JJ reported on the conviction of a Sovereign Citizen for traffic offenses in Madison a few weeks ago. Although there were some nuggets of humor in the court file, it is a bit much to expect readers to wade through over 70 pages. Fortunately, the Kingfish is going to save you such trouble and provide the humorous nuggets in small bites. Enjoy this declaration of "12 Presumptions of Law",Thomas Barham filed with the Court.
IN MADISON MUNICIPAL COURT OF MADISON MISSISSIPPI THOMAS BRETT BARHAM PLAINTIFF CASE NUMBER: 2025051064 VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CITY OF MADISON, CIVIL OFFICER COLE A MCGINNIS, DOES I-V (1-5), DEFENDANTS LEGAL AND LAWFUL JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL NOTICE 12 PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW
This document is to be entered into the Court record and the Public record and the Private record immediately and then entered into evidence at the earliest possible opportunity. Judges can either act administratively or judicially. It is a maxim of law; "It matters not what is known to the judge, if it is not known to him judicially." 3 Buls. 115 Non refert quid notum sit judice si notum non sit in forma judici.
I, Thomas-Brett: Barham hereby put all People and persons on legal and lawful NOTICE that I hereby void and terminate all past and present powers of attorney. According to Corpus Juris Secundum Chapter 7 Attorney and Client Section §76, "The attorney's duty to the court is superior to the attorney's duty to a client since the private duty must yield to the public duty. Attorneys must maintain and conduct themselves in ways that do not impede the work of the courts." With that in mind, I will hold court in Persona Propria Sui Juris and I let all involved in this controversy know that I do not consent to the proceedings.
"DISCLAIMER: I have knowledge of copyright laws and have observed the copyright symbol(s) contained within what appears to be all Books, Codes, References, Reporters, and the like, dealing with law, and such a symbol's use and employment in providing notice that the contents therein are the private property of the copyright owner, and I freely admit that I have neither grant, franchise, license, nor letter-patent to use said contents, nor practice the same. Please be advised that all cites thereto, and excerpts therefrom, are utilized and employed herein merely for educational and communicational purposes, to display from where my present understanding inheres from, and, due to the depth of the matter with which this controversy attempts to cover." This is called Fair Use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody which doesn't infringe on copyright under 17 U.S.C.A. INCLUSIVE."
Any claim of "immunity" which government agents could possibly make is a fraud, because if valid, it would prevent removal from office for crimes against the people, which removal is authorized or even mandated under the U.S. Constitution (Et al) Article 2, Section 4, as well as 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the Mississippi Constitution (Et al); ARTICLE 4 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, QUALIFICATIONS AND PRIVILEGES OF LEGISLATORS, SECTION 50. Impeachment grounds.
Due to this truth, the Uniform Commercial Code 3-402 Signature by representative is in violation of federal laws, state and federal constitutions and therefore void and a nullity. You no longer have plausible deniability. You have been NOTICED. (KF: Noticed!)
If at any time in the past I inadvertently waived my rights or lessened my status through contract, forgive me. No man or woman would knowingly and intelligently with forethought waive his or her rights. Such agreement would be an unconscionable contract or clause in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code 2-302. Upon that truth I hereby expressly reserve my rights in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 Express reservation of rights.
This is a self-executing contract. Notice to the principal is notice to the agent, notice to the agent is notice to the principal. You are hereby bound to inform all of your colleagues, superiors and subordinates involved in this matter and which may have future interactions with my person or me. If there is something you do not understand clearly, it is incumbent upon you to summon a superior officer, special prosecutor, federal judge or other competent legal counsel to immediately explain the significance of this instrument as per your duties and obligations in respect to this public formal instrument.
You have 3, (three) days from the receipt of this AFFIDAVIT to respond on a point-by-point basis, via sworn Affidavit, under full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response and a complete nullity. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request such in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed Nil Dicit Tacit Acquiescence and constitutes agreement with the facts stated within this AFFIDAVIT and as an acceptance of liability. I am a non-combatant and a man of peace.
In accordance with PLATSKY v. C.I.A. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Nov 24, 1991, 1953 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991). Reversing district court for dismissing pro se complaint for lack of standing without explaining formalities of pleading and affording pro se plaintiff an opportunity to replead. Therefore the judge cannot merely dismiss my paperwork; they must instruct me as to the deficiencies and allow me time so I may correct them.
The Uniform Commercial Code 3-402 is void. Article 2 Section 4 of the constitution for the United States authorizes that all government Civil Officers be removed from office for crimes against the people. The UCC and the constitution are in conflict and therefore the UCC, which is not law, is void because of the Supremacy Clause which states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The unconstitutional "magic signature" of U.C.C. 3-402 does not protect Judges and clerks.
Defendant demands a Republican form of government in accordance with Article IV (4, FOUR), Section 4 (IV, FOUR) of the U.S. Constitution. If you are operating under any presumptions of doctrines such as; Abstention Doctrines; Judicial Privilege Doctrine; The Maternity Act of 1917; The Sheppart-Towner Maternity Act; Parens Patriae Doctrine; Trading With The Enemy Act; Vacation at Sea; On Vacation; On Vacay; Younger Doctrine; or any other such doctrines or presumptions, I hereby demand you dismiss all charges with prejudice and without recourse. I demand an Article III (THREE) Court of Common Law. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Executive Order 14291 which demands courts act constitutionally and no longer are allowed to act administratively. (KF: Dunno what this has to do with a traffic ticket but ok)
Section 30 of the Judiciary Act demands that all orders be be signed by a judge of the court and it must specifically name the court which has the common law and equity power. The power is not conferred to the judges. The Constitution Article III Court designates that; "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Judges do not have power, only the court has the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
On and for the record, I object to the proceedings for the sound (intelligent, reasonable) reason that by using "Legalease" and definitions for from Black's Law Dictionaries, and Bouvier's Dictionaries, and misrepresenting them as "Common Parlance" also known as "The Queen's English" and/or the "English Language," you and each of you are in violation of the Plain Language Act and I therefore demand the case be set off, settled and closed in favor of me and my person for violations of due process, fraud and other legal and lawful issues, which were preventable.
As previously mentioned I am a non-combatant and a man of good will. The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 applies to persons who have dual loyalties and are citizens of 2 countries. I am one of the people domiciling within the territorial boundaries of Mississippi. I am loyal to the country of my birth. Furthermore, the Trading With the Enemy Act is void in accordance with Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): wherein it was decided that only the legislature may write laws and all presidential Acts are thereby void. Norton also decided "An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, and it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." For those reasons I cannot be considered an enemy of the state of my birth.
The term Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the country or homeland." Under parens patriae, a state or court has a paternal and protective role over its citizens or others subject to its jurisdiction. I again challenge that the Parens Patriae Doctrine is not valid, not legal and not lawful, and that the court cannot prove all 3 (valid, legal and lawful) in a written statement, subscribed and sworn or affirmed and attested under their full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury.
Men have been enlisted into selective services at the age of majority. That does not give authority to judges to act upon that enlistment as a surrendering of rights and/or as a reason for loss of status. It presumes nothing other than that the people involved are honorable men who are willing to put their lives on the line in times of war and national emergency.
According to Canon Law, 32.28, A Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. I hereby challenge the presumptions of the BAR guild, so they do not and will not furthermore, stand as truth in commerce for all Civil Officers involved in this matter and which may be involved in future interactions with me or my person.
Public Record. Because I am not a private Guild member, I hereby decree that this is a matter to be placed on the public record now and remain on the public record forevermore. Any and all government Civil Officers (a.k.a. agents a.k.a. judges a.k.a. magistrates a.k.a. referees a.k.a. justices of the peace), and any such title, are hereby bound to only obey their oath in accordance with Title 5 Section 3331 USCA and either recuse themselves or denounce their secret oath or oaths to any organization(s) which were made previous to their public oath.
This matter is not to be held (convened) under the private BAR guild rules, but rather in a court of Trust Law, Common Law and Maritime Law under the rules of the United States Code Annotated (USCA or A.Κ.Α. Title) specifically, but not limited to Title 5 and Title 7 and Title 8 and Title 9 and Title 12 and Title 15 and Title 18 and Title 31 and Title 42. Also under the rules of the Canons of Law, also under the rules of Maxims of Law (as listed in The Lawful Path.com website) and finally under the state or federal rules of Civil Rules of Civil Procedure, whichever of the 2 choices (state or federal) is appropriate. You and each of you are hereby bound to your public oath to serve the public.
Regarding Public Record. I have recorded my paperwork with the county recorder and a notary public. Any matter brought before a lower court is a matter for the public record, despite the fact it is presumed by the members of the BAR guild that the matter is a private BAR guild business matter and I hereby openly rebuke and reject secrecy as well as holding of a closed meeting (for BAR guild members only) by stating clearly that this controversy is on and is to remain on the public record.
For our purposes here, all members of the private BAR guild who have sworn a solemn and secret absolute oath to the guild, then act as public agents of the government or public officials by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private superior oath to the guild and unless openly rebuked and rejected the claim stands that these private BAR guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under the public oath. I do here and now administer that all agents involved in this matter who wish to maintain their secret absolute oath may do so, however, if they chose to do so they must recuse themselves from this controversy and replace their office with an officer who is willing to rebuke his secret absolute oath and proceed only as a public officer/ public agent with his only allegiance to remain as a public official (officer or agent). By remaining involved in this controversy, such will be deemed prima facie evidence that all agents amd Civil Officers and officials and all such titles proceeding in this controversy have agreed to these terms and will act and operate only in their capacity as a public agent, officer, official for the remainder of these proceedings and face potential criminal and civil liabilities for violating the public trust (faith). To be clear judicial (judges, magistrates, etc.) and/or clerical immunity (clerks at every level and subdivision) is hereby void if you violate your oath of office and/or Mississippi Const. and/ or U.S. Const..[cite: 8]
Public Oath. Is that all members of the private BAR guild acting in the capacity of public officials who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore are hereby bound to serve honestly, impartially and fairly as dictated by their oath. If any officer of the government has a conflict of interest due to a private oath, they must here and now recuse themselves from this controversy as I hereby decree you cannot stand under the public oath and the secret superior oath.[cite: 8]
Key members of the private BAR guild in the capacity of public officials acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates and any such titles, who have sworn a solemn public oath in[cite: 8] good faith are hereby not immune from personal claims of injury and liability for reasons covered in previous points of this instrument (document).[cite: 9]
By custom, a summons unrebutted stands and therefore, one who attends court is presumed to accept the position and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is by invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and the position as the accused and the existence of guilt stands. I hereby rebut this presumption of guilt by appearance and to show cause by special appearance, not general appearance.[cite: 9]
By custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore, one who attends court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by the custodians. This includes the dead legal fiction non-human person that corporate governments' rules and regulations are written for. Custodians may only lawfully hold custody or property and things and not flesh and blood, soul possessing beings. I hereby openly challenge by rejection of summons and/or at the court, the presumption stands that you are a thing and property, and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by the custodians.[cite: 9]
The presumption is that you may be listed as a resident, therefore a ward of a local government area and possibly have listed on your passport the letter "p" as you are a pauper and therefore under the under the guardian powers of the government and its' agents as the court of guardians. I hereby openly challenge this presumption because I am both a general guardian and an executor of the trust held before the court. The court has failed to prove I am by default a pauper and/or a lunatic and therefore I may chose to disregard the rules of the clerk of guardians or the clerk of[cite: 9] magistrates' court and all my paperwork must be accepted into the court record without fines or fees to me or my person in accordance with New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Commissioner of Taxes for City and County of New York, 2 Black 620 (1863) Please take mandatory notice (Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)) that the Plaintiff has a lawful right to proceed without cost, based upon the following law: The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to relief is entitled to free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in the Union (2 Black 620, see also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35). Plaintiff should not be charged fees, or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief (Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43).[cite: 10]
Members of the private BAR guild presume I accept the office of trustee as a public servant and government employee just by attending a court as such, courts are always for public trustees, by the rules of the guild and the Roman system, unless this presumption is openly challenged the say you are merely visiting. I am here by special divine appearance, to clear up the matter and I am not a government employee or public trustee in this instance.[cite: 10]
The judge and/or clerk of the court is not the executor in this matter and the prosecutor is not the beneficiary. For this matter at hand the private BAR guild appoints the judge/ clerk of the court as the magistrate in the capacity of executor while the prosecutor acts in the capacity of beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. I am the only authorized representative of the trust in the role of beneficiary and administrator, guardian and/ or general executor in the[cite: 10] matter of trust before the court. For our purposes here I suggest you refer to the U.S. Supreme Court case Luther versus Borden cited at 48 US 1 12 Led 581 (1849) in which it was decided in pertinent part: "governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. Since this matter concerns my trust I hereby reject any claim that any agency or agents of government have any authority over the trust involved in this matter. The trust is in my name so unless here and now the judge, clerk or prosecutor can produce such documentation that I signed away my rights to the trust, knowingly and willingly, after having been explained the depth and possible repercussions of such wavier, the corporate agents have no CLAIM on the trust and therefore no CLAIM over me or my person.[cite: 11]
Executor De San Tort (defined as: A person who without legal authority assumes control of a decedent's property as if he were executor.). I choose to assert my rights as executor and beneficiary of the trust as well as my body, mind and eternal soul so it is clear to all who witness this action that I am clearly not an Executor De San Tort. With the aforementioned being accepted as truth in law I respectfully ask the judge if he intends to commit fraud and act as the Executor De San Tort? On the condition he agrees not to commit such fraud, I accept his oath and indemnify him for any actions I demand he obey.[cite: 11]
Furthermore, I challenge the CLAIMS of psychiatry and psychology as being anything other than a pseudo science, false and without proof of its' claims. For a judge to ORDER a psychiatric evaluation, would be him practicing psychiatry or psychology without a license (not even a degree).[cite: 11]
As it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the BAR guild you are guilty whether you plead guilty or not plead or plead not guilty. Therefore, unless you either have previously prepared an Affidavit of Truth and MOTION TO DISMISS with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a DEMURRER, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private BAR guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.[cite: 12]
Due to the judges public oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States he must abide by decisions of other Superior Courts, which include other State Supreme Court, Federal Court, Federal Appellate Courts and the United States Supreme Courts, decisions. It is called Stare Decisis, which is Latin for 'previously decided'. Article IV Relationships Between the States Section 1 Full Faith and Credit Clause demands such. It is written; "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."[cite: 12]
Furthermore, judges cannot argue the court operates under city, county or state statutes and therefore federal laws or Superior Court decisions are not relevant because of the Supreme Court decision Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) in which it was decided; "When a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme."[cite: 12]
I hereby CLAIM my status as a Natural Man, Un Persona Propria Sui Juris, and my minor account. Who has the following rights protected and guaranteed by Treaties and Constitutions, International Laws and my self-determinism.[cite: 12]
I also put the court on judicial and clerical legal and lawful notice that I intend to exercise my right to gather evidence[cite: 12] and record all proceedings with my private audio and video recording device(s) of my choice. I require the judge to honor and enforce my "right to video record these proceeding of public interest, on private or public property" pursuant to the following Superior Court precedents; Fordyce v. City of Seattle (9th Circuit Court, 1995: "The First Amendment protects the right to film matters of public interest") and Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Circuit Court, 2000). Policies and Procedures set forth by the court house policies do not supersede the aforementioned federal case law.[cite: 13]
VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW.[cite: 13]
Thus concludes my Testimony.[cite: 13]
Thus concludes my LEGAL AND LAWFUL JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL NOTICE[cite: 13]
19 comments:
Its amazing how differently people act today as compared to just 20 years ago. I blame social media, and the speed information can be acquired. These kooks have unlimited access to erroneous information, and due to the "pat me on the back" culture we have created, they also think they are highly intelligent. All of this is a recipe to create these kinds of people.
Lots of billable hours. :)
More government leaders, elected officials/court officials must be more decisive and less tolerant of this bull$h!+. Refuse to file this $h!+. Hammer these punk @$$ fraudsters. Send the message loud and clear that childish games end in an @$$whipping.
But can you charge those billable hours if you are a member of the private guild?
Gotta love a good Knutt. Thanks for starting my day with a laugh.
These idiots are everywhere. There are entire YouTube channels with thousands of followers that break down the idiotic nature of the inane ramblings of Sovereign Citizens with police. I have found myself entertained by these buffoons for many an hour. And now we have one in our backyard. I'm more than a little intrigued by how Mississippi handles this.
I would also question the authority of any court operating under the doctrine of “On Vacay”.
Say wut?
Only during leap years.
Which is sadder....that this gentleman actually believes the tripe he is spewing or that he paid a fraudster to attend seminars where he bought kits with templates and quotes for him to recite in person or in court?
Is anyone else's brain hurting after trying to decipher this???
Most lawyers have been afraid to give Claude a hit of LSD before asking it to write a brief. Glad to see what happens when you do.
What a douch bag.......
Even Mr. Trotter from My Cousin Vinny could win this case. Also, as a Republican, on behalf of my fellow members, we do not accept his application to join our club.****
My daughter is a criminal attorney in Houstyand sees this all the time
in his first part, under paragraph 11, he demands a republican form of government.
he need not worry about that. he gonna find plenty of republicans in madison municipal court.
paragraph 2 refers to ''corpus juris secundum''...............................didnt he used to play for the saints?
So in English this translates to bull$hit. Im not fluent in legalese but it looks like total bs
I litigated a claim against one of these goofs. Every pleading contained 50 pages of gibberish, similar to what Kingfish posted.
Post a Comment