DISCLAIMER; Sharon4USA Not a Liar or Lawyer must transpose Blogs Below 4 Public
Education,Expose also http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
Loyal Trump Supporter,Exposing BAD LAWYERS AND BAD JUDGES COMPLICIT
DFL/ANTIFA
"People of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Great Republic, and GOD-Given Right!
And pray to GOD, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/hud-sued-for-records-of-obama-administration-involvement-in-controversial-st-paul-mn-housing-discrimination-case/
udicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.
 -- Home -- |
This Webpage is on the topic of LAND Conveyances, Land Titles, Land Patents, Land Grants, and Deeds. It may encompass Zoning, Eminent Domain and other issues, but these all are based upon the laws in force at the time the land was granted. One must consider: [A] Who originally Possessed Title to the Land Conveyed from Public Domain into Private Hands [B] The laws in force when the land was granted [C] The laws stipulated in each State's Enabling Acts, regulating what could or could not be done [D] The Original Contract, and it's Reservations and Exceptions, if any, specifically stipulated on the original Patent or Grant that conveyed the land… These are all parts of the Governing Contract, having continuing obligations, that still govern the land. (Fletcher v. Peck) START HERE to View a Historical Overview of  |
"People of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Great Republic, and GOD-Given Right!
And pray to GOD, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case. Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair ...
Thomas Fraser, a partner at the Minneapolis law firm Fredrickson & Bryon, P.A. and an old
colleague. Fraser put Perez in touch with his law partner David Lillehaug, who was defending
the City of St. Paul in the Newell False Claims Act litigation.
On the morning of November 23, 2011, Perez had a telephone conversation with
Lillehaug and Fraser. During this conversation, Perez explained the importance of disparate
impact theory, calling it the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement,58 and his concerns about the
Magner appeal. Their accounts of the conversation differed as to when and who first raised the
prospect that the City would withdraw Magner if the Department declined to intervene in
Newell. Lillehaug told the Committees that he told Perez that he should know that the City was
potentially adverse to the United States in a separate False Claims Act case.59
Lillehaug further
told the Committees that at a subsequent meeting, approximately one week later on November
29, Perez told Lillehaug that he had looked into Newell and he had a “potential solution.”60
According to Perez, however, during the initial telephone call on November 23, Lillehaug
actually linked the two cases and in fact suggested that if the United States would decline to
intervene in Newell, the City would withdraw the Magner case.61
Both parties agreed that Perez
indicated he would look into the Newell case, and they would meet approximately one week later
on November 29.
Following his conversation with Lillehaug and Fraser, Perez immediately reached out to
HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt, HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky, and thenAssistant Attorney General Tony West. During a telephone conversation with Kanovsky, Perez
told her that he had discussions with the City about Magner and asked her to reconsider HUD’s
support for the Newell case.
62
On November 29, 2011 – only seven weeks after he signaled
HUD’s support for intervention and less than one week after Perez’s initial telephone call with
Lillehaug – HUD Associate General Counsel Dane Narode informed career Civil Fraud Section
attorneys that HUD had reconsidered its position in Newell.
63
On December 1, Narode
memorialized the change in an email to the line attorney.64
On December 13, 2011, several City officials – including Mayor Coleman and City
Attorney Sara Grewing, as well as Lillehaug – traveled to Washington, D.C., for meetings with https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/hud-sued-for-records-of-obama-administration-involvement-in-controversial-st-paul-mn-housing-discrimination-case/
udicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.
| In 1950, the 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus, any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people. “It is a clearly established principle of law that an attorney must represent a corporation, it being incorporeal and a creature of the law. An attorney representing an artificial entity must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered to act on the principal’s behalf. ” See, Foreign Agents Registration Act” (22 USC § 612 et seq.); Victor Rabinowitz et. at. v. Robert F. Kennedy,376 US 605. “Failure to file the "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC §§ 219, 951. The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious. A Lawyer can not make a claim to your rights, Only you can. Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee's mind blowing assertion in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947) U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania - 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947) February 26, 1947 , Congress cannot by legislation enlarge the federal jurisdiction, and it cannot be enlarged under the treaty making power.” Mayor, Alderman and Inhabitants of City of New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S. 662, 10 Pet. 662, 9 L.Ed. 573 (1836). And; 18 U.S. Code § 661 - Within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any personal property of another shall be punished as follows: If the property taken is of a value exceeding $1,000, or is taken from the person of another, by a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both; in all other cases, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment not more than one year, or both. 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such "COUNTERFEIT" or spurious article............. et seq. 5 CFR 2635.101 - Basic obligation of public service. § 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.Agents of foreign principals Any agent of a person described in section 611(b)(2) of this title or an entity described in section 611(b)(3) of this title if the agent has engaged in lobbying activities and has registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] in connection with the agent’s representation of such person or entity. (June 8, 1938, ch. 327, § 3, 52 Stat. 632; Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 521, § 2, 53 Stat. 1245; Apr. 29, 1942, ch. 263, § 1, 56 Stat. 254; Pub. L. 87–366, § 2, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 784; Pub. L. 89–486, § 3, July 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 246; Pub. L. 104–65, § 9(2), (3), Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 105–166, § 5, Apr. 6, 1998, 112 Stat. 39.) All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals - see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 information how to file and education Whereas : " Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 " Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 - I ask, have you registered as a foreign agent? Read it, Bar Members, and weep. The Role of Counselors-at—Law and The [unincorporated] Delaware Statutory Trusts Remember when you were told you that you "had to have a Social Security Number"? Sometimes, that is true, but only if you are applying for employment with the federal government. For of course, you would need it to enroll in their retirement and employee benefits program....but you don’t have to have one otherwise. It is the same scenario with the Bar Associations telling new JD graduates that they have to have a Bar Card....again, that is true, if they want to be a prosecutor for the federal government corporations and their "federated state of state franchises" and become an employee of the court…………but not otherwise. The fact is that there is no requirement for anyone to be a Bar Association Member to engage in the profession of law in this country and there never have been. I challenge anyone anywhere to prove that there is any general requirement to be a Bar Member, in order to use the court facilities, present cases, or offer effective counsel to others with or without pay. The fact is that the perpetuation of these "mandatory" Social Security enrollment and Bar Association Membership half-truths are undertaken in self-interest by undeclared foreign interests. Research the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) if you have doubts and also see Trinsey v. Pagliaro and the cases that Robert F. Kennedy fought pertaining to these very issues. Happily, quite a number of some of the best minds working in the profession of law today have awakened to this realization and they are turning in their Bar cards and leaving the association to stew in its own juice. This was precipitated as a direct result of Bar Associations kicking members out for committing the sin of actually defending and protecting their clients' best interest, as well as, a result of lawyers waking up and going, "OMG!" -- and exiting as fast as their feet would get them out the door. The lawyers among us are waking up along with the rest of the populace and realizing that they have been sold a total bill of goods, and don’t have to spend their lives being professional “liars”. The fact is, lawyers can function either as attorneys-at-law or as counselors-at-law. These are "capacities" within the profession in which a lawyer can choose to work, [just as you can choose to work in the capacity of a hotel manager or a hotel bartender and still be working in a hotel]. Attorneys join the Bar to gain group insurance and bonding benefits. [Also so their buddies in the fraternity will gang up on any outsiders]. Counselors pay their own insurance and bonds and otherwise don't have any reason to join the Bar, because they aren't involved in the disposition of public property or addressing issues related to public employees-- that is, they aren't working in administrative capacities as members of an administrative court. Attorneys-at-law traditionally function as property managers involved in the administration of civil cases in Article I courts dealing with in-house legislative "laws" and statutes. This is why those working in administrative courts supported by the United States Districts, the Territorial States of States, and the Municipal STATES OF STATES are all required to be "attorneys" and Bar Members by their employers. Attorneys work in administrative tribunals. Not judicial courts. This fact accounts for these frank admissions about the nature of the federal territorial and municipal courts and their various state-of-state franchises operating on our shores: "There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789, Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statues and Codes. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators." FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178. "Courts are Administrative Tribunals" Clearfield Trust, et al v. United States 318 U.S. 363 (1943). Counselors-at-law traditionally function in judicial court capacities and have the duty to protect and defend their living clientele, unlike their attorney-at-law brethren who are limited to dealing with public property and public employees and incorporated "things", either belonging to or working for or working with the government corporations. Naturally, when a counselor-at-law appears a number of things are different about the nature and tenor of the proceedings: A counselor-at-law is not required to enter an appearance prior to a court date and may simply walk in with a brief explanation to the judge that he or she is working in the capacity of a counselor-at-law and providing effective assistance to the Plaintiff or Defendant. Often, to further clarify things, the judge will ask if the counselor-at-law is a member of the Bar Association…….If not, the proper response is simply, "I don't have a card (or more properly, a "ticket") with the Bar." This is referring obliquely to the Bid Bond that the Bar Associations post in maritime cases involving incorporated entities, thus, further signaling to the judge that the Plaintiff or Defendant is appearing in the capacity of a living man or woman and that the court has to shift gears from international sea jurisdiction to international land jurisdiction. The first difference for the court's notice when a counselor-at-law appears is the explicit revelation of the capacity in which the Plaintiff/Defendant is operating. If he or she is operating in their actual, living capacity as a man or woman standing on the land jurisdiction of the United States, they are owed all their constitutional rights and guarantees including a counselor-at-law who can advise them but not "represent" them, because they are presumed to be free people above the age of twenty-one and competent to make their own decisions. That's why they have hired a counselor-at-law instead of an attorney. That is also why they are forcing the court to engage them as people under the Public Law of the United States or the General Session Law of the State instead of as "things" subject to the Private Administrative Law of any foreign territorial or municipal corporation or state of state or incorporated county franchise tribunal. Attorneys represent "things" --- corporate franchises, wards of the state, bankrupt businesses, murdered victims of crime, mentally incompetent people, --all things that cannot "stand for" or answer for themselves. That is why they have to be "re-presented" by a substitute acting "for" them. Counselors-at-law assist in presenting cases for living people. Notice the difference: attorneys "represent" and administer the affairs of their clients often without regard for or even consulting with their clients. For example, they cut plea-bargains and waive rights and sell off property in whatever way best benefits the court. This is because they work for the court and the client is at best considered a public trust subject to the court's administration. [And this is true whether you pay the traitor or not]. Notice that counselors-at-law "present" cases with and for their patrons, who administer their own affairs and make their own decisions throughout the proceedings, retain all their rights and prerogatives and do not willingly subject themselves to the court's administration. Now, obviously, from the court's standpoint, it is very convenient to be able to dictate whatever happens in each and every case, so as to "administer" it as best suits the "public good" and the "good of the court" ---and the court's corporate employers, of course, without regard for any such niceties as equity owed to living people, or any rights owed to living people. Just as obviously, it is a death knell to justice and an end to all freedom for living people to allow this state of affairs to go on. When even the lawyers among us are so dumbed down and ignorant that they think the Bar Association has the power to obstruct them from pursuing their vocation, it's time to outlaw the Bar Associations, because they are clearly over-stepping any rational function or status that they have. U.S. District, State of State and STATE OF STATE courts can demand whatever credentials they wish from people that they hire to represent their interests, just as other private and public interests can demand whatever credentials they desire from their employees. If a "State of State" Legislature can pass a statutory "law" saying that all its court officials have to be Bar Association Members, our State Legislatures can just as easily pass a General Session law saying that none of our courts will allow Bar Association Members. Take Note: State of Wyoming is a Territorial Franchise Court. STATE OF WYOMING is a Municipal Franchise Court…………. Both of these are foreign corporation franchises like the local Target store. They are limited to running administrative tribunals and they can require all the people in their "court system" to be Bar Association members until the cows come home, because these are private administrative tribunals. But the Wyoming State Court belongs to the people of Wyoming and they run judicial courts of record that are superior to any private administrative tribunals and they can mandate that no Bar Association members are allowed to practice law in their venue ---thereby providing plenty of work for counselors-at-law. That this great country and its people have been hoodwinked and pulled off course for so long by selfish private interests is an immense and horrifying Breach of Trust, but it is one that is being swiftly rectified, when we change/correct our own presumed political status and consequently change the "presumed" capacity in which we choose to act in court; while changing the capacity in which lawyers act. To all former Bar Attorneys and those who are [currently] thinking seriously of tearing up their [fraud] cards? It is time to face the truth and set yourselves free of the imaginary shackles that the Bar Associations have placed on you. You can enter any court in this country in the capacity of a Counselor-at-Law and there is nothing any of the courts can say except, "Yes, of course...." The truth is, Juris = law and diction = words4 PDF's you may want to look at: Smith Act 1940 81st Congress Lawyer Guild 1950 Smith Act & Supreme Court 1952 Communist Control Act of 1954 |
No comments:
Post a Comment