-GENERALLY”

“THIS CLAUSE’S PROTECTION EXTENDS TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ATTACHES ONLY WHEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SEEKS TO DENY A LIBERTY OR PROPERTY INTEREST; (IN THIS CASE, CONTRACT(S) ).

“VALID CONTRACT(S) ARE PROPERTY”

CLAUSE # 29  (PAGE 525) PROPERTY

(“IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY IS IRREFUTABLE CONTRACT(S)”).

A person has the right to be free from unauthorized actions of government officials, which substantially impair his property interest.

Greene  V. McElroy, 1959. 79  S.CT. 1400. 360 U.S. 474. 3 L.Ed. 2d  1377.

“To claim a Due Process property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than a unilateral expectation of it; he must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. “PETITIONER, through his pleading(s), has established “BEYOND DOUBT, HE HAS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF ENTITLEMENT TO HIS CONTRACT (S)”.

SECTION (4) “FIFTH AMENDMENT”

 

CLAUSE # 30  (PAGE 526) “ACCESS TO COURTS

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, includes the right of access of the courts; that right is also subject to due process protection in that opportunity must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

See: Matter of N.C. Trading, 1978, 586  F. 2d  221. 66 CCPa. 11.

 

CLAUSE # 67  (PAGE 537) “NOTICE”

All Respondent(s)/Defaulted Parties, received proper notice to this action and Petitioner does meet Moore’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule # (4). Evidence to Service is Filed, Received, Served and Entered into this Case File in the form of Registered U.S. mail receipts, signed by the Respondent(s) or their agent(s).

CONCLUSION, SECTION (5)

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III, SECTION # 2

[2] The Judicial Power of the United States shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made… between Citizens of different States;

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III SECTION # 1

[1] THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE VESTED IN ONE SUPREME COURT, AND IN SUCH INFERIOR COURTS AS THE CONGRESS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH. THE JUDGES, BOTH OF SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.

 

“OATH OF ALLEGIANCE or LOYALTY”. AN OATH BY WHICH A PERSON PROMISES AND BINDS HIMSELF TO BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO A PARTICULAR SOVEREIGN OR GOVERNMENT (e.g., the United States) “AND TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION”. AS REQUIRED OF PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, see Art II, Sec. 1., and Art. VI. The United States Constitution. Per Black’s Law Dictionary page 1072.

 

 

“UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT(S)”

Petitioner researches, prepares and submits to this Judicial Forum, mandates from the United States Constitution, that requires this Judicial Forum; act according to their “OATH OF ALLEGIANCE”, in upholding the Constitution, in formalizing the Affirmative Relief Order to this Case.

Under directives and mandates of the United States Constitution, Judicial Officer(s), reviewing this case, are mandated to proceed in sound discretion and behavior, within the confinement of -their Official Capacities and obligations set forth by their own contract(s), within the law of the land.

The Court Officer(s), are put on Judicial Notice; and are to take Judicial Notice of their Lawful Obligations and Contract(s), both Public and Private, lest they pierce their own Judicial Immunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PETITIONER MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS
COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR A FEDERAL CASE

1. JURISDICTION IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE CASE; LAW/UCC, SUBJECT
   MATTER, DIVERSITY.

2. VENUE: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF DEFENDANT VS. PLAINTIFF.

3. PROPER SERVICE OF THE CLAIM: MUST MEET F.R.C.P. #4 (20  DAYS). REGISTERED MAIL

4. SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE #56: WHERE NO JURY IS REQUIRED; 
   UNDISPUTED FACTS.

5. RULE # 12: MUST GIVE DEFENDANT 20 DAYS TO ANSWER.

6. STATUTE OF FRAUDS; MUST BE MET. CONTRACT HAS TO BE IN PROPER
   FORM (WRITTEN)

7. SERVER: PROOF OF MAILING, MUST BE BY SOMEONE OLDER THEN 18
   YEARS OLD.

8. SERVE BY REGISTERED U.S. MAIL; SHOWING SIGNED RECEIPTS FOR
   EVIDENCE.

9. MUST STIPULATE TIME FOR RESPONSE WITHIN THE CLAIM.

10. RULE # 4: PROOF OF SERVICE, AND IT MUST BE NOTARIZED.

11. MEET RULE # 37: OUTLINES AND DEFINES ALL ANSWERS; SHAM,
    FRIVOLOUS, EVASIVE ETC.

12. YOU MUST STATE A CLAIM; WELL PLEADED CLAIM WILL SET UP FOR
    PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

13. 55 (A) DEFAULT JUDGMENT; GO”EX PARTE”  NO DEFENDANT(S).

14. 55 (B) (1) DEFAULT JUDGMENT: GOES INTO THE COURT FILE SAME
    TIME THE 55 (A) DOES.

15. HAVE A FILED UCC-1 AND SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT YOUR, CLAIM IS A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT.

16. REMEDY/CLAIM: SPELL EVERYTHING OUT WITH SPECIFICITY. AND USE
    THE WORD “IS”

17. ACCOUNTING AND TRUE BILL; LOCATED WITHIN THE REMEDY, SPELLS
    OUT $$$ DAMAGES.

18. WILLFUL TORT; MUST BE PROVED WITHIN THE INITIAL PLEADINGS TO
    OBTAIN DAMAGES.

19. MUST PROVE SCIENTER ACTS; ON-GOING OMITTING KNOWLEDGE OF A
    FRAUD.

20. HAVE A NOTARIZED NON-RESPONSE WHEN THE RESPONDENT(S) DON’T
    RESPOND PROPERLY.
21. UNLIMITED LIABILITY LIMITED OATH: USE IN EVERY AFFIDAVIT.
22. SPELL OUT UCC AND SEC VIOLATIONS;

23. DO EVERYTHING BY AFFIDAVIT: AN UN REBUTTED AFFIDAVIT WILL
     WIN THE CASE.
24. ELEMENTS OF CLAIM: MALICE-MALICIOUS, IRREPARABLE INJURY,
    MENTAL ANGUISH, BAD FAITH, INTENT, WILLFUL, KNOWINGLY,
    GREED, INTENTIONAL.

25. “EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION” IS MET BECAUSE AN ACT OF
    CONGRESS IS VIOLATED IF APPLICABLE TO THE 1934 SECURITIES
    AND EXCHANGE ACT.
26. PROVE JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY: MUST BE CONCRETE AND
    DEFINITE.

27. MUST PROVE FRAUD AND DECEIT ALONG WITH CRIMINAL CONDUCT:
   (SEC VIOLATION)

COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR A FEDERAL CASE
 PETITIONER MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 


UNITED STATES CODE, ANNOTATED

CONSTITUTION
 VOLUME: ARTICLE 2 TO ARTICLE 7

“ARTICLE 3”

The following are brief excerpts from Article 3 of the United States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. After each clause stated, will be the page number to locate further explanation within Volume 2 to 7, of the Articles of the United States Constitution.

ARTICLE “3”, STARTS ON PAGE NUMBER SEVENTY THREE (73).
1.CONSTRUCTION:

This section is to be liberally applied, because it is not a
private grant of privilege, but a limitation intended to
benefit the public at large.

Atkins V. U.S., 1977, 556  F.2d  1028, 214 Ct. C. 186,
Certiorare denied 98  S.Ct. 718, 434 U.S.  1009, 54 L.Ed. 2d
751.
The exercise by Congress of its control over jurisdiction is
subject to compliance with at least the requirements of
Amendment (5), which is to say that while Congress has
undoubted power to give, withhold and restrict jurisdiction of
courts, other than the Supreme Court, it must not so exercise
that power as to deprive any person of LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, “OR TAKE PRIVATE
PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION”
(IN THIS CASE, THE CONTRACT(S) ARE PROPERTY).

  Battaglia V. General Motors Corp.. C.A.N. Y. 1948, 169 F. 2d
  254, certiorari denied, 69  S.Ct. 236 (4 mems) 335 U.S. 887,
  93 L.ED. 425.

2. PURPOSE: LOCATED ON (PAGE 74)

This article was designed to give judges maximum freedom from possible coercion or influence by executive or legislative branches of the government.

U.S. ex rel. Toth V. Quarles, App. D.C. 1955, 76 S.Ct. 1, 350 U.S. 11, 100 L.E. 8.

The rationale of ARTICLE III OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, is that Judicial power should be entrusted only to those judges whose impartiality and freedom from coercion are ensured by life tenure, subject only to impeachment, and by irreducible compensation. (Wimmer V. Cook, C.A. (W. Va.) 1985, 774  R.2d 68).

3. CLAUSE # 8, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, located on (Page 76).

   Congress may by law, impose duties upon executive and
ministerial officers of the government, which require them to consider and determine questions of law and of fact, but in so doing, they do not exercise judicial power; such duties have been imposed upon Judges, to be performed out of the course of the Courts; and their decisions, although judicial in nature, are held not to have been made in the exercise of judicial power, under the Constitution of the United States.

4. CLAUSE # 23, ADMINISTRATIVE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, (page
   78)

In reviewing the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission, while the courts may review the question of power of the commission to make an order on a case, they cannot, under the guise of exerting judicial power, usurp merely administrative functions by setting aside lawful order.

5. CLAUSE # 24. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY   (Page 240).

   The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is conferred
   without limit of the Amount of controversy, and it is
   questionable whether congress could impose such limit.

Wisconsin V. Pelican Ins. Co., Wis. 1888, 8 S. Ct. 1370, 127 U.S. 286. 32  L.Ed. 239.

6. CLAUSE # 41, JUDICIAL POWER DEFINED, (Page 79)

Supreme Court embraces application of principles of law and

equity to facts and embraces the Constitution.

Judicial power, vested by the Constitution in the Courts is to decide and pronounce a Judgment and carry it into effect
between parties.

FEDERAL COURTS EXIST TO DECIDE DISPUTES OF FACT AND TO APPLY

THE LAW TO THE FACTS SO FOUND.

7. CLAUSE # 46, LIMITATIONS UPON JURISDICTION, (Page 81)

CONGRESS IS POWERLESS TO VEST FEDERAL COURTS WITH JURISDICTION BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS FIXED BY THIS ARTICLE.

8. CLAUSE # 48, DETERMINATION OF LAW GENERALLY,  (Page 81)

COURTS HAVE POWER TO DECLARE LAW ONLY, AND MAY NOT MAKE OR AMEND IT.

U.S. V. Consolidated Elevator Co., C.C.A. Minn. 1944, 141 F.2d 791.  See Also; Hale V. Anglim C.C.A. CAl. 1944, 140 F.2d 235.

9. CLAUSE # 51, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, (Page 82).

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL POWER. (In re Arminio. Bkrtcy. Conn 1984, 38 B.R. 472.)

10. CLAUSE # 52. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DETERMINATIONS, (Page 82)

The responsibility of determining limits of statutory authority of Administrative agencies, is a Judicial Function. ( Stark V. Wickard, App. D.C. 1944. 64 S.Ct. 559, 321 U.S. 288, 88 L. Ed. 733.)

11. CLAUSE # 52 CONTINUED, from (page 83)

IT IS WELL WITHIN POWERS OF CONGRESS TO ENTRUST ENFORCEMENT

OF STATUTORY RIGHTS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND LIMIT

THE PARTICIPATION OF THE COURTS BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD.

Lake Butler Apparel Co. V. Secretary of Labor, C.A. Fla.

1975, 519  F.2d  84.

It is within power of Congress to provide conditions under which an Administrative proceeding may be reviewed in Courts, and to determine their Jurisdiction.

Hobby V. Hodges, C.A. Utah 1954, 215 F. 2d 754.

12. CLAUSE # 54, CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, (Page 83)

It is a matter of sound discretion, and to be exercised by Congress in such a manner as shall in its Judgment, BEST PROMOTE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND THE TRUE INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS.

13. “EX PARTE

New Orleans City Bank, La. 1845, 44 U.S. 292 3 How. 292, 11 L. Ed. 603.
“Not Applicable in this instance”.

14. CLAUSE # 59, RELIEF, (Page 84)

Congress is authorized, consistently with this article, vesting power, TO IMPOSE A LIMITATION UPON REMEDIAL POWERS OF FEDERAL COURT, LIMITING IT TO AWARDING DAMAGES, AND NOT SPECIFIC RELIEF. Glidden Co. V. 2d Anok, N.Y. & App. D.C. 1962 82 S. Ct. 1459,370 U.S. 530, 8 L. Ed. 2d 671. Rehearing denied 83 S.Ct. 14,371 U.S. 854, 9 L.Ed 2d 93.

15. CLAUSE # 59, RELIEF CONTINUED:

Pope V. U.S., Ct. Cl, 1944, 65 S. Ct. 16, 323 U.S. 1, 89 L.Ed 3.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 84.

THE COURTS OF THE U.S. ARE EMPOWERED BY CONGRESS AND HAVE THE INHERENT POWER TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS TO EFFECTUATE THEIR JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS. Coffey V. Braddy, D.C. Fla. 1971, 372  F. Supp 116.

 

 

16. CLAUSE # 60, MANDAMUS, (Page 85)

The authority to issue the WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to an officer of The United States, commanding him to perform a specific act, required by law of the United States, IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL POWER OF THE U.S. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Fendall V. U.S. D.C. 1838, 37 U.S. 524, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L. Ed. 1181.

17. CLAUSE # 106, DISTRICT COURTS, (Page 92 & 93)

No Federal District Court, may entertain any suit of a civil Nature unless Jurisiction to entertain it be given either by the Constitution or by some Federal Statute. District Courts are of Limited Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over subject matter must exist! THE COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, BECAUSE AN ACT OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED.(“THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934”), BY THE DEFAULTED PARTIES TO THIS CASE.  OMITTING KNOWLEDGE AND ON-GOING SCIENTER ACTS.

18. CLAUSE # 106 CONTINUED ON (Page 93)

District Courts can have original jurisdiction of civil actions, arising under the Constitution, Laws, or treaties of the United States.

Wood V. Conneaut Lake Park, Inc.  D.C. Pa. 1966, 258 F. Supp. 777 Affirmed.

19. CLAUSE # 141,GENERALLY, (PAGE 98 & 99)

The Constitution does not immunize sitting Federal Judge(s) from criminal prosecution prior to removal from office by impeachment process, otherwise, “He will hold office until death”, voluntarily relinquishes or is ousted by impeachment. Johnson V. U.S., 1948  79 F. Supp. 208, 11 Ct. CL. 750.

U.S. V. Claiborne, C.A. NEV. 1984, 727 F. 2d 842, stay denied,104 S.Ct. 1401, 465 U.S. 1301, 79 L. Ed 2d 665. Certiorari denied, 105 S.Ct. 113, 83 L. Ed 2d 56.

CERTIORARI: PER BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY SIXTH EDITION (PAGE 228)

DEFINITION; To be informed of. A writ of common law origin issued by a superior to an inferior court, requiring the latter to produce a certified record of a particular case tried therein…The writ is issued in order that the court issuing the writ, may inspect the proceeding and determine whether there have been any irregularities.

20. CLAUSE # 172, ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS GENERALLY, (PAGE 103)

The delegation of a adjudicative functions, to an administrative agency, with special expertise in the subject matter, with the right judicial review retained, does not violate separation of powers principle established by the Constitution.

21. CLAUSE # 182, ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS, (PAGE 105)

Judgments, within the powers vested in Courts, by ARTICLE III, MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE REVISED, OVERTURNED, OR REFUSED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY ANOTHER DEPT. OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Chicago & Southern Air Lines  V. Waterman S.S. Corp., 1948, 68 S.Ct. 431, 333 U.S. 103, 92 L.Ed. 568, Mandated Conformed to 166 F. 2d 1021.

START: SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1, JURISDICTION OF COURTS, (PAGE 106) THE JUDICIAL POWER SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY ARISING UNDER CONSTITUTION… BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES…

22. CLAUSE # 8, CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, (PAGE 111)

The right to litigate, comes into existence by an act of Congress, not the Constitution… As long as two adverse parties meet, Diverse citizenship, Federal Courts have the power to oversee controversies.

Twentieth Century Fox Film corp. V. Taylor D.C. N.Y. 1965, 239  F.Supp. 913.

23. CLAUSE # 22, LAW AND EQUITY CASES-GENERALLY, (PAGES 116 & 117) As used in the Constitution, but new forms of REMEDIES TO BE ADMINISTERED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE….

24. CLAUSE # 23, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY (PAGE 117)

Remedies in Courts of the U.S. are, at COMMON LAW OR EQUITY, but such distinction HAS NO RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING WHEN A STATUTE OF LIMITATION RUNS.

 

“SPECIAL NOTE”: UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, (UCC), HAS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. “CONTRACTS CAN BE INDEFINITE” SEE AM JUR VOLUME 15 (A)

CLAUSE # 105, STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS TOLLS.  (PAGE 442).

“THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARE NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE…. THE STATUTE WILL BE STRUCK DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE…CAUSING THE NON-RESIDENT TO BE SUBJECT TO SUIT IN THE STATE IN PERPETUITY.

THIS CASE IS BEING REVIEWED, UTILIZING (UCC) AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, WHICH IS THE MOVANT’S PREROGATIVE.

PERPETUITY: PER BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION (PAGE 1141) A perpetuity is a limitation which takes the subject-matter of the perpetuity out of commerce for a period greater than a life or lives in being and 21 years thereafter, plus ordinary period of gestation. Zahn V. National Bank of Commerce of Dallas, Tes. Civ. App. 328 S.W. 2d 783, 789.

 

25. CLAUSE # 25, ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS, (PAGE 117)

Rule F.R.C.P. # 69, is not in conflict with this clause.

It preserves and establishes the distinction between relief

at law and in equity.

EX PARTE“: Boyd, N.Y. 1882, 105 U.S. 647, 15 Otto, 647, 26  L.Ed 1200.

26. CLAUSE # 27, AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. (PAGE 118)

“IN THIS SECTION, IS NOT FOUND ANY LIMITATION BY WAY OF AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY“….. SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTED AS TO ALL SUCH CONTROVERSIES, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED THEREIN…

Mc Dermott V. Chicago, Etc., R. Co., C.C. Iowa 1889, 38 F. 529

SINCE THIS CLAUSE DOES NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, CONGRESS MAY MAKE JURISDICTION INDEPENDENT OF AMOUNT INVOLVED.

U.S. V. Emery, D.C. Cal. 1949, 85 F.Supp. 354.

27. CLAUSE # 61, CASE DEFINED, (PAGE 122)

Judicial Power of the U.S. is authorized, when any question respecting the Constitution, treaties and Laws of the U.S. require Judicial Action. There must be controversy over an issue and diversity must be met in all cases.

In re Summers, Ill. 1945, 65 S. Ct. 1307 325 U.S. 561, 89 L. Ed, 1795, Rehearing denied 66 S. Ct. 94, 326 U.S. 807, 90 L. Ed 491.

28. CLAUSE # 62, CONTROVERSY DEFINED, (PAGE 122)

In Constitutional sense; means more than disagreements and conflict; means controversy courts traditionally resolve…Be one that is appropriate for Judicial Determination. “BE DEFINITE, CONCRETE, TOUCHING LEGAL RELATIONS OF PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTEREST… BE REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL… ADMITTING SPECIFIC RELIEF. (Co. of Harford Conn. V. Haworth Mo. 1937, 57 S. Ct. 461, 300 U.S. 227,

81 L.Ed. 617 Rehearing Denied.

29. CLAUSE # 62 CONTINUED:  (PAGE 123)

See Also; Douds V. Local 1250, Retail Wholesale Dept. Store Union of America, C10,  C.A.  N.Y. 1948, 170 F. 2d 695;

See Also; Clevland Trust Co., V. Berry, C.C.A. Mich. 1938, 99  F.2d 517; Evans V. International Typo Graphical Union, D.C. Ind. 1948, 76  R. Supp. 881;

See Also; Osborne & Thurlow V. Hirsch & Co., 1958 172 N.Y.S. 2d 522, 10 Misc. 2d 225.

SUMMARY: To present “ACTUAL CONTROVERSY”, there must be statement of facts, showing DEFENDENT is acting or threatening to act in such a way as to invade, or prejudicially affect rights of Plaintiff.

Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Harford, Conn., V. Haworth, C.C.A. Mo. 1936, 84 F. 2d 695.

“CONTROVERSY” As contemplated by Constitution… is one which is not hypothetical or abstract character and which admits of relief…

30. CLAUSE # 64, NECESSITY FOR CASE OR CONTROVERSY,(PAGE 123)
    Exercise of Judicial power under Constitution, depends
    on existence of case or controversy.

This article imposes threshold requirement, that those who seek to invoke power of Federal Courts, “MUST ALLEGE ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY”.

Graves V. Walton County Bd of Education, C.A. GA. 1982, 686 F. 2d  1135.

District Court may Adjudicate only “Pleaded Claims” which present case or controversy within this article and which fall within congressional grant of jurisdiction.

Merrick V. Merrick, D.C.N.Y. 1977, 441 F. Supp. 143.

31. CLAUSE # 67 SECTION 2, (PAGE 124)

JUSTICIABILITY OF CASE OR CONTROVERSY GENERALLY
It must be in form historically viewed as capable of resolution through Judicial Process…. It is generally, stated that a controversy is justiciable when it is DEFINITE AND CONCRETE…

“JUSTICIABILITY”, concerns the existence of a case or cognizable by the Federal courts, while “STANDING” involves the stake of the plaintiff in the outcome of that case or controversy….

32. CLAUSE # 69, CAPABILITY FOR JUDICIAL RESOLUTION, (PAGE 125)

To satisfy case or controversy requirement under this clause for Federal Court Jurisdiction, “LITIGANT, MUST HAVE SUFFERED ACTUAL INJURY THAT CAN BE REDRESSED BY FAVORABLE DECISION”.

Iron Arrow Honor Society V. Heckler, Fla. 1983, 104 S.Ct. 373, 464 U.S. 67, 78  L.Ed. 2d 58 on Remand 722 F. 2d 213.

33. CLAUSE # 71, CONTINUING NATURE OF CONTROVERSY, (PAGE 125)

Actions in Federal Court, must involve substantive controversies, “FOR WHICH COURT CAN GRANT SPECIFIC AND CONCLUSIVE RELIEF”….

A live controversy, sufficient to indulge the attention of ARTICLE III, “MUST BE PRESENT AT ALL STAGES OF LITIGATION, AND NOT MERELY AT ITS COMMENCEMENT.

Waide V. Waller, D.C. Miss 1975, 402 F.Supp. 922.

34. CLAUSE #73, DAMAGES, (PAGE 126)

VIABLE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES, INSURES THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVE CONTROVERSY, APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL RESOLUTION.

35. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 74, DEFINITE AND CONCRETE DISPUTES,

(PAGE 126)

 “WHERE THERE IS A CONCRETE CASE”, admitting of immediate and definite determination of legal rights of parties in adversary proceeding upon facts alleged, Judicial function may be appropriately exercised. “IN ALL CASES, IT MUST BE DEFINITE AND CONCRETE AND SPELLED OUT IN WELL PLEADED FACTS”.

 

36. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 75, DIRECT AND PERSONAL INJURY, (PAGE 127)

To establish a case or controversy, plaintiff, must allege he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury… the injury or threat of injury, must be both real and immediate…

Oshea V. Littleton, 111. 1974, 94 S. Ct. 669, 414 U.S. 488, 38  L. Ed. 2d 674.

This article, requires party who invokes courts authority, to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the Putatively illegal conduct of the defendant and that; “INJURY FAIRLY CAN BE TRACED TO THE CHALLENGED ACTION AND IS LIKELY TO BE REDRESSED BY A FAVORABLE DECISION”.

Toth V. United Auto, Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America UAW, C.A. Mich. 1984 743 F.2d 398.

FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO POWER PER se, TO DECLARE STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL; CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF A JUSTICIALBE CONTROVERSY IS MET ONLY WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS SUSTAINED SOME DIRECT INJURY, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THERE ARISES AN HONEST AND ACTIVE ANTAGONISTIC ASSERTION OF RIGHTS.

St. Martin’s Press, Inc. V. Carey, C.A. N.Y. 1979, 605 F. 2d 41.

“FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO BE ENTITLED TO INVOKE JUDICIAL POWER, TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, HE MUST SHOW THAT HE HAS SUSTAINED, OR IS IMMEDIATELY IN DANGER OF SUSTAINING DIRECT INJURY AS A RESULT OF THAT ACTION”.

Troutman V. Shriver, C.A. Fia. 1969, 417 F.2d 171, Certiorari   Denied 90 S. Ct. 915, 397 U.S. 923, 25 L.Ed 2d 103, Rehearing Denied 90 S.Ct. 1231, 397 U.S. 1018 25 L.Ed 2d 433. CONCLUSION: Petitioner, files into this case file a “PAUPERS OATH AND AFFIDAVIT”, WHICH CLEARLY LAYS OUT FOR THE COURT THE IRREPARABLE INJURY THAT IS INFLICTED UPON THIS PETITIONER.

37. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 76, INJURY TRACEABLE TO ACT OR OMISSION,
(PAGE 127)

Plaintiff must show injury is traceable back to an act by defendant. (Plaintiff to this case has met this rule with well pleaded facts within his administrative remedy and subsequent affidavits, Under Unlimited Liability Oath.)

38. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 78, PERSONAL STAKE IN OUTCOME, (PAGE 128)
Plaintiff is bound to demonstrate personal stake in outcome… He must show he had sustained direct injury….Party seeking relief, “MUST SHOW CONCRETE ALLEGATIONS OF PERSONAL INJURY TO MEET JUSTICIABLE CLAIM...Petitioner has established INJURY!!

Martin Tractor Co. V. Federal Election Commission, 1980, 627 F. 2d 375, 200 U.S. App. D.C. 322, Certiorari Denied 101 S.Ct. 360 449 U.S. 954 , 66 L. Ed. 2d 218.

 

39. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 79 THREAT OF FUTURE HARM, (PAGE 129)
Allegations of past illegal conduct, (SEC IN THIS CASE IS EVIDENT) which is concededly without continuing impact, do not in them­selves establish a live controversy, (IN THIS CASE, RESPONDENT(S) HAVE DEMONSTRATED ON-GOING SCIENTER ACTS). However, such allegations are evidence sufficient to give rise to strong inference that injury will be repeated in the future.

CIUDADANOS UNIDOS DE SAN JUAN V. HIDALAGO COUNTY GRAN JURY, Com’rs, C.A. Tex. 1980 622 F.2d 807, Certiorari Denied 101 S. Ct. 1479, 450 U.S. 964, 67 L.Ed 2d 613.

40. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # l33, CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS -GENERALLY (PAGE 140)

Courts sit to adjudicate controversies involving alleged denials of Constitutional Rights. (“IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER IS DENIED HIS CONTRACT(S) WHICH ARE “PROPERTY”, TO BE PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION”),

Lucas V. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colo., 1964, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 377 U.S. 713, 12 L.Ed. 2d 632 On Remand 232 F. Supp.797.

41. SECTION 2, CLAUSE # 402, “INJURY IN FACT”, (PAGE 193)

“INJURY IN FACT”, is required to give a Plaintiff “STANDING” to sue. Means concrete and certain harm and; to warrant granting of standing, there also must be reason to think that the harm can be redressed “BY RELIEF THE COURT CAN GRANT”.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Grant V. Califano. C.A. Kan. 1980, 622 F.2d 1382.

The United States Constitution and its ARTICLES. “Especially ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT AND THE PROVISIONS WHICH OUTLINE “IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS”.

Petitioner is meeting or exceeding all requirements for receiving “AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF”, through the Judicial Forums of the United States, who’s Judicial Officer(s), through their “OATH OF ALLEGIANCE”, is mandated to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Each individual within the United States, has the right to “INVOKE JUDICIAL POWER”, to right the wrongs if he has Justiciable Controversy, which is definite with concrete disputes.

PER CLAUSE # 27, (PAGE 118) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, (ARTICLE III)
In this Clause, is not found any limitation by way of AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

PER CLAUSE # 24, (PAGE 240) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, (ARTICLE III)

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is conferred without limit of the amount of controversy, and it is questionable whether congress could impose such limit.

PETITIONER ……………………………………………… brings to this Judicial forum for  ADJUDICATION, A IRREFUTABLE COMMERCIAL CONTRACT/CLAIM, formalized under the mandates of Administrative Law, the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC), and recognizing all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to complete his DUE PROCESS.

Petitioner, looks to this Judicial Forum to uphold the- Constitutional Provisions, and to bring to finality in a timely manner, the final “AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ORDER”, to the Judgment Creditor.

Congress is authorized, consistently within this Article III, for vesting power, “TO IMPOSE A LIMITATION UPON REMEDIAL POWERS OF FEDERAL COURT, LIMITING IT TO AWARDING DAMAGES”…..

See Item # 14, Clause #59, RELIEF, (PAGE 84) of ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADMIRALTY LAW

 

1. This Court is an Admiralty Court and the litigant sets the action and files this action with the Court Clerk “within the admiralty” pursuant to Special Procedures in Admiralty #Rule E(8), and is appearing in Restricted Appearance.

2. All Court Officers are not immune “within the Admiralty” and are accountable for their actions pursuant to The FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT 28 U.S.C. § 1605.  Any foreign sovereigns are liable for damages while doing business in the United States. This provision has application since the foreign sovereign – the judges, clerks, etc. – operate on the behalf of a defacto foreign fiction government.  Officials are liable for the damages that they commit while doing business in the country.

3. This action is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1333 and/or §1337 and/or §2461 and §2463 

4. The court is open for admiralty issues and in this instant action it is a debt obligation and insurable interests that are issues in admiralty.

5. The court is authorized in Admiralty ab initio 1789 see 5: Stat. 516, Chapter 188 §: 5 with enactment date August/23/1842 with the authority of the act of September/24/1789: Chapter 20.

6. The action is protected pursuant to The Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.A. Codes, Appendix, Chapter 20 §§ 742-749.

7. THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT is a law where the United States and its co-parties specifically waives its immunity in three situations: (1), If the Admiralty suit involves a vessel of the United States (Man’s body is named in the action)(U.S. citizen Vessel)(Name in all upper case of the vessel) and (2), Cases that involve cargo belonging to the U.S. and its co-parties.  Within the context of this instant action, when the cargo [the paperwork, or lawsuit] of the United States and its co-parties harms us, the United States gives us a blanket waiver of immunity, or (3), if the United States could be sued in the Admiralty as if it were a private party, if we are going into an international jurisdiction, (a set aside, fenced territory) every time we go into the Court, we are entitled to sue the United States and its co-parties in the Admiralty as if it were a private party. The cargo is the docket file and the lawsuit and Clerks/Warrant Officers and Judges/Masters are not immune if the cargo is not directed into the Admiralty Court

8. The Public Vessels Act is applied in this instant action and waives the Court Officer’s Immunities pursuant to Title 46 U.S.C. Ch. 22 § 781 and The Bills of Lading Act, Title 49 U.S.C., Ch. 147 § 14709, Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 801 § 80113

9. The Bill of Lading creates a liability for which the damaged party can recover in a suit if the documents are diverted into another venue.  If a carrier is found wanting in due diligence concerning the delivery of the cargo, the liability attaches at the time of the diversion of the documents.  The Bill of Lading therefore takes away the immunity of Clerks/Warrant Officers and Judges/Masters, if the cargo is not delivered into the Admiralty Court, and adds criminal penalties for compliance failures. Title 49 U.S.C., Ch. 801 § 80116

10.  The Admiralty Extension Act, Title 46 U.S.A. Appendix, Ch 19-A § 740, extends the admiralty jurisdiction inland.  All states by law have access to the sea.  Therefore any land locked country has an easement, so to speak, across other countries in order to get to the sea.  All states have an admiralty jurisdiction in all of their courts.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: