slaves and souls of men - crimes against the people by the ruling elite

8/3/2019 Slaves and Souls of Men - Crimes Against the People by the Ruling Elite

1/22

and slaves, and souls of men. - Remedy or Habeas Corpus within the BeastSystem.

by Rex Trover

The Preacher said there is nothing new under the sun. So too here this authorwithout apology has used the writings of others in collating this thesis, and claims

no originality of thought.Notwithstanding the good intentions of many within the freedom movement,

so-called, who might use a rendered version of the scriptures to justify theactions of federal or state government employees, let us put to rest the notion thatwe must obey the government because that is the will of god. Do we in theseUnited States live under a Romans 13 government where the rulers are ministersof Yahweh for good, not evil, or a Revelation 13 government, where rulers do evil,call evil good and call good evil, and persecute those who expose their deeds? Theanswer should determine our conduct. Do our public servants reward those whodo good, and punish those who do evil according to Yahwehs Laws? Or is theirconduct according to the desires, whims, rules, statutes, covetousness, and lusts

of men? Do our public servants use the law for legal plunder, as Bastiat soeloquently set forth in his treatise, The Law? Or do they use the law, courts, andguns to lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent, practice deceit and deception, rob, rape,pillage, and even murder? If the latter, then it is obvious that we are living under aRevelation 13 form of government, recognize that fact, and conduct ourselvesaccordingly. We would do well to note that Law, true Law, is by definitionimmutable and unchanging.

The purpose of this treatise is to attempt to set forth where we, as a people,have been in the past, where we are now, and how we can try to use this presentsystem or matrix until it collapses under the weight of its own putrefaction. Wewill first consider foundational concepts, without which we would likely lack the

courage and faith to relentlessly pursue justice, or righteousness.

Foundational concepts

There is a natural order of things in the universe. Our Creator created man.We are not the product of evolution. Man formed or established the state (oftenincorrectly the government) for the protection of himself and his property. Mostcall this the protection of his rights, but we probably really have duties as setforth as Thou shalt and Thou shalt not, rather than rights. Everything in thenatural order of things is subservient to the being who created it. There can be noexceptions. Shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? In these

United States, both the state and federal entities were created by the People. ThePeople themselves retained sovereignty under the true Sovereign, our Creator,even though they delegated some of their power to their creatures for the purposeof protecting their rights. The people created constitutional republics via thefounding documents called constitutions. All that government does and provideslegitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights. (FN1)Sovereignty itself is, of course not subject to laws for it is the author and source oflaw; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies ofgovernment, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all

Page 1 of 22


2/22

government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.(FN2) at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they aretruly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects - withnone to govern but themselves (FN3)

Another foundational concept that went hand in hand with sovereignty wasvirtue; virtue being the ultimate bulwark against corruption and its inevitablecompanion, despotism. John Adams succinctly described the American position:republics, he said, were the only governments whose principle and foundation isvirtue. (FN4) In early America, the most quoted authority in the courts was theBible. (Just try it in todays courts. You may be found in contempt of court!) Theearly Americans laid a Christian foundation in America, knowing that where theSpirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. It was this liberty that was the basis ofAmerican constitutional law and government and it cannot be changed. From theday of the Declaration of Independence, they [the American people] were boundby the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospels which theynearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. John Quincy Adams,Oration celebrating July 4, 1821. The fundamental orders of Connecticut

commenced with And well knowing where a people are gathered together theword of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such people thereshould be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, toorder and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shallrequire In the famous case of Vidal v. Girards Exrs, 2 How. 127, 198, thecourt observed: It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of thecommon law of Pennsylvania. (FN5)

The nature of our Constitutions (state and federal) is that they are based uponpre-existing laws, rights, habits, and modes of thought of the people as developedunder the common law. (FN6) Perhaps the most famous official foundingdocument which sets forth both the existence of our Creator and our reliance on

His laws, the Laws of Nature and of Natures God, is the Declaration ofIndependence. When it becomes necessary and to assume the separateand equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them And, We hold these truths to be se1f-evident, that all men are created equal, thatthey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. And, We, therefore, appealing to the Supreme Judgeof the world And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance onthe protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

After the Civil War, the debate shifted noticeably away from the rights of thepeople, to a debate between the so-called rights and sovereignty of the centralgovernment versus that of the state governments, leaving the people, the actualsovereigns, as subjects or citizens of either the federal or state governments, orboth. (Note that a legal fiction, such as a state or government, can have norights. Only people have rights.) Perhaps the 14th Amendment, which created asecond-class citizen of the United States with mere privileges (as opposed toconstitutionally-secured rights) and the inability to question the debt imposedupon him, was a motivating factor.

Page 2 of 22


3/22

Manifestly important, however, is that many authorities have held that thewords of the constitutions mean today what they meant at the time of adoption,notwithstanding despotic pronouncements and attorning by members of the BARto the contrary. This may be their Achilles heel. (Their is in the same category asthey and them as Mel Gibson said in the movie, Taxi). Meaning ofconstitution is determined by intent of framers and people approving it. (FN7)The fundamental law means what its framers and the people approving itintended, as determined from reading it in the light of the circumstances andobjects in view. (FN8) Meaning of constitutional provisions established at time ofits adoption, continues forever, unless modified by constitution itself. (FN9) (Howdoes that one grab you?) Unconstitutional act confers no rights, imposes nopenalty, affords no protection, is not operative, and in legal contemplation has noexistence. (FN10)

What do the courts today say as to how the constitutional terms are to beinterpreted? Standards of interpretation of the Fifth Amendment are: (1)common and statutory law of England and laws of many of the states at time ofadoption of the amendment; (2) entire Bill of Rights; and (3) intent of framers of

the Constitution to be ascertained by examination of documents as a whole as wellas by analysis of legislative history. (FN11) This court examines three sources indetermining a constitutional provisions meaning: The plain meaning of the wordsin the context used; the constitutional debates and the practices in existence atthe time of the writing of the constitution; and the earliest interpretation of theprovision by the legislature as manifested in the first law passed followingadoption. (FN12) So the courts often admit that the terms used in theconstitutions mean today what they meant when the documents were written. Whythen do they appear to turn the constitutions upside down and join the otheragencies of government in apparent usurpation?

Answers

It should be noted that the courts, the legislature, and the executive are notthe state, but are agents of the state. In 1885 the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4decision in what may have been a staged case regarding state prohibitionsunder Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, gives us a clue as to the future use of legalfictions by the elite who would re-impose slavery, but on a universal scale withoutregard to skin color. The Court said in the Poindexter decision the governmentof the state is generally confounded with the state itself, The state itself is anideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and,within the sphere of its agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is alawless usurpation. The constitution of the state is the limit of the authority of its

government, and both government and state are subject to the supremacy of theconstitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof (FN13)

Lawless usurpation? By creating additional legal fictions like the religiousleaders did millennia ago to excuse or justify their disobedience to Yahs Laws? Afew years back the people in Louisiana brought suit over a tax imposed upon themwithout the required state referendum. The state supreme court said that the taxwas legal, as it wasnt imposed by the state, but by a legislatively created entity

Page 3 of 22


4/22

with boundaries co-terminous with the state. (Maybe they asked the wrongquestion? Perhaps they should have asked by what authority did the legislaturecreate an entity endowed with power that the legislature itself lacked.) Andtherein lies one of the keys to the puzzle. All state legislatures have likely enactedlaws similar to those in Wisconsin. Wisconsin statutes 706.03(l)(b) defines publiccorporation as: THIS state, a subunit of THE state, How clever. Thelegislature, although they may not have explicitly created the said corporation, didexplicitly recognize the difference between a public corporation known as STATEOF WISCONSIN /State of Wisconsin, as being a subunit of the lawful republicanform of government, Wisconsin, the state. Now State of Wisconsin (thecorporation) can go out and conduct business just like any other corporation can. The same goes for the counties; Milwaukee County is a public corporation, asubunit of county of Milwaukee.

Want evidence?

There is ample evidence of the existence of government de facto, as opposedto government de jure, by the failure of the corporations to abide by Article 1,

Section 10, Clause 1 of the constitution for the United States of America, by thelaws (more properly denoted as ACTS)that are passed, and by the lawless butlegal acts committed by agents of government de facto. Do any of the states ofthe Union, such as Wisconsin, make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender inpayment of debts? No, but State of Wisconsin does; THIS state uses commercialpaper, such as debt instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) issued by the privatelyowned Federal Reserve System. And consider the amending of the Enabling Act(Article II, Section 2) of the Wisconsin Constitution. Did not State of Wisconsinhave its corporation BYLAWS (deceptively called Wisconsin Constitution asopposed to Constitution for Wisconsin) amended in l95l, whereby the EnablingAct - the agreement that had to be accepted by Congress to allow the Territory of

Wisconsin to enter the union of states (the states united) and become Wisconsinstate - was ALTERED? Did they have a time machine, turn the clock back morethan one hundred years, have the inhabitants of the Territory of Wisconsin take anew vote, get the approval of Congress BY VOTE, and then fast-forward in time tothe present? Impossible you say? But it isnt impossible to amend BYLAWS of aCORPORATION, is it? And why was the Enabling Act amended by deleting thephrase and no tax shall be imposed on land the property of the United States;?This amending occurred directly on the heels of the passing of the Buck Act byCongress. (FN17) Isnt (almost) all land in Wisconsin, as REPRESENTED by deedsand Transfer Tax Returns filed in the Register of Deeds office, hypothecated to theUnited States corporation (FN18) on the bankruptcy declared by Congress in 1933,

the same year that FDR confiscated the gold? As FDR said, In politics, there areno accidents. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Want more evidence?

The Wisconsin Constitution - the constitution for the corporation - had at least25 amendments to Article VII, Judiciary, adopted in 1977. Section 17 (repealed) inits original form read: The style of all writs and process shall be, The state ofWisconsin; all criminal prosecutions shall be carried out in the name and by the

Page 4 of 22


5/22

authority of the same, and all indictments shall conclude against the peace anddignity of the state. Today, all process issues in the name of STATE OFWISCONSIN, i.e., the corporation - this state, in its own name, and not on theauthority and by the power of the people. Our original lawful republican form ofgovernment has been overlaid or buried beneath business corporations operatedfor the benefit of the few at the expense of the people who have been reduced to acondition of servitude.

And why is it that the flag of the president as commander-in-chief (the prettyflag with the gold fringe, NOT a Title 4 flag) is displayed in all of the statecourtrooms across the land, in apparent violation of Army Regulation AR 840-10which states that said flag may ONLY be displayed in a military tribunal, if thecorporate United States isnt collecting mulct in admiralty proceedings on behalf ofthe creditors, the private international bankers?

Regarding the creation or existence of the corporation, State of Wisconsin,there is no question that the legislature can create corporations - they did soalmost from day one of the United States, but those generally were limited induration, to say, 20 years. However, legislatures cannot lawfully bestow their

creatures with greater power or authority than that of the lawful state. Thoughthe lawmaking power can unquestionably create a municipal corporation anddelegate legislative authority to it, it cannot clothe the creature with power to dowhat the constitution prohibits the creator from doing. (FN14) The legislature isin no just sense sovereign. It is but the agent, with limited authority, of the statesovereignty. (FN15)

But for our present topic of discussion, the enactment of ex post facto laws andBills of Attainder /bills of pains and penalties by the corporation called State ofWisconsin are the substance of the matter. Prohibition against ex post factolaws was to prevent bills of attainder, or bills of pains and penalties; the firstinflicting capital, and the other less, punishment. These acts were legislative

judgments; and an exercise of judicial power. at other times they violated therules of evidence, at other times they inflicted punishments, where the partywas not, by law, liable to any punishment; With very few exceptions, theadvocates of such laws were stimulated by ambition, or personal resentment, andvindictive malice. To prevent such, and similar, acts of violence and injustice, Ibelieve, the Federal and State legislatures were prohibited from passing any bill ofattainder; or any ex post facto law. The restriction not to pass any ex post factolaw, was to secure the person of the subject from injury, or punishment, inconsequence of such law. but the judges of Great Britain always consideredpenal statutes, that created crimes, or increased the punishment of them, as expost facto laws. The enhancement of acrime, or penalty, seems to come within

the same mischief as the creation of a crime or penalty; and therefore they may beclassed together. (FN16) Within the meaning of the Constitution bills ofattainder include bills of pains and penalties. By an ex post facto law is meantone which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time itwas committed; or imposes additional punishment to that than prescribed; orchanges the rules by which less or different testimony is sufficient to convict thanwas then required. The provision in the Federal Constitution, intended to securethe liberty of the citizen, cannot be evaded by the form in which the power of thestate is exerted. If this were not so, if that which cannot be accomplished by

Page 5 of 22


6/22

means looking directly to the end, can be accomplished by indirect means. Theinhibition may be evaded at pleasure. No kind of oppression can be named,against which the framers of the Constitution intended to guard, which may not beeffected. (FN19)

The import

Read the last paragraph again. The significance can not be overstated. InWisconsin, everyone convicted of a crime in the past fifty (50) years wasconvicted, and sentenced, under an ex post facto law and bill of pains andpenalties (there is no capital punishment in Wisconsin). Not only that, but thePlaintiff was a PUBLIC CORPORATION acting in its own name and on its ownbehalf. Was the corporation injured? No. Was the corporation collecting finesand putting them to its own use? Yes.

Twenty-four per cent of State of Wisconsin spending (circa 2005) is for thecorrections system, the courts, the justice department, and health andsocial services, which includes expenses resulting from operating a penalcolony/state. The prison population in Wisconsin went from 3,086 in 1970 to

23,849 in 2004. The number of people on paper went from 8,859 to 68,461in the same time period. Now thats a crime wave. Or is it? Depends on howone defines crime, doesnt it? Article I, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rightsin the Constitution for Wisconsin (as well as the Wisconsin Constitution)prohibits slavery except as punishment for crime: There shall be neitherslavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for punishmentof crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. This wording isvirtually the same as that of the 13th Amendment. A crime is an offenseagainst the sovereign, (FN20) By definition long antedating theconstitution of this state, a crime has been defined as an offense against thesovereign and a criminal action one prosecuted by the state against a person

charged with a public offense committed in violation of a public law. (FN21)At common law, it was only convictions of crimes which rendered the personinfamous that excluded him from being a witness. (FN22) A Michigan caseholds that the term criminal cases used in the laws refers only toprosecutions under the state laws, and prosecutions under city ordinances donot come within the term, and that no offense is a crime, which does notviolate the law of the land. (FN22)

If a crime is an offense against the sovereign, then it obviously is anoffense against the people, since the people are the sovereigns. Or at leastthey were, prior to the 14th Amendment. Recall that the original 13th

Amendment put teeth in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of Constitution which

prohibited any person holding any office of profit or trust from receiving anypresent, Emolument, Office, or Title from any King, Prince, or foreign Statewithout the Consent of the Congress. The original 13th Amendment would havethrown out of office all attorneys, or Esquires. So, during the War Betweenthe States, agents went around the country and removed every documentthat they could find that evidenced the ratification of the 13 th Amendment.Then after the war, the military Congress adopted the new 13th Amendmentthat prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for

Page 6 of 22


7/22

crime. That Amendment freed the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation, awar booty declaration, did not. Then just days before the declared ratificationof the 14th Amendment, which re-established slavery, this time on thegovernment corporation plantation for all races and colors, Congress passedthe Expatriation Act, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages223-224, which recognized our right to expatriate from their governmentcorporation. Currently all citizens of the United States as defined by the 14th

Amendment are slaves on the corporation plantation named United States.Read Section 4 thereof, The validity of the public debt shall not bequestioned.

What actually is a crime?What actually is a crime? Consider well several Wisconsin statutes passed

by an ACT of the legislature in 1955, first 939.10: Common-law crimes areABOLISHED. Now consider Wis. stats. 939.12 Crime defined. A crime isconduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine orimprisonment or both. Read that again. Slowly. Allow it to chill the

marrow of your bones. Let it sink in. It means exactly what you fear it means:ALL crimes are crimes against the state. A crime now is WHATEVER thelegislature (think CORPORATION, and AGENT) says it is. Anything andeverything. Whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, towhomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and as often as it wants in order toturn over the merchandise and generate riches or silence political dissent. (Italso punishes those who actually cause their fellow man an injury, but inmost cases there is no injured party.) The oncesovereign people are nolonger sovereign when government IS THE LAW. See how easy it was to turnthe natural order of things on its head? Just pass a legislative ACT, and itoverrules the Law of Nature and Natures God. The big G Government has

now become self-existent and declared itself to be God. And man, who wascreated by God, and was himself the creator of the state, finds himself to beunder the absolute dominion of government via ex post facto bills of pains andpenalties. A total perversion of the natural order of creation. Recall that inState v. Schinz the supreme court of Wisconsin stated: Meaning ofconstitutional provision, established at the time of its adoption, continuesforever, unless modified by constitution itself. Under what authority did thelegislature enact Wis. stats. 939.l0, 939.12, and 939.23 (which did away withmens rea, also called criminal intent or recklessness, or guilty mind, anabsolute prerequisite - along with actus reus (the act committed) - for an actualcrime.) Perhaps the people werent sufficiently mesmerized to be conned

into a constitutional amendment, so government de facto passed an ACTmerely on its own (usurped) authority. An unconstitutional act, confers norights, imposes no penalty, affords no protection, is not operative, and in legalcontemplation has no existence. (FN10, supra)

Where are we now?

One might conclude that government corporations /merchants aremerchandising men (slaves), and their creatures, the 501(C)(3) religious

Page 7 of 22


8/22

corporate daughters are trafficking in the souls of men. Perhaps the men andwomen in positions of power only seem to be more corrupt, decadent, anddegenerate than the rest of us, merely because they are more visible and havethe opportunity to usurp authority and pervert the exercise of power by virtueof their position in society. Eventually the system will self-destruct, as didRome. Until then, remedy may be available to those who know that the fear ofman is a stench in the nostrils of an holy Elohim: And fear not them which killthe body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear Him which is able todestroy both soul and body in hell.

Consent of the governed

This section, consent of the governed, is being added in the year 2012. Itis inserted preceding the discussion of pre-trial and post-trial remedies andreflects what has been revealed to this author by eminent researchers in thevery recent past.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, thatamong these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to securethese rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powersfrom the consent of the governed . Have you ever truly contemplatedthe meaning of the phrase consent of the governed?

What if you do not consent to be governed by legal fictions such asgovernment corporations run by the Bar Association attorneys? What if you donot consent to be governed by the whims of public officers, who in the pastwere called public servants, and who have sworn an oath to support theConstitution of the United States and are fiduciaries, i.e., trustees, of the PublicTrust?

The Supreme Court has stated that those in prison are in prison by their

own consent. Apparently it means that one should not consent, verbally andon the record. If one has committed a common law crime such as robbery,rape, or murder, or caused an injury to another man or his property, the issueof ones non-consent is not applicable. But if a man is exercising inherent,God-given or natural rights, why should he consent to have his rights infringedby his creation or his public officers or public servants?

Thus some men have escaped persecution by public officers when hauledinto court by stating to Bar Association tribunals operating in statutoryjurisdiction (think the Crown City of London) that: I reserve all my rights atall times: I do not consent to these proceedings; I do not accept this offer(they are offering to contract with you); I have not consented in the past, I do

not consent now, and I will not consent in the future to these proceedings(that covers past, present, and future); I do not recognize you (judge orprosecutor) (look up recognize and recognizance in Blacks Law Dictionary,4th edition); I dont know what you are talking about; I do not accept yourliability as trustee and fiduciary of the Public Trust.

It is important to not argue with these Bar Association tribunal memberssince argument creates a controversy, and the court is there to settle acontroversy, be it real or contrived. And if the presiding officer (thinkjudge) attempts to force a plea of not guilty, one might be rightly inclined

Page 8 of 22


9/22

to state, You are not my attorney, but if you insist then you must step downfrom being the judge, and further, I do not authorize you to enter a plea for meor on my behalf, but if you insist then the liability is on you and not on me; I willnot accept it and do not consent.

Expect to spend at least a few days behind bars, usually no more thanthree days. However there are exceptions if they want you bad enough. Onewell-known freedom fighting American refused to consent and was kept lockedup for a year without being charged, but finally walked out a free man. (Thiswas pre-National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the"Indefinite Detention Act".)

Attempting remedy inside the belly of the Beast

Next let us consider both pre-trial and post-trial remedies.

Pre-trial remedy. This is where remedy is most likely obtained; darknesscannot survive the light of truth. The judges will do almost anything to keepthe truth from the public, including side-bar discussions, conducting secret

meetings in chambers, prohibiting the introduction of evidence, sealing thefiles, and ordering cases to not be published. For national security reasons,of course. Not to mention their own personal liability when they act without jurisdiction. Next, we will consider a competent court, pleadings, standing,cause of action, subject matter jurisdiction, and motions, pre-trial remedy,and post-trial remedy.

Competent court

Competent court. Wisconsin statues 782.02 states that No person shall beentitled (sic) to [writ of habeas corpus] who shall have been committed or

detained by virtue of a final judgment or order of any competent tribunal ofcivil or criminal jurisdiction Does competent mean that the judge (who isNOT the court) was or was not knowledgeable and capable and knew what hewas doing? The judge may have been all of the above, yet the court itself notcompetent. Do NOT underestimate them; they KNOW what they are doing. Weare dealing with magic words (their terminology) and words of art with onemain goal: Deception. A competent court is one that is legally fit or qualified(more word art). But Professor Paul M. Bator let the cat out of the bag whenwriting about habeas corpus and the Judiciary Act of 1789: The 1789 Act leftnothing for review save competency - i.e., the subject matter and personal jurisdiction - of the convicting tribunal. (FN24) In other words, a competent

tribunal is a court that HAS both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Thejudge may look sternly at the target and state in his most authoritative voice,I HAVE jurisdiction - statute number such and such. True, the Constitution orthe statutes grant the courts either limited jurisdiction or general jurisdictionover a particular subject, but subject matter and personal jurisdiction must beobtained in each case on a case-by-case basis.

In the corporation named State of Wisconsin the Supreme Court has refinedthe concept even further by stating that the court may have subject matter

Page 9 of 22


10/22

jurisdiction pursuant to the constitution or statute, but lacks competency,which is the ability of the court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction,usually for failure to follow statutory requirements or procedures. (Not all ofthe other corporate states have fine-tuned their definitions, as has the BuckAct State of Wisconsin.) We will address subject matter jurisdiction because itcan never be waived, and can always be challenged, either directly orcollaterally. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the proceedings arevoid. Period.

Quasi-criminal proceedings

Quasi-criminal proceedings. As a prelude to the jurisdiction topic, it shouldbe noted that what is seen in the courts are not true criminal proceedings. Onewould be hard pressed to find a criminal complaint or information (historicallyused only for misdemeanors for a revenue-related issue) that had a mens rea(guilty mind), or an affidavit under penalty of perjury. What government actoris willing to sign a complaint under penalty of perjury? (Especially when they

know that they are engaged in deception or fraud.) But, if the charge againsthim was malicious, or grounded on perjury, whom could he sue for maliciousprosecution? or whom could he indict for perjury? The warrant forcommitment was illegal, for want of stating some good cause certain,supported by oath. (FN25) Maybe that is why the government went fromgood cause to valid reason regarding complaints.

By the pleadings

By the pleadings. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the court ona case-by-case basis based on the pleadings. It is only when a court

pronounces a judgment in a criminal case which is not authorized by lawsunder any circumstances in the particular case made by the p1eadings,whether the trial has proceeded regularly or otherwise, that such judgment canbe said to be void so as to justify the discharge of the defendant held incustody by such judgment. (FN26) Subject matter jurisdiction can be createdonly by pleading a cause of action. (FN27) We further find that there was nogenuine issue of fact but that (1) if the circuit court had jurisdiction, it wasproperly invoked by the petition and (2) any such jurisdiction was properlyperfected by a sufficient service of process on appellant. (FN28) A courts jurisdiction is generally invoked in a given case by a party filing a properpleading which alleges material facts demonstrating (1) the existence of a

judicial controversy (a right in dispute between two or more parties) within thesubject matter jurisdiction of the court and (2), when a binding judicialdetermination requires the court to act directly on an object (a res), that suchcourt has, or can acquire, jurisdiction over such res. (FN29) Subject matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action that is within thecourts original jurisdiction In the Fifth Circuit, subject matter determinationsmay be made using any one of the following bases: (1) the complaint alone;(2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record;or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the courts

Page 10 of 22


11/22

resolution of undisputed facts. (FN30) Jurisdiction to try and punish for crimecannot be acquired otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, and wherecomplaint, indictment, or information is invalid, the court is without jurisdictionto try and punish for crime. (FN31)

Cause of action

Cause of action. Article in Amendment the Sixth states that in all criminalprosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation. Wisconsin has similar language (the right to demand the natureand cause of the accusation). Of what does cause of action consist? Inevery cause of action there must exist a primary right, a corresponding primaryduty, and a failure to perform that duty. (FN32) There seems to be no logicalescape from the conclusion that the term cause of action must include thefacts showing (1) the plaintiffs right; (2) the defendants corresponding duty,and (3) the defendants breach of that duty, or, to put it more tersely, theplaintiffs right and its violation by the defendant. (FN33) Authors Grenig &

Fishbach state that a pleading for affirmative relief should: (1) Identify theplaintiff, indicating the legal status that imposes on the plaintiff the right that isat issue; (2) Identify the defendant, indicating the legal status that gives thedefendant the duty at issue; (3) Refer to the legal source of the claim,including, if applicable a statute citation; (4) Describe what the defendant didor did not do that violated the plaintiffs right or breached the defendantsduty; (5) Describe how the defendant injured the plaintiff; (6) A statement ofdamages suffered by the plaintiff. (FN34)

Standing

Standing. A party has standing ... if the party has sufficient interest in theoutcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of thatcontroversy. Norquist v. Zeuske, 211 Wis.2d 241, 247 (1997). Standing isdetermined by a two-step analysis. A court must determine (1) whether theplaintiff has suffered a threatened or actual injury, and (2) whether the interestasserted is recognized by law. (FN35)

Presumptions. Presumptions are the bedrock of governmental actionsagainst the people. It is presumed that the flesh and blood man standing infront of the judge is the defendant. It is presumed that said man is the allcapital letter artificial person or legal fiction, be it a cestui que trust, or acorporate sole, or other entity known as a strawman. Or perhaps it is

presumed that the man is a trustee of, or in privity with, the strawmandefendant. It is presumed that one is a taxpayer. It is presumed that the manhas a duty to the government or plaintiff agency. It is presumed that the manhas a liability or legal obligation to the plaintiff. It is presumed that anenforceable contract exists, that agency records are true and correct, and on,and on. Wis. stats. 903.01 states, in pertinent part: ... the presumptionimposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that thenonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence. In theMushel case the court stated: Two types of rebuttable presumptions exist.

Page 11 of 22


12/22

One type is invoked for reasons of public policy without regard for whetherthe presumptions bear any reasonable relationships to the actual factpresumed. The other type of presumption is based on facts that reasonablygive rise to an inference of the ultimate conclusion embodied in thepresumption. (FN36) If a target is in a position where he has to respond toan attack, he must identify the underlying presumptions. Then all of theincorrect presumptions have to be denied, or else they are deemed admitted.Likewise, Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading isrequired ... are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. (FRCPRule 8).

Summary thus far

Government de facto is operating in the form of public corporations assubunits of the lawful constitutionally created republican form of governmentguaranteed to the people by Article IV, Section 4 of the constitution for theUnited States of America. The constitutional republics (NOT democracies)

were created by the people in their sovereignty as a form of trust for theprotection of their rights. The corporate body is a trustee. Individualmembers are the cestui que trusts. It is like infant and prochein ami [nextfriend]. (FN37) The sovereign people delegated a specific and limited amountof their authority and power to said republics, retaining all else to themselves(Articles in Amendment the Ninth and Tenth). The government, as agents ofthe state, usurped authority and enacted ex post facto ACTS. These ACTSplaced the sovereign people under or beneath the authority of the government,thereby perverting the natural order of nature, refuting the Laws of Nature andNatures God, and enthroning the government as god. The result is the mostegregious form of IDOLATRY. Der Stadt ist Gott! Men have become

merchandise under this system. It is apparent that when an agency of thestate targets a man, the plaintiff agency will generally lack standing, and thepleadings will undoubtedly fail to evidence a cause of action sufficient to confersubject matter jurisdiction upon the court. The target is thereafter destroyedvia presumptions. Let us consider pre-trial remedy next, and follow-up withpost-trial remedy.

Pre-trial remedy

The majority of the courts today operate under what is called noticepleading. One does not find an affidavit under penalty of perjury signed by an

injured party, nor a bona fide indictment signed by twelve men and lawfullyread by the foreman of the grand jury in open court accusing the defendantto his face. Criminal complaints lack a mens rea and are signed by lawenforcement officers, usually based upon hearsay, and duly sworn on oath,which means NOTHING. What oath? It certainly isnt under penalty of perjury:they know better! The 1944 Adoption Notes to FRCrP Rule 12 state: Thisrule abolishes pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas in abatement, demurrers, specialpleas in bar, and motions to quash. A motion to dismiss or for otherappropriate relief is substituted for the purpose of raising all defenses and

Page 12 of 22


13/22

objections heretofore interposed in any of the foregoing modes. FRCrP 12governs Pleadings and Pretrial Motions. Rule 12(b) Pretrial motions, paragraph(1) states that Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion. It is a short Rule - read itall. In pertinent part for purposes here Rule 47(a) states A party applying tothe court for an order must do so by motion. Do not expect the court to dosomething without being moved, or asked to do something. Ask by way of amotion; move the court. If one files a common law plea or some otherdocument for the judges attention, the response may be: The document filedis not a proper pleading, motion or other legal document recognized by thecourt; therefore, this court will take no action on it. Or they may just ignore it,period, which is even worse as one is now totally in the dark as to the courtsintention. Rule 47(b) states that a motion must be made in writing exceptwhen made during a trial or hearing. FRCrP 12(b)(2) & (3) govern motionsbefore trial, especially those challenging jurisdiction and failure to state anoffense. Compare this to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 6(b): Everydefense, in law or fact ... shall be asserted in the responsive pleading ... exceptthat the following defenses may ... be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, ... (6) failure tostate a claim upon which relief can be granted, The notes under this rule(1946 Amendment) state that Rule l2(b)(6) is substantially the same as the olddemurrer for failure of a pleading to state a cause of action. The bottom line isthis: unchain the 800 pound gorilla, empty the dirty laundry bag, go for thejugular, and the cockroaches will most likely look for an easier target. Thelast thing they want is public exposure, and pretrial motions allows them tosave face and go after other merchandise.

When motioning the court, make sure of the facts, then make the motionverified or include an affidavit under penalty of perjury. Then motion theverified motion or the affidavit into evidence. An exhibit filed with the court

does no good unless it is received into evidence, and the way to get itreceived is by motion. Remember FRCrP 47 - the court will not (and probablycan not) do anything unless moved to do so. (Are they not bankrupt corporatecourts? What power would they have without being moved or motioned?).It is highly recommended that one obtain, and use, both publications - FederalCivil Judicial Procedure and Rules (FRCP) and Federal Criminal Code and Rules(FRCrP). One might make profitable use of rules governing motions to dismiss,motions to strike, motions for sanctions, motion for judgment on the pleadings,motions to take mandatory judicial notice, motions to issue subpoena ducestecum, motions to receive into evidence and rule upon, etc. One should obtainthe Rules for ones particular state, also. The books are available from West

Group.One might put to good use the rules on Judicial Notice. FRCP 201 governs Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. Rule 201(d) states: When mandatory. Acourt shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with thenecessary information. Wisconsin statutes chapter 902 governs Judicial Notice.Section 902.01 corresponds to FRCP 201. Section 902.02 is the Uniform JudicialNotice of Foreign Law Act. Section 902.02 states that Every court of this stateshall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state,territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. One might conditionally

Page 13 of 22


14/22

accept a want-to-be adversarys complaint, demand, entreaty, etc., and at thesame time present the party with a Request for Admissions. Admissions area very powerful tool. When the would-be adversary defaults, obtain an in paisdefault judgment, record it at the proper county office such as the Register ofDeeds under Miscellaneous or Affidavits, obtain a certified copy of therecorded document, then motion the court to take mandatory judicial notice ofones in pais judgment. The court is obligated to dismiss an action when thereis want of subject matter jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction when there is nocause of action or controversy. There may be other facts that a party mightwant the court to take judicial notice of. One might even motion the court torule that the court will rule in accordance with facts submitted for judicialnotice. One might want to preface their motions with the phrase in specialappearance for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of this court.

Verification and Affidavits

The importance of rebutting the dolus of government and presenting facts

by way of verified pleadings and affidavits is evidenced by an unpublished1988 Wisconsin decision. Government agencies are presumed to havecomplied with the law unless evidence is introduced to the contrary. Herro v.DNR, 227 N.W,2d 456, 468 (1975). [What did we say about PRESUMPTIONS?]Svee [the petitioner] has provided no affidavits or evidentiary facts to rebutthe presumption that the government followed all necessary procedures. Inresponse to a summary judgment motion, a party must not rest on hispleadings. If the party who opposes summary judgment does not respond byaffidavit, the trial court may grant summary judgment against the opposingparty. The purpose of the affidavit requirement is the presentation ofevidentiary facts. (FN38) See why it is so important to present verified

pleadings, motions, or affidavits supporting motions? Does one think that anygovernment agent would swear under penalty of perjury that a man had a dutyor liability to a de facto agency?

Post-trial remedy and habeas corpus

When referring to the Great Writ of personal liberty, the common law writof habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a researcher wrote this author that: THECOMMON LAW IS DEAD. If so, then the Great Writ has met the same fate asthe loss-leader in the department store display window or advertisement: Imsorry, we are temporarily out of stock. But we do have this slightly higher

priced model with bells and whistles that is ALMOST the exact same thing.Right. Whether or not the Great Writ is ever accessible as constitutionallyguaranteed is not definitively known by this author. It certainly is not timelyaccessible as was historically the case. What is known without any doubtwhatsoever is that the federal and state corporations have created legislativesubstitutes, or clones for the Great Writ, and then bastardized the clones.Notwithstanding the purpose of St. 1979, 974.06 relating to postconvictionrelief being to supplanthabeas corpus, the statute contemplates that in certaincircumstances, prisoners remedy may lie in an application for habeas corpus

Page 14 of 22


15/22

and not in a motion for postconviction relief. (FN39) [definition: supplant. Toreplace; to cause to be set aside or replaced by another. To take the place of(another), esp. by underhand means or by force: supersede]. Petition forhabeas corpus can be presented to Supreme Court only when thepostconviction relief remedy has been exhausted or is found to not beapplicable. (FN40) So the Wisconsin legislature supplanted the Great Writwith a legislative privilege. One of the most succinct pronouncements by theSupreme Court that clearly differentiates between a constitutionally-securedright and a legislative privilege is found in Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft: Becausedeportation proceedings are civil and not criminal, the only possible ground fora claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the current circumstances is thefifth amendments due process clause. (Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d805, 807 (8th Cir 2003)). But in order for such a claim to succeed, theObleshchenkos must have a protected liberty or property interest, whichcannot be found in a statutorily created relief that is subject to the unfettereddiscretion of a governmental authority. (FN41) Not only did State ofWisconsin supplant habeas corpus, but the courts do not even tell the

target that the statutory substitute is available. The very first thing the judgedoes after sentencing is order the bailiff to place notice of appeal forms in frontof the target and advise him that he has twenty days in which to file a noticeof appeal.

Why does the judge want one to file an appeal? And why is he in such ahurry to get the just butchered sacrifice to rush into filing an appeal? Therecord clearly shows that appeals are generally futile, with the realbeneficiaries of an appeal being the attorneys who collect the fees. Perhapsthe primary reason to rush the target into an appeal lies in the Escalonadecision. If the target can be rushed into an appeal without a clear mind andwithout having sufficient time to identify his constitutionallybased issues, he

is PRECLUDED from bringing up those issues in a motion for postconvictionrelief under the statutory habeas corpus, 974.06! A defendant is prohibitedfrom raising a constitutional issue on a motion under 974.06 if the claimCOULD have been raised in a PREVIOUSLY FILED 974.02 motion or directappeal. (FN42) Now the target is really toast! [Dont tell me that the judgesdo not know exactly what they are doing - why else do they go to judgestraining in places like Reno or Boca Raton?] Now the targets only remainingissue for habeas corpus relief is subject matter jurisdiction, and NO attorneywill touch that one! Habeas corpus is not to serve as appeal or writ of error.(FN43) Writ of habeas corpus is not intended to perform the office of writ oferror or appeal, and nothing will be investigated on habeas corpus except

jurisdictional defects or illegality by which is meant want of legal authority fordetention or imprisonment. (FN44) In Wisconsin it is virtually impossible toobtain a writ of habeas corpus without returning to the sentencing court forpostdisposition relief (defined in Wis. stats. 809.30(l)(c) & (d)), which is thestatutory habeas corpus pursuant to Wis. stats. 974.06. Section 974.06(8)reads A petition for writ of habeas corpus [the REAL ONE recognized in theconstitution, or the legislatively created one in Wis. Stats. Chapter 782?] or anaction seeking that remedy on behalf of a person who is authorized to apply forrelief by motion under this section shall not be entertained if it appears that the

Page 15 of 22


16/22

applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentencedthat person, or that the court has denied the person relief, unless it alsoappears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test theillegality of his or her detention. Requiring one to return to the convictingcourt for statutory habeas corpus is a de facto abolition or suspension of theGreat Writ. The function of habeas corpus is to provide PROMPT andEFFECTIVE judicial remedy to those persons illegally restrained of theirpersonal liberty. (FN45) The legislature may reasonably regulate procedurein respect to habeas corpus, but cannot restrict the commonlaw use of theremedy; that is preserved by the constitution. (FN46) Right. But, what if thelegislature has delusions of grandeur (like a god complex) or is itselfdeceived by special interests that want such legislation? Just becausesomeone has sworn an oath to support the Constitution does not mean thatthey ever even read it, much less comprehend it. Regardless of intent, theresult remains the same. Perhaps the legislators should be tried by their ownstatutory definition of criminal intent, Wis. stats. 939.23. What would be thecharge? How about treason to the Constitution?

Having a statute or rule that requires that the court that ordinarily wouldserve as the first step in the appellate process has jurisdiction to adjudicate thelegality of the prisoners custody only as a result of some action taken by thatcourt against the petitioner (such as incarcerating him) that was either whollybeyond [its] ... jurisdiction or so lawless that requiring the petitioner to returnto that forum to commence habeas corpus proceedings would only compoundthe illegality. This is an exceptional circumstance recognized by federalappellate judges and the Supreme Court, where it is not only within theauthority of the federal courts, but it is a duty for them to hear original habeascorpus petitions when the court of confinement and, apparently, court to whichpetition would have to be directed under the usual rule, previously had

incarcerated prisoner in regard to a matter wholly beyond or without the jurisdiction of that court. (FN47) And, There is no higher duty than tomaintain the writ of habeas corpus unimpaired. (FN48) The writ of habeascorpus ad subjiciendum is referred to as a high prerogative writ, the vitalpurposes of which are to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement, or todeliver someone from unlawful custody. (FN49) Notwithstanding suchunequivocal earlier pronouncements from the Supreme Court, both Congressand the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, have erected numerousimpediments to obtaining remedy via habeas corpus. These impediments havethe result, if not the intent, of suspending or abolishing habeas corpus. Someof the impediments include, and this list is not exhaustive, an exhaustion of

state remedies doctrine, procedural default doctrines, time barred rule,successive petitions rule, adequate and independent state procedural doctrine,cause and prejudice issue, presentation requirement, and meaningfulopportunity doctrine. Some people might describe these impediments asconstituting congressional or judicial despotism. Liebman and Hertz are morediscreet: The jurisprudential underpinnings of the independent and adequatestate procedural grounds doctrine are not entirely settled. Their two volumeset of books on habeas corpus is an indispensable guide. One of their goodsuggestions is if petitioner has a choice among a number of postconviction

Page 16 of 22


17/22

remedies, he is well-advised to 1) pursue at least one procedure that clearlyrequires that the constitutional merits of petitioners claim be adjudicated and2) avoid choosing a procedure that is extraordinary or discretionary. Also,make sure you have included every conceivable constitutional issue, especiallythose denial of due process claims, from the onset. Political prisoners wouldnaturally want the jurisdictional and constitutional issues addressed, which inWisconsin means postconviction (postdisposition) relief pursuant to thestatutory habeas corpus, and if unsuccessful, then habeas corpus adsubjiciendum (if it hasnt died of unnatural causes).

Postconviction /postdisposition relief; statutory habeas corpus

Wis. stats. 974.06(1) reads in pertinent part: After the time for appeal orpostconviction remedy under s.974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody undersentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that thesentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the constitution orlaws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such

sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized bylaw or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court whichimposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. (2) Amotion for such relief is a part of the original criminal action, is not a separateproceeding and may he made at any time. Judicial Council Note, 1981 reads:Sub(8) has been amended to reflect the fact that habeas corpus relief is nowavailable in an ordinary action in circuit court. In the case cites we find thefollowing: A petition under this section is limited to jurisdictional andconstitutional issues. It is not a substitute for a motion for a new trial. (FN50)This section is not a remedy for an ordinary rehearing or reconsideration ofsentencing on its merits, only constitutional and jurisdictional questions may be

raised. This section may be used to review sentences and convictionsregardless of the date of prosecution. (FN51)

Conclusion

To our fellow countrymen who believe that The Matrix was merelyfictional entertainment, and that we live under a Romans 13 government, thequestion is: Just what flavor WAS that blue pill? To everyone else, I hope thisprovides both hope and an avenue for remedy, as well as a basis for furtherresearch. Use the pretrial motions as if your life depended on them, because itprobably does, especially if you are a political target, a dissenter, or promote

natural healing or wellness. Check the statutes in your Buck Act state forstatutory habeas corpus for remedy if you have already been pilloried.Government operates based on presumptions. One type of presumption isinvoked for reasons of public policy without regard for whether thepresumptions bear any reasonable relationships to the actual fact presumed.Rest assured that these presumptions are quite detrimental to your privaterights, property, and liberty interests. The purpose of these presumptions is toallow the government (a parasite - think MATRIX) to extract the life force andproductivity of the man (a host - think MATRIX) in order to sustain itself.

Page 17 of 22


18/22

Government has usurped authority and assumed the character of being self-existent. The presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directedthe burden of proving the nonexistence of the fact. This burden may be met byevidence such as an affidavit, most often in the form of a negative averment,which shifts the burden of proof upon the party making a positive assertion oraverment. These negative averments may be, for example, that the record ofthe court does not evidence any document with affiants bona fide signaturethereon that would create a duty or liability of affiant to plaintiff; the record ofthe court does not evidence any document (think complaint or indictment orinformation) under penalty of perjury (or otherwise) evidencing a right of theplaintiff, an injury to the plaintiff, a threatened injury to the plaintiff, anenforceable contract with the plaintiff, a liability of the defendant, a duty of thedefendant to the plaintiff, the authority of the plaintiff to enact an ex post factolaw, the authority to do that which its creator or principal - the state - cannotdo, etc., etc. It is presumed that a duty or liability exists on the part of the man(either as defendant or trustee, etc. of or for the defendant) to thegovernment /corporation. However, the creator is not liable to the created

creature unless he obligates himself to be so. The creator, as sovereign, reignssupreme, and owes no duty to its creature. Hath not the potter power overthe clay? It is presumed that the plaintiff is the lawful government (de jure)rather than government de facto, which it is. It is presumed that the plaintiff isnot acting pursuant to an unconstitutional ex post facto bill of pains andpenalties (or bill of attainder if capital punishment is involved), but it is. And onand on. The list of presumptions is almost endless, but only the primary ormain presumptions need to be identified and rebutted. Try not to makepositive assertions unless they can be substantiated with evidence, becausethe burden of proof is upon the party making the positive claim. Why elsewould government operate by assumption and presumption? - they do not,

and probably can not prove a claim! If their presumptions are exposed andrebutted, it becomes obvious that the plaintiff has neither cause of action norstanding to bring a railing accusation against the man. The court is in want of(lacks) jurisdiction, the proceedings are (were) void, a mere nullity, and if theperson sitting in the court, i.e., the presiding officer often mistakenly referredto as judge, proceeds and injures the man, he has absolutely no immunity.And he knows it. One might even want to ask him that, just in case it slips hismind. Get the judge to admit, on the record, that he has an oath to support theConstitution of these United States pursuant to Article 6, sections 2 and 3, andthen accept his covenant (thats what his oath is) as a binding contract that hewill protect your constitutionally-secured private, substantive, and common

rights. Better yet, file a motion with the court to claim and exercise yourconstitutionally secured rights and require the presiding judge to rule on themotion and all public officers of the court to uphold said rights. If the judge isfoolish enough to deny the motion, he has perjured his oath and committedinsurrection and sedition to the Constitution. You must tell him that, as well asthe fact that he has vacated his office pursuant to the self-executing clausesthree and four of the 14th Amendment, forfeits his salary, pension, perks, etcetera, is disqualified, and orderhim to step down, remove himself from thebench. Remember, just his sitting there is a conflict of interest between

Page 18 of 22


19/22

safeguarding your secured rights and his being a hireling for the corporationwho is protecting the interests of the creditors, the international bankers. He issupposed to be our servant, not our master. If he perjures his oath andcontinues the proceeding and rules against you, file an objection to his rulingand demand a new hearing with a new presiding officer. File a criminalcomplaint and seek to have him impeached. So put on your helmet andbreastplate, gird your loins with truth, pick up your shield and sword, and be ofgood courage. The world needs a few more Davids and a few less Goliaths. Isthere not a cause?

DISCLAIMER

This treatise is not legal advice, nor should it be construed as legal advice.Consider it the ramblings of a madman if you so desire, as the author does notcare what mere mortals think of him. Any person who wants or needs legaladvice might consider consulting with Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, L.L.P., orany other competent member of one of the Inns of Court.

Addendum Regarding mens rea

It is no longer necessary to intend to commit a crime or knowingly commit acrime or have what has for centuries been called a guilty mind (mens rea), sincecrime now is whatever the government SAYS it is. Just committing an act, ANYACT, can now be defined as a crime:

1) State v. Danforth, 371 N.W.2d 411, 125 Wis.2d 293 (1985). Intent isan element of a crime only if it is required by statute.

2) Wis. stats. 939.03 Jurisdiction of state over crime.(1) A person is subject to prosecution and punishment under the law of this

state if any of the following applies:(a) The person commits a crime, any of the constituent elements of which

takes place in this state.

3) State v. Anderson, 695 N.W2d 731, 280 Wis.2d 104 (2005). Therefore,we conclude that the phrase constituent elements in 939.03(l)(a) refers tothe elements of the underlying offense that the state must prove beyond areasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. A constituent element of anoffense may he either an actus reus element or a mens rea element. Intent to

kill is a constituent element of first-degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin.Thus, intent to kill is a constituent element for purposes of 939.03(l)(a).

Postscript 2011:

In the 6 years or so since the above treatise was written (circa 2005) theattorneys and judges have become totally lawless, and will lie, cheat, steal, andeven commit murder to protect their criminal enterprise.

Page 19 of 22


20/22

Postscript 2012:

This was pre-National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known asthe "Indefinite Detention Act".

Page 20 of 22


21/22

Footnotes:

1) Wynhammer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378.2) Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).3) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419 (1793).4) The American People - A History, vol.1, p. 211, Harlan Davidson, Inc.

(1981).5) Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892).6) T.M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p.47 note. Citing: The People v.

Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 107 (1871).7) State v. Dammann, 201 Wis. 84, 228 N.W. 593 (1930); State v. Schinz,

194 Wis. 397, 216 N.W. 509 (1927).8) State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, 160 Wis. 21, 151 N.W. 331 (1915).9) State v. Schinz, 194 Wis. 397, 216 N.W. 509 (1927).10) Heilman Brewing Co., Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, LaCrosse County, 105

Wis.2d 152, 312 N.W.2d 875 (App. 1981).11) U.S. v. Tarlowski, 305 F.Supp 112 D.C.N.Y. (1969) (a good case

study).12) State v. City of Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612, 605 N.W.2d 526 (2000).

13) Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 290-291, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) (agood case study).14) State v. Tenant, 14 S.E. 387, 388, 110 N.C. 609 (1892) (authorities

cited).15) Story, Justice, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters (36

U.S.) 420, 643.16) Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).17) 4 U.S.C. l05-1lO, July 30, 1947. ch. 389, 61 stat. 644.18) 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A).19) Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866).20) State ex rel. Keefe v. Schmiege, 251 Wis. 79, 28 N.W.2d 345 (1947).21) State v. Hamley, 137 Wis. 458, 119 N.W. 114, 115 (1909) (citing Koch

v. State, infra).

22) Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 N.W. 531, 533 (1906).23) Koch, supra p. 532, citing State ex rel. Mixer v. Supervisors, 26 Mich.422.

24) Liebman, James S. and Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practiceand Procedure, (1994), vol. 1, p.29, citing Bator, Paul M., Finality inCriminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 HARV.L. REV. 441 (1963), at 471-474.

25) Ex parte Burford, 7 U.S. 448 (1806).26) State v. Sloan, 65 Wis. 647, 27 N.W. 616 (1886); see also: People v.

Liscomb, 60 N.Y. 571, 590, 591, 604; In re Perry 30 Wis. 268; In reCrandall, 34 Wis. 177; In re Semler, 41 Wis. 517; Hanser v. State, 33Wis. 678; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall 163; Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal 628.

27) Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 53 F.3d 690 (1995).

28) F.B. v. State, 474 So.2d 1221.29) Florida Power & Light v. Canal Authority, 423 So.2d 421 (Fla 5th DCA1982), rev denied 434 So.2d 887.

30) Maxwell v. Kight, 974 F.Supp 899, E.D. Tex (1996).31) Ex parte Carlson, 176 Wis. 538, 186 N.W. 722 (1922).32) McArthur, infra, citing S.B.C.P. Co. v. Cribb Co., 105 Wis. 443.33) McArthur v. Moffett, 143 Wis. 564, 128 N.W. 445 (1910).34) Grenig & Fishbach, Wisconsin Practice, vol. 4, Civil Procedure Forms, p.

19.35) State v. City of Oak Creek, supra.36) Mushel v. Town of Moliter, 123 Wis.2d 136, 141 (App. 1985).


22/22

37) Bank of U.S. v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. 61 (1809).38) Chan v. Svee, 145 Wis.2d 897, 428 N.W.2d 562 (Unpublished, 1988).

For two examples of affidavits in the pleadings which invoked subjectmatter jurisdiction see In re Kaine, 55 U.S. 103 (1852), and State v.Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N.W. 1046 (1901).

39) State v. Johnson, 101 Wis.2d 698, 305 N.W.2d 188 (App. 1981).40) Peterson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 370, 195 N.W.2d 837 (1972).41) Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970 (2004)

42) State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 1994).43) State ex rel. Simos v. Burke, 41 Wis.2d 130, 163 N.W.2d 177 (1968).44) Larson v. State ex rel. Bennet. 221 Wis. l88, 266 N.W. 170 1936).45) State ex rel. Wohlfahrt v. Bodette, 95 Wis.2d 130 (1980).46) Servonitz v. State, 133 Wis. 231 (1907).47) Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 653 (1884).48) Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747.49) 39 American Jurisprudence 2nd, sec. 1.50) Vara v. State, 56 Wis.2d 390, 202 N.W.2d 10 (1972).51) State ex rel. Warren v. County Court, 54 Wis.2d 613, 197 N.W.2d 1

(1972).

slaves and souls of men - crimes against the people by the ruling elite

Documents