[ What must a judge give up to even hold office??? Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, so once they

Transcription

1 [ What must a judge give up to even hold office??? Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, so once they take this oath which is going to be to the United Nations they are not even American citizens anymore does you become a foreign entity, agency or state. ]

2 FSIA INFORMATION 28 USC 1602 through 1611 is for foreign sovereign immunity act allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated December 26, statute 3097 through the series 881 conventional rights and duties states stated Congress replace statutes with international law placing all states under international law, so that is one key thing. All the statutes across America are under international law and the international law that they are under are the UCC codes. December 9, 1945 international organization immunities act relinquished every public officer of the United States to the United Nations so whoever is operating in America in a public office they are bound by the United Nations. 22 CFR through FR heading foreign relationships states that an oath is required to take office so you have to take an oath just get in a public office, I don't care if you are a district attorney, police officer, a judge, a clerk, prosecuting attorney any public office you're in you must take an oath to obtain this office. Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, so once they take this oath which is going to be to the United Nations they are not even American citizens anymore does you become a foreign entity, agency or state. That means every public office is a foreign state including all political subdivisions, every single court is considered a separate foreign entity. So we are being brought into the courtroom and being tried by a foreigner. Let's see what the USC codes have to say about this title 28 USC 3002 section 15 A. states that the United States is a federal Corporation and not a government including the judicial procedure section. So we are not under state government rule we are a federal Corporation and the federal Corporation of abides by the Constitution. Federal rules of civil procedure states that the court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state. So when you are brought into a courtroom you are automatically in a foreigner's courtroom and they are not supposed to bring you into the courtroom unless they go through the following procedures we are about to cover in a few seconds and if they haven't gone over of these following procedures you can always go back I don't care for its five or 10 years ago and challenge their jurisdiction and get that case overturned. The 11th amendment states judicial powers of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state you know what I mean like foreign state who took a OATH to the United Nations or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state, a foreign entity, agency or state do not bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding with the following procedures. So this is what they have to do to bring you court tickets, child support I don't care what it is this public office:

3 Title 22 CFR 93.1 through 93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit and intern has to notify the United States citizen of said Suit. So if you are getting taken to court and you have not been notified by the Department of State is a fraud they are foreigners and you are giving them the jurisdiction by showing up because you just can't appear in these courtrooms these people are worry withers. This is how they get the jurisdiction over you. Title 28 USC section 30 states the United States District Court asked to grant permission before they suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity. So not only do they have to contact the Department of State they also must go to the District Court which is the federal court and they have to go in there and prove that you are a corporate entity you know like Wal-Mart, Kmart and then the federal court has to give them jurisdiction. So if you have not received any paperwork from the federal court or you have not been contacted by the Department of State everything you just went through jail, court all this locked up and fines it is a fraud people I am reading United States. Title 22 CFR 9.1 through 93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit and intern has to notify the United States citizen of said suit. So before they can even come after you with a lawsuit they have to notify the Department of State and then the Department of State has to notify you in that they have to go through another procedure to bring you into court. Title 28 USC 1330 states the United States district court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity. So then when they contact the Department of State they have got to contact you and then they've got to go through the federal court and they have to provide in the federal court for a federal jury that you are a corporation like Wal-Mart, Kmart or Sears. Title 28 USC 1608 I have absolute immunity as a corporation July 27, statutes at law Chapter 249 section 1 as concerning Americans in their foreign state expiration is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded and it is not met with an answer. Once you go into court and say I would like to state for the record can you provide me that you have adequate proof for the Department of State and from the federal court that you have stepped inside a federal court in front of a federal jury and provided them with the adequate proof that I am a corporation and they won't have it. That's why they said it will not be met with an answer, they can t answer it. Now they know that you know they are committing fraud and the only thing they are going to do is get you out of the courtroom. Under the federal rules of civil procedure 12B 6 the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. I have provided ample proof that the prosecution and other agents are actually corporations.

4 In 1950 the 81st Congress investigated the lawyers Guild and determined that the bar association is founded and ran by communists under definition does any elected official that is a member of the bar will only be loyal to the bar and not the people and under the Constitution is we are the people but under the Bar Association which all the judges, lawyers, prosecuting attorneys, the clerks and everybody in the court system are loyal to. They are loyal to the bar not to the people so they perjury are committing and the penalty for being perjury is death. So they take the Constitution away from you by taking your sovereignty and declaring you a citizen and a definition of citizen in Blacks Law dictionary is one who cannot escape death. And you wonder why we have it so hard and you wonder why they are not citizens, they are under F. S. I. A Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because they are foreigners so they have sovereignty over you and sovereignty means self governed to rule as a king and have the power and authority and that's why they exercise perfect power and authority over you and they are not even US citizens and they are not even backed up by the Constitution. They are foreigners and they are immigrants and they have got to go home where they took the oath to and that is United Nations! Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App. Dist.8 05/27/1999) [1] Texas Court of Appeals [2] No CV [3] 994 S.W.2d 316, 1999.TX [4] May 27, 1999 [5] PRIETO BAIL BONDS, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE. [6] Appeal from 34 th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# ) [7] Before Panel No. 3 Barajas, C.j., Larsen, & Chew, JJ. [8] OPINION ON REMAND [9] Prieto Bail Bonds appeals a judgment nisi & subsequent judgment forfeiting a $40,000 bail bond upon which Prieto was surety. We reverse & render. [10] Oath of Sr.Judge Jerry Woodard [11] In its 1 st point of error, Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture is invalid b/c the judgment nisi, a procedural prerequisite to the forfeiture, was defective as the Judge who signed it failed to take an

5 oath of office. We initially affirmed the trial court's judgment by holding that the presiding Judge was a de facto Judge acting under color of title & the only means to challenge his authority was by quo warrant or proceeding. *fn1 The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed our ruling & remanded the case for analysis in light of its recent holding in Wilson v. State. *fn2 Wilson overruled the previous dictate that a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a former Judge who is otherwise qualified may be challenged only through a quo warrantor proceeding. *fn3 Under Wilson, a party may challenge the authority of a trial Judge by regular appeal provided the party objects pretrial. *fn4 In this case, Prieto raised its challenge to Judge Woodard after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. Since the judgment nisi is the 1 st notice of forfeiture given to a surety such as Prieto, *fn5 we find that Prieto objected timely. Accordingly, we will address Prieto's challenge to Judge Woodard's authority pursuant to Wilson. [12] Facts [13] The Honorable Jerry Woodard was District Judge of the 34 th District Court of El Paso County for 17 yrs., from 1969 until He was Justice on the Eighth Court of Appeals from 1986 until Apr In 1992, he retired & requested assignment as a sr. Judge pursuant to the Texas Govt. Code. *fn6 Judge Woodard took his last oath of office as a Judge when he became Justice of the appellate court in 1986; that term of office expired upon his retirement in He has not taken the oaths required by the Texas Constitution *fn7 since that time. *fn8 [14] Pursuant to the Texas Govt. Code, *fn9 the presiding Judge of the 6 th administrative judicial region appointed Judge Woodard to preside over the W Texas Impact Court No. 1. Judge Woodard met all statutory requirements for the appointment. No statute explicitly requires that Judges appointed under 74 take an oath of office before being assigned to cases as visiting Judges. *fn10 We must decide, then, whether the 2 oaths constitutionally required of all "elected & appointed" officers apply to sr. Judges assigned pursuant to Chapter 74, & if so, whether the judicial acts of a Judge who has failed to take the oaths are done without authority. [15] 1. The Constitutional Requirement [16] Prieto contends that, when presiding over this case, Judge Woodard sat as a sr. Judge without taking the 2 oaths of office required by the Texas Constitution. Thus, having failed to fulfill the constitutional prerequisites to holding office, his judicial actions were void or voidable, including his signing of the judgment nisi forfeiting the bond in question. *fn11 [17] Article XVI, 1 of the Texas Constitution requires that "appointed officers" take 2 oaths before entering upon the duties of their offices. *fn12 The statutory scheme for appointment of Judges subject to assignment does not require those officials to take an oath upon accepting an assignment. *fn13 Nevertheless, the Texas Code Construction Act provides that: [18] "In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: (1) compliance with the constitutions of this state & the United States is intended...." *fn14 [19] The State makes several arguments as to why a sr. Judge need not take the constitutional oaths upon electing that status. 1 st, the State contends that Judge Woodard is not an officer subject to the oath requirement b/c he was not "appointed" to the position of sr. Judge, nor did he "hold office" as a sr. Judge. He therefore is not an "appointed officer" required to take an oath under Article XVI, 1 of the Texas Constitution. In the alternative, the

6 State argues that the oaths Judge Woodard took as a Justice of the 8 th Court of Appeals & as a District Judge satisfy the constitutional requirements. [20] 2. "Appointment" vs. "Assignment" [21] The State focuses its argument on the transient nature of a sr. Judge's assignments to various courts in general, & Judge Woodard's temporary assignment to the 34 th District Impact Court in particular. It argues that sr. Judges are merely randomly "assigned" *fn15 to conduct the business of sundry courts when needed & therefore do not fit the definition of an "appointed" officer required to take the oaths. *fn16 Moreover, the State contends that the position of sr. Judge subject to assignment "materializes through a voluntary election by the judicial retiree rather than through the process of election or appointment." The State refers us to Texas Govt. Code , which allows a retiree to "elect to be a judicial officer." *fn17 [22] The retired Judge's election, however, does not automatically qualify the retired Judge for assignments. Retired Judges are assigned by the presiding Judge of an administrative region pursuant to of the Govt. Code. Under that section, the presiding Judge maintains a list of retired & former Judges who meet certain requirements & therefore qualify for assignments. *fn18 In order to be eligible for the presiding Judge's list, the retired Judge must demonstrate that he or she: (1) served as a Judge for at least 48 mos. in a district, statutory probate, statutory county, or appellate court; (2) developed substantial experience in an area of specialty (civil, criminal, or domestic relations); & (3) was not removed from office. *fn19 The retired Judge must also certify under oath that he or she did not resign from office after receiving notice that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct instituted formal proceedings against the Judge. Finally, the retired Judge must certify to the presiding Judge that he or she will not appear & plead as an attorney in any court in Texas for a period of 2 years. *fn20 Thus, the retired Judge's placement on the presiding Judge's list, & thereby his or her eligibility to receive assignments, is subject to the presiding Judge's determination that the retired Judge meets the statutory requirements. Under this statutory scheme, the presiding Judge is essentially a gate keeper, & as such, his or her placement of a retired Judge on the list is akin to an appointment of that retired Judge to a position of availability for assignment to various courts as needed. [23] 3. Office Holder vs. Officer [24] The State further argues that an assigned Judge cannot be an "officer" b/c the Judge holds no real office. We find, however, that the focus of our inquiry should be the nature of the Judge's function as an "officer" rather than on the nature of the "office" held. An individual is a public officer if any sovereign function of the Govt. is conferred upon that individual to be exercised for the benefit of the public largely independent of the control of others. *fn21 A public officer is one who is authorized by law to independently exercise functions of either an executive, legislative, or judicial character. *fn22 Specifically, the authorization to pronounce judgment & to adjudicate the rights of parties appearing in court has been held to be a sovereign function of the Govt. & a mark of public office. *fn23 Sr. Judges such as Judge Woodard, though they hold no true permanent office & are merely assigned to various courts from time to time, are nevertheless authorized to function as Judges & as such are entrusted with independent & sovereign powers. *fn24 Accordingly, we hold sr. Judges are "public officers." [25] 4. Sr. Judges Must Take the Oaths [26] Having found that sr. Judges are "appointed" & are "officers," we conclude that they must take the oaths required of appointed officers under Article 16, 1 of the Texas Constitution when taking status as a sr. Judge subject to assignment. We recognize that the position of sr. Judge does not fit neatly within the traditional notion of an "appointed officer." We are hard

7 pressed, however, to hold that one with authority to preside over litigation & adjudicate the interests of the litigants in a courtroom in the State of Texas should, or can, be exempt from taking an oath to preserve, protect, & defend the Constitution & laws of the United States & of the State of Texas. *fn25 [27] 5. Survival of the Oath [28] The State contends, in the alternative, that the oaths Judge Woodard took as District Judge & Justice of the 8 th Court of Appeals satisfy the constitutional requirements. The State offers no authority in support of this contention & we do not find the argument persuasive. Elected Judges must take a new oath with each new term: we can see no logic whereby a sr. Judge's oath would survive an expired term of office, while that taken by a Judge successfully seeking re-election would not. In any event, we find that Judge Woodard's prior oaths were incomplete as a matter of law. Judge Woodard's earlier oaths of office, which were taken in 1986 & before, did not include the "anti-bribery" oath. This oath was added to the Texas Constitution only in *fn26 It was required in 1992 when Judge Woodard took sr. status & in 1993 when he entered the judgment nisi in question. Accordingly, even if Judge Woodard's previous oaths continued to bless his status as a sr.judge, they did not meet the constitution's requirements at the time he presided over this case. [29] 6. The Judgment Fails Because the Judgment Nisi was Entered Without Authority [30] Because Judge Woodard was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial actions taken by him in the case below were without authority. *fn27 The Judgment Nisi therefore is without effect. [31] Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture must fail since the judgment nisi, at least in this case, was an essential element of the State's case. To be entitled to forfeiture of a bond, the State need only show: (1) a valid bond; (2) that the defendant's name was distinctly called at the courthouse door; & (3) the defendant failed to appear within a reasonable time of that call. The burden of proof on the 2 nd & 3 rd prongs is satisfied by the judgment nisi. *fn28 In this case, the judgment nisi was entered into evidence at the forfeiture hearing as Exhibit 1. Since the judgment nisi is without effect, however, it cannot satisfy the State's burden of proof in this case. We find no other evidence in the record to support prongs two & three of the State's forfeiture case. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of forfeiture & we sustain Prieto's first point of error. [32] 7. Void or Voidable? [33] Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard's qualifications at the trial level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done wholly without authority, & thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, & therefore merely voidable. Under either analysis, we must reverse. But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an "alternative" municipal Judge who had never taken the oaths of office, that: "without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or de facto Judge, & his acts as such are void." *fn29 [34] CONCLUSION [35] Having sustained Prieto's 1 st point of error, we reverse the judgment of the trial court & render judgment in favor of Prieto. Our Disposition of this point makes it unnecessary for us to reach Prieto's remaining points of error. [36] SUSAN LARSEN, Justice [37] (Publish) Opinion Footnotes [38] *fn1 Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 948 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997), rev'd, 978 S.W.2d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

8 [39] *fn2 Wilson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). [40] *fn3 Id. at 380. [41] *fn4 Id. [42] *fn5 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts , (Vernon 1989). [43] *fn6 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (Vernon 1998). [44] *fn7 Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1. [45] *fn8 The Constitution requires that all elected & appointed officers of the State, before taking the oath of office, shall swear or affirm that they have not paid or promised any money or thing of value or promised public office or employment to secure votes or an appointment (the "anti-bribery oath"). This oath must be filed with the Secretary of State before swearing or affirming to the oath of office, in which the officer swears to faithfully execute his or her duties & preserve, protect, & defend the Constitutions of the United States & of Texas. Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1. [46] *fn9 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (Vernon 1998). [47] *fn10 Tex. Govt. Code Ann. 74 (Vernon 1998). [48] *fn11 See Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Ater, 845 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, orig. proceeding). [49] *fn12 Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1(c)(d). [50] *fn13 Tex. Govt. Code Ann. ch. 74 & 75 (Vernon 1998). [51] *fn14 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (Vernon 1998). [52] *fn15 See Tex. Govt. Code Ann (Vernon 1998) (judges subject to "assignment"). [53] *fn16 There is no dispute that sr. Judges are no longer "elected officers" when they take sr. status & make themselves available for assignment. [54] *fn17 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (a) (Vernon 1998). [55] *fn18 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (a) (Vernon 1998). [56] *fn19 Id. [57] *fn20 Tex. Govt. Code Ann (c) (Vernon 1998). [58] *fn21 Guerrero v. Refugio County, 946 S.W.2d 558, 570 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (citing Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standley, 154 Tex. 547, 280 S.W.2d 578, 583 (1955)). [59] *fn22 State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921, 931 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (orig. proceeding). [60] *fn23 Thompson v. City of Austin, 979 S.W.2d 676, 683 (Tex. App. - Austin 1998, no pet.

9 h.). [61] *fn24 Id. [62] *fn25 Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1. [63] *fn26 Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1(d) (amended Tex. H.J. Res. 40, 1, 71st Leg., R.S., 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 6428). [64] *fn27 See Ater, 845 S.W.2d at 337 (actions taken by Judge who failed to meet all requisites for qualification as retired Judge subject to assignment held null & void). [65] *fn28 Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). [66] *fn29 French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (opin. on sec. reh'g); see also Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Fain v. State, No CR, 1998 WL , at *3 (Tex. App. - Austin Dec. 17, 1998, no pet. h.).

10 BEAT THE COURTS Today I am going to show you people how to overcome the state courts which are actually federal courts but they need you to sign your rights away and turn it into a state court ran by a state government who is supposed to be under the Constitution. Okay we are going to start off with a few laws 28 USC 1602 through 1611 is for foreign sovereign immunity act allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated December 26, statute 3097 through the series 881 conventional rights and duties states stated Congress replace statutes with international law placing all states under international law, so that is one key thing. All the statutes across America are under international law and the international law that they are under are the UCC codes. December 9, 1945 international organization immunities act relinquished every public officer of the United States to the United Nations so whoever is operating in America in a public office they are bound by the United Nations. 22 CFR through FR heading foreign relationships states that an oath is required to take office so you have to take an oath just get in a public office, I don't care if you are a district attorney, police officer, a judge, a clerk, prosecuting attorney any public office you're in you must take an oath to obtain this office. Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, so once they take this oath which is going to be to the United Nations they are not even American citizens anymore does you become a foreign entity, agency or state. That means every public office is a foreign state including all political subdivisions, every single court is considered a separate foreign entity. So we are being brought into the courtroom and being tried by a foreigner. Let's see what the USC codes have to say about this title 28 USC 3002 section 15 A. states that the United States is a federal Corporation and not a government including the judicial procedure section. So we are not under state government rule we are a federal Corporation and the federal Corporation of abides by the Constitution. Federal rules of civil procedure states that the court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state. So when you are brought into a courtroom you are automatically in a foreigner's courtroom and they are not supposed to bring you into the courtroom unless they go through the following procedures we are about to cover in a few seconds and if they haven't gone over of these following procedures you can always go back I don't care for its five or 10 years ago and challenge their jurisdiction and get that case overturned. The 11th amendment states judicial powers of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state you know what I mean like foreign state who took a OATH to the United Nations or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state, a foreign entity, agency or state do not bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding with the following procedures. So this is what they have to do to bring you court tickets, child support I don't care what it is this public office. Title 22 CFR 93.1 through 93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit and intern has to notify the United States citizen of said Suit. So if you are getting taken to court and you have not been notified by the Department of State is a fraud they are foreigners and you are giving them the jurisdiction by showing up because you just can't appear in these courtrooms these people are worry withers. This is how they get the jurisdiction over you.

11 Title 28 USC section 30 states the United States District Court asked to grant permission before they suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity. So not only do they have to contact the Department of State they also must go to the District Court which is the federal court and they have to go in there and prove that you are a corporate entity you know like Wal-Mart, Kmart and then the federal court has to give them jurisdiction. So if you have not received any paperwork from the federal court or you have not been contacted by the Department of State everything you just went through jail, court all this locked up and fines it is a fraud people I am reading United States. Alright this is my fifth time attempting to record this for you and apparently these people don't want you to get the truth, they have shut down one of my modems and I put another modem and they shut down my phone lines but I am still coming back to get this truth for you guys I went to something and 20 seconds and I'm still coming. Title 22 CFR 9.1 through 93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit and intern has to notify the United States citizen of said suit. So before they can even come after you with a lawsuit they have to notify the Department of State and then the Department of State has to notify you in that they have to go through another procedure to bring you into court. Title 28 USC 1330 states the United States district court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity. So then when they contact the Department of State they have got to contact you and then they've got to go through the federal court and they have to provide in the federal court for a federal jury that you are a corporation like Wal-Mart, Kmart or Sears. Title 28 USC 1608 I have absolute immunity as a corporation July 27, statutes at law Chapter 249 section 1 as concerning Americans in their foreign state expiration is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded and it is not met with an answer. Once you go into court and say I would like to state for the record can you provide me that you have adequate proof for the Department of State and from the federal court that you have stepped inside a federal court in front of a federal jury and provided them with the adequate proof that I am a corporation and they won't have it. That's why they said it will not be met with an answer, they can t answer it. Now they know that you know they are committing fraud and the only thing they are going to do is get you out of the courtroom. Under the federal rules of civil procedure 12B 6 the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. I have provided ample proof that the prosecution and other agents are actually corporations. In 1950 the 81st Congress investigated the lawyers Guild and determined that the bar association is founded and ran by communists under definition does any elected official that is a member of the bar will only be loyal to the bar and not the people and under the Constitution is we are the people but under the Bar Association which all the judges, lawyers, prosecuting attorneys, the clerks and everybody in the court system are loyal to. They are loyal to the bar not to the people so they are committing perjury and the penalty for being perjury is death. The supremacy clause articles 6 clause 2 all debts contracted and engagements which were entered into before the adoption of this Constitution should be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the

12 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. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the members of the several State legislatures and all executive and judicial office both of the United States in the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution of the Republic of 1787 but no religious test will be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Civil means contract in Latin the universal commercial code income passes contract law and it is an international treaty and a treaty has not been broken. The U.S. Constitution encompasses the UCC. See we are actually dealing with law of the Bible-- the UCC code, the Constitution of the Republic of 1787 they all come out of the Bible that is why they don't let you keep the Constitution in America because happy is he who keepth the law. So they take the Constitution away from you by taking your sovereignty and declaring you a citizen and a definition of citizen in Blacks Law dictionary is one who cannot escape death. And you wonder why we have it so hard and you wonder why they are not citizens, they are under F. S. I. A. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because they are foreigners so they have sovereignty over you and sovereignty means self governed to rule as a king and have the power and authority and that's why they exercise perfect power and authority over you and they are not even US citizens and they are not even backed up by the Constitution. They are foreigners and they are immigrants and they have got to go home where they took the oath to and that is United Nations. People get smart be intelligent be wise and don't get trampled on. Stop all this fraud going on in the courts, stop having these people harass you day by day under laws that are not even laws, they don't even call them all Laws they call them statutes, ordinances and codes which is contrary to the United States Constitution of the Republic of Shalom. END OF VIDEO.