The title "Judge" is, in our American system of government, unique to the Federal United States courts and their jurisdictions, not ours, with the exception of the Postal District Court Judges, who are obliged to enforce the laws of the land jurisdiction of our country and to enforce the international and global laws affecting the land jurisdiction owed to our States of the Union.

​

 

On one side of the issue, this is a worthy above-and-beyond service--- they are, after all, for the most part, protecting us from murderers, armed robbers, rapists, and other violent criminals. On our side of the issue, however, they are operating under color of law, prosecuting Americans under known false legal presumptions, and abusing their positions of trust to defraud and pillage us. These are still foreign "carpetbagger courts" and they are still milking and bilking Americans under completely fraudulent premises.

​

 

Our Judicial Courts are simple to operate, all our land and soil Law is based on The Ten Commandments, there have to be actual Injured Parties presenting their own issues (the one exception being when the victims of crimes are too disabled to present their own case, or dead, in which case, the Public Prosecutor takes over in their behalf), and the jury is "king". Not the Justice. In our Judicial Courts, juries have the unequivocal right of jury nullification. If an American Jury finds a law repugnant, unjust, impractical, or unworkable, it is free to nullify the law, as if it never was. In this way, Americans have insured themselves against legislative error and injustice, and have maintained their sovereignty. But with the lapse and relative scarcity of Judicial Courts and growing public ignorance, the foreign admiralty and commercial and administrative courts have crept in and raised both Hell and Havoc. When Americans complain about these foreign courts they need only reflect that if they got busy and organized and educated themselves, they wouldn't be under the thumb and at the mercy of these increasingly corrupt federal and federated state-of-state courts. Another fundamental difference that lies between our Justices and their Judges is the role they play in the respective courts --- Justices ensure a level playing field, fair rules of evidence, and keep the proceedings in order under the rules of Due Process. At the end of the proceedings, the jury renders a decision, and the Justice reads it --- a process called "pronouncement". That's it. The Justice in an American Judicial Court doesn't address the facts or interpret the Law; the jury does all that. This is because in our courts, the people are sovereign and the juries in America literally act as the king. This is in stark opposition to what goes on in a Statutory Court, where in fact the Judge acts as a Hired Jurist paid to interpret and enforce the statutory law in one of four possible specific venues and capacities. The Judge takes over the place of king and decides everything and the function of the jury is in the manner of a group of corroborating Witnesses, paid to sit and listen and nod their heads. The only power that such a jury has is the power of "voiding error". If some jurors absolutely disagree with the conclusions of the Judge, they can void the judgement and the findings are inconclusive. Unless the Judge agrees that an error has been made (which is a rare occurrence, as this requires them to admit that they made an error) the whole issue can be re-tried. Alternatively, if the Prosecutors bringing a claim are shown to deliberately lie or misrepresent material fact or to lie about the applicable statute or fail to bond the case or, or, or.... the Judge in a Statutory Court can throw the whole case out the door "with prejudice" and the issue cannot be raised again. If the procedure is not air-tight, the case is not air-tight, which is why procedure takes up such a dismal amount of time and attention in Statutory Court --- the object is to acquit the Judge, not to guarantee Justice. We saw an example of this in the Bundy Case where Federal Agents outright lied and misrepresented fact, and the Judge reacted by throwing the whole thing out the door with prejudice.

​

They endangered her by lying to her, so she was well-justified in this reaction, which just happened to serve the cause of justice, too. With these caveats and insights as to where our American Judicial Courts exist and who is supposed to be operating them, and also the reasons why Judges (who should be relatively rare) are over-running America like lemmings on a stampede, read on: RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS STATUTES ARE NOT LAW – TO BE CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE YOU MUST HAVE MY CONSENT. We do NOT GIVE OUR CONSENT EVER. We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS, i.e. We are living Souls and not a dead entity written in all upper-case letters on a piece of paper or bond paper being claimed as a vessel owned by another living or dead entity. A “STATUTE” is NOT a law! Flournoy v. First National Bank of Shreveport, 197 LA 1057. 3 So.2d 244, 248. A “CODE” is NOT a law! In Re Self v. Rhay, Wn 2d 261, in point of fact in law. A concurrent or “joint resolution of legislature is NOT “Law”. Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 OKL. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash. 2d 43, 110, P.2d 162, 165). STATUTE. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature. U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy, and statutes are “not the law”. Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – ALL codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities ONLY, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s Laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d, 1344, 1348 (1985). Supreme Court 1796- This decision has never been overturned:

 

(PAY ATTENTION)

That said, the most common mistakes made when interacting with these felons is that we don't state our counterclaims and counteroffers from the get-go, and we don't prosecute their Prosecutors. The Prosecutor thinks its his job to prosecute you, but in fact, by addressing you, he has made it your job to prosecute him. He is the one bringing any complaint against you, so he is the one you have to cross-examine and bring your firepower to bear on ---- and most of the time, he's just a dumb schmuck doing what he has been trained to do by rote. In order to nail a Prosecutor effectively and efficiently, you have to hone your ability to ask pointed questions, bearing in mind that you can never get into trouble in a court room by politely asking questions. "Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT a person?" uh, uh, ummmm…. "Mr. Prosecutor.... can you explain to the Court exactly what kind of person the DEFENDANT is?" Uh, uh, ummmm…. "Mr. Prosecutor....you have used an unusual style convention to name the DEFENDANT in all capital letters ---- is the DEFENDANT's NAME written in Latin or something made to appear like Latin?" Uh, well, uh, I …. no, that's just the way we do it, uh.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... were you aware that writing the DEFENDANT's name in all capital letters has a meaning indicating that the DEFENDANT is either a dead man's estate, a corporation, or a trademark?" Umm-uh, I never heard anything like that... "Mr. Prosecutor.... may we let the record show the Chicago Manuel of Style attributes meaning to the use of all capital letters to name the DEFENDANT on page.... (give your citation and edition, etc.)? Well, uh, I, we-uh, I mean I was unaware.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT a trademark?" Uh, no, not that I know of.... Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT dead?" Uh, uh, oh-uh, well, uh.... Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT a corporation? Uh-duh, wha—uh.... [If he admits that it is...] "Mr. Prosecutor.... what kind of corporation is the DEFENDANT?" Ah, ah, ah..... "Mr. Prosecutor, what evidence do you have that the DEFENDANT exists?" I-uh, we-uh, well-uh..... "Mr. Prosecutor, can you please bring your evidence demonstrating probable cause that the DEFENDANT exists and submit this evidence on the Public Record of the Court....? Aye, aye, uh, cough, cough, bla...

"Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT allowed to do business in this state?" Bhelf, uh, oh, uh.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... is the DEFENDANT being represented by a Board of Directors?" Oh, uh,..... "Mr. Prosecutor.... if you had a problem with the DEFENDANT, why didn't you address your charges to the Board of Directors or the CEO of the corporation?" uh-uh-uh-uh.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... what I am trying to get to is, why is this DEFENDANT being sent mail to my mailing address?" Buh, wuh, I-uh, well, isn't it obvious....? "Mr. Prosecutor.... where is the probable cause that I have anything to do with the DEFENDANT---other than having a somewhat similar name?" Ah, well, uh... "Mr. Prosecutor... are you aware that the DEFENDANT's name has appeared as a Traded Security and brokerage account?" um, um, um, um-ah.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... you have named this DEFENDANT and sent mail (or process servers or officers) addressed to it at my address, is that not true? Well, uh, yes, I suppose that occurred... uh... "Mr. Prosecutor.... you are obviously aware that I am not an incorporated entity and not a Traded and Bonded Security, either, correct?" Of course, not... I can see that... uh.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... can you please provide the Court and submit to the Public Record any evidence that you have amounting to probable cause for you to think that the DEFENDANT is connected to me or voluntarily represented by me in any capacity? Ah, ah,.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... can you demonstrate and explain to the court exactly why you addressed this DEFENDANT in this manner?" Well, yes. It's required by our style guidelines.... "Mr. Prosecutor.... . You see my point. Once you fully grasp what the Person/PERSON they are addressing really is, you can run laps around them and reduce them to blithering idiots in front of a judge on this one point alone, because (1) most of them don't know what they are doing or why, they have just been trained to "do it this way" and (2) they have been caught in something that is obviously shady, and (3) for those who do know the scam, they can't admit it, can they? So they wind up looking completely incompetent. "I move the court to dismiss for failure to state a case, failure to identify the nature and identities of the Parties being addressed, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Put yourself in the guise of an investigator, someone who has landed in this peculiar World of Oz environment of the courtroom, and Mr. Prosecutor is the one person in the room who is obligated to answer all your questions about the whole circumstance, because that's what he is. He is the one bringing charges, so it is his job to know who or what the DEFENDANT is, and everything else about the circumstance. It is his burden of proof to support everything he says and does. So, batten up, and role play with each other. Now you know the game and it is just a matter of asking them questions they can't or won't answer. Learn to make everything into a question and learn to recognize and rebut their language cues --- for example, you may address them as "Mr." but never let them address you using such a title. They may say that you are a "resident" of whatever town or county or state; always "take exception" to this. You don't reside anywhere or maintain a "residence" in any fictional State of State. You have a house and you live in your State. Period. The identity and nature of the DEFENDANT is just one small point that you can and should drill home. I've seen Prosecutors run from courtrooms after four or five such pointed questions. Very few of them will let it get down to any discussion of the actual meaning and use of DOG LATIN, because it is damaging to the court and to their own professional credentials. This is just a small token of the fraud being perpetrated within the SYSTEM we call Justice. The Paralegals of E. MITCHEL & ASSOCIATES, has your lawful remedy.