darren's Blog

NEVER BUY A HOMESTEAD FORM.......

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:16 -0500

NEVER BUY A FORM! BUY A SERVICE

First, I strongly believe that many, many people are very mislead by misinformation that floats around on the internet regarding protecting your homestead property via, declaration of homestead. With us, our clients purchase a "service", not forms.

Reason: when a person files a declaration of any kind, that person is attesting to many various topics and well as citing the law involving that protection.

The biggest problem that I seen, is that people simply think that a declaration of homestead is a "silver bullet" but the problem lies is that in buying a form, they know absolutely nothing in how to defend that form in court, if that need ever arises.

Last week, I spoke to a gentleman that purchased a form from a very unqualified source and now this week he has to defend that form in court against a credit card company and their attorney which is he absolutely ignorant regards to defending it or explaining it. This is a major problem is that you could be easy picking against savvy attorney, like a lamb to the slaughter.

From my own personal experience, I defeated the FL Dept of Revenue on this very issue, even after I had filed a declaration (and other forms), they STILL tried to attach a illegal lien against my homestead - THE FORM DIDN'T PREVENT IT, MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOMESTEAD LAWS PREVENTED IT!

The attorneys and judges are in cahoots together and have been for decades especially in screwing over the average American citizen. This is why we sell a "service" not a form.

Example: Let's say you buy a "Do-it-yourself-will or trust", fill it out, file it and change the entitlement then a year later, the IRS serves you a audit summons to discuss what you did a year ago. Can you call the form company for help?? NO! You cant. You are completely on your own and now may have to hire any attorney to defend your actions. I dont understand why people get very "cheap" when it comes to protecting their most valuable asset, their homestead property - remember, you get what you pay for!

Even attorney Sharipo, who represented OJ Simpson is the owner of "Legalzoom", a legal form company, legalzoom does NOT sell Declaration of Homestead for FL or TX. Why?? Because the forms must be individually created and the wording must be exact and precise.

With our service, not only do we provide the forms needed but in the event you ever have to go to court, we provide you the legal research involving laws, statutes and case law that you will need to defend the forms that you have previously filed. We also provide you with update in any changes that occur with homestead laws that may affect you and your home.

We sell a invaluable service, not forms and you are selling yourself short in thinking that a form is a "silver bullet" to make all your legal problems go away.

Respectfully Submitted,

Darren-James: Michaels

Official capacity as recognized international official ID #200831045

Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1983, 1988, 2000(c)(4)

Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510

Federal Protected Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)

Federally Protected Activities - 18 U.S.C. 245((b)(1)(B)

Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 U.S.C. 11, 112-13, 878, 1201, 1116(3), 22 U.S.C. 254

Absolute Immunity as a Corporation - 28 USC 1608

F.S.I.A. (1976, 1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611

Florida Notary – F.S. 117

Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663 - Main

(202)280-7862 – Washington, DC

(206)426-0776 - FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

Darren J. Michaels

THE ONLY LINEAR MULTILEVEL PROGRAM IN THE WORLD - ONLY $27

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:14:52 -0500

I hate multi-level programs until I saw this one – This is the ONLY LINEAR compensation plan in the world which means allows you to benefits from ALL sales generated AROUND THE WORLD because all members are in ONE STRAIGHT LINE. This is not a “build out” or “binary” program.

It is only $27 a one-time subscription fee – that’s it! For more information - please contact me, ASAP Darren Michaels, at info@homesteadservicesflorida.com or (941)822-4663

SO WHAT IS…. “2 Plus 7” ??

OK, BOTTOMLINE - WHATS IS IT? And WHATS IN IT FOR ME??

I am going to be direct and right to the point. First, I hate multi-levels programs, BUT we all know that some past programs have providen to be quite lucrative if a person get involved at the right time, as quoted by Harvard Business School. Like I said I hate multi-levels programs, until I saw this program.

Once again, the main reason- It is the only plans that has a LINEAR compensation plan allows you to benefits from ALL sales generated AROUND THE WORLD because all members are in ONE STRAIGHT LINE. You only have to recruit two people at $27 – This is a no brainer!

WHY IS A LINEAR compensation plan superior? This is not a binary or a build out multi-level marketing program which mean you have to continually recruit people – 2 PLUS 7, you dont

For only $27 ONE-TIME ONLY, you receive a subscription to a huge list of benefits and a chance to create an income stream that is unmatched today. There are no other costs or fees whatsoever.

The “2 plus 7” is a LINEAR compensation plan which superior to a build out or binary plans that you may have seen before. The only requirement to start receiving an unlimited income stream is that you "Only" Need 2 Direct Sign-Ups to Qualify.You sign up two people and you made your $27 back!

WHY IS A LINEAR compensation plan superior?

IN A NUTSHELL” It is so simply to sign people up all you have to do is direct a prospect and “point and click” You ONLY need 2 people on your first line to qualify and be successful.

There are people today, making hundreds of thousands of dollars and this ground floor opportunity.

This is a LIST of Benefits Found currently in 2plus7!

When you subscribe to 2plus7 you have access to all these benefits for FREE!!

<Mortgage software - $1,500 value, learn to pay off your 30 yr mortgage in 1/3 the time

>Nutritionist - $1000 Value, Instruction on eating properly and healthy

>Medical Doctor -$1000 Value, medical updates daily

>Dr. Forex - $1000 Value, learn how to trade on the Forex market by a professional.

>Event Planner - $500 Value, Secret Savings planning events such as weddings.

>Animal Therapist - $500 Value, books, how to handle your pet and other animals.

>Motivational - $1000 Value, motivational information on audio, and articles.

>Personal Development Coach - $500 Value

>Internet Tool Box - $500, All the free stuff from the internet all in one place

>Magician... DAN CAIN - $1000.00, Learn how to perform some of the GREATEST TRICKS

>National Discounts - SAVE THOUSANDS!! on companies like Avis, Starbucks, Disney, Staples etc.

>Dancing - $1,000 Value. Learn how to dance with a 10X National Champion as a Dance Instructor.

Here's more of what's coming every month.... The list is growing daily!

>National Chef - $500 Value, videos, prepare, cook, and present like a chef.

>Fitness Guru - $1,000 Value, National Body champion teaches to get fit thru video

>Lead Generation System - $1,000 Value, New leads and leads management system.

>Tax software - April 15 - $5000 value, created for home based businesses

>Internet Marketing - $10,000 Value, Learn how to do internet marketing

There are possible that you may include your business and your services rendered to be offered to other members, worldwide. All for only signing up one time for only $27, that’s it!

Disclaimer: This is an informational notice. This not spam or spam advertisement. If this was received by you by accident please disregard.

Darren-James: Michaels

Official capacity as recognized international official ID #200831045 
Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1983, 1988, 2000(c)(4)
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Protected Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)

Federally Protected Activities  - 18 U.S.C. 245((b)(1)(B)
Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 U.S.C. 11, 112-13, 878, 1201, 1116(3), 22 U.S.C. 254

Absolute Immunity as a Corporation - 28 USC 1608

F.S.I.A. (1976, 1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611

Florida Notary – F.S. 117

Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663 - Main

(202)280-7862 – Washington, DC

(515)474-5123 - FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

RECUSING AN UNFAIR JUDGE

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:11:53 -0500

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a judge under certain circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”

Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Does your judge follow the law?

Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri , 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

Darren-James: Michaels

Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1988
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 USC 112, 22 U.S.C. 254, 18 U.S.C 1116 (3)
Absolute Immunity as a Corporation - 28 USC 1608
F.S.I.A. (1976,1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611
Florida Notary – F.S. 117
Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663

(515)474-5123 FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

Make liens, judgments & encumbrances against your home "unenforceable" within 60 days

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:11:47 -0500

FLORIDA, TEXAS - lien against your property?make it "legally Unforceable"

PROTECT YOUR HOME ANY ATTACHMENT OF ANY NON-EQUITY JUDGMENTS, LIENS, LEVIES, or ENCUMBRANCES

Q:"When a lien, judgment or encumbrance is filed against YOU then why does it apply to your property also???

A: These types of encumbrances are filed by the clerk of court, are filed against you (in your "person") in your official files and will also apply against your homestead property because there is NO separate distinction is made. So does a encumbrance apply against me or against my home? - it applys to Both!

Until certain statutory requirements are completed

Once a homestead property has completed specific statutory requirements, then no non-equity lien can be apply against it! This is actually a biblical term which means to "sanctify" means to "set apart" - it is what God did with the Sabbath Day - he set it apart from all other days and to stand alone. The same must be done with your homestead property. Once your homestead property has been legally "sanctified" with specific documentation filed properly with the correct government entitites as stated in the statutes "no lien attaches to property, and a creditor does not become a lien creditor as to liens until the debtor acquires an interest in the property. what does this mean??

this is defined as an "equity lien". So what is an equity lien?

1. Lender or Mortgage company that actually owns the note on your home.

2. Real Esate Taxes (applies only to US Citizens and aliens even though their is no such thing as a US citizen)

3. Maintenance or assessment fees - such as monthly condo, villas, deeded community property

4. Construction or Mechanics liens - labor that was conducted to increased the value of the realty.

OUTSIDE OF THESE "EQUITY" ENCUMBRANCES LISTED ABOVE, PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, THEY CANNOT BE APPLIED AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY!!

BEWARE: THERE ARE IDIOTS OUT THERE THAT ARE SELLING A CHEAP FORM TO ACT AS A "SILVER BULLET" TO MAKE YOUR PROBLEMS ALL GO AWAY. ITS NOT THAT EASY. YOU BETTER HAVE IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE FORM MEANS, AND HOW TO DEFEND IT, IF YOU EVER HAVE TO GO TO COURT, IF NOT, HAVE AN EXPERT WITNESS THAT CAN.

I have personal experience in this matter in which I had defeated the FL Dept of Revenue on this very issue in which they still attempted to file a lien against my property even after my homestead property was legally "sanctified." It was only because of my knowledge of the homestead laws that prevented their illegal non-equity encumbrance to be attached my home.

We dont sell a form, we sell a service. Please remember the old saying "you get what you pay for".

DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST YOU OR YOUR HOME ???
YOU CAN MAKE ANY NON-EQUITY ENCUMBRANCE LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!

DO YOU HAVE A LIEN, JUDGMENT, OR PENDING LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU & CANT REFINANCE OR SELL??

WHAT IS A NON-EQUITY LIEN? credit card debt, bad debts, hospital bills, code enforcement, child support, law suits, attorney fees, judgtments, etc, etc.

WE CAN ASSIST YOU IN MAKING IT LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!

FLORIDA HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION – Florida has the best homestead protection laws in the country but very few homeowners truly understands its contents and its benefits.

18 states have homestead laws but Florida has the most protection, then followed by Texas, etc. - Do you have a legal status of homestead? Bet you don't!

Most Residential Homeowners do not realize that they DO NOT have a legal status of Homestead but rather a false presumption in thinking their residential property is legally homesteaded – IT DOES NOT!

Example: let's use Florida
The Florida Homestead Exemption form is primarily for tax purposes (ad valorem) and is filed with the Florida Dept of Revenue and not a part of a Florida homeowner’s public records.

Florida Homestead Exemption provides a $5Ok discount o(tierred) off the ad valorem taxes based on the assessed (not appraised) value of the home which is pursuant to “Save Our Homes” Act.

The majority of all Florida homeowners have NOT officially proclaimed their Florida home as homestead. "But I filed and qualify for Homestead Exemption each year" - The paramount question is - Does the protect your home? Answer: NO!

Fact: Homestead Exemption does not officially proclaim your home as homestead.

Homestead Exemption has two main functions:

1) $50,000 annual exemption (tierred) discounted off their real taxes based on the accessed value and not to increase more than 3% per annum (Save our Homes Legislation)

2) Prevents a "forced" sales from a "non-equity" lienor from forcing you to sell your home to pay a debt, lien, levy, judgment or encumbrances BUT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A "NON-EQUITY" LIEN FROM ATTACHING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY...... not until you have acquired a legal status of homestead which is a completely different Statutory and Separate Filing than Homestead Exemption!

ONCE AGAIN - Once you have a legal homestead status then NO "non-equity" liens, judgments, levies, encumbrances can be applied against your homestead property. Only when a lienor has an "equity-interest" in your homestead property can they make any claim against it pursuant to the Florida Constitution (art x, 4(a))

What is an "equity lien"?
As clearly defined in the Florida Constitution art. x, sec 4(a) - it is those four types of liens listed above. Everything else is of a non-equity nature.

Darren-James: Michaels
Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1988
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 USC 11, 112

Absolute Immunity as a Corporation 28 USC 1608

FSIA(1976,1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611

Florida Notary – F.S. 117

Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663

(515)474-5123 FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

Disclaimer: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association union.

FL JUDGE RULES - NOT ILLEGAL TO NOT FILE INCOME TAXES

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:08:55 -0500

Mark Yannone"Zero tolerance for injustice."

Friday, March 20, 2009

Nonfiling is no crime, confirms judge

Judge Rules: Not Filing Since 1999 Is No Crime!

After a February 24 trial on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles "Chuck" Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act in refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999, Judge Tyrie W. Boyer, a county judge in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Jacksonville, ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act.

The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS, or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close, the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like "tax protesters," "tax defiers," and now "Constitutionalists!" [Oh, the horror! Not that!] Behm's defense attorney, Truth Attack's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.

In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments. The witness also admitted on cross examination that he did not really have a clear definition of "income."

Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.

In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes.

Watch: The juror who took on the IRS
Watch: The attorney who took on the IRS
Watch: Not guilty on all counts!

LOAN MODIFICATION VS. LOAN VERIFICATION - say "NO" to modification

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:36:55 -0600

we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal advice or construed as such. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association.

In a foreclosure action, one defensive position has been in the contestation of the lender to produce the "original note". Some people have been successful in delaying a foreclosure action and some people have not been successful. This should not be the only defensive position utilized. You may need more bullets in your gun.

In demanding for a court to grant a TRO against the lender to prevent foreclosing until the production of discovery is officially submitted, on and for the record. The Defendant should utilize a independent third party, as an expert witness, to fully conduct forensic analysis of the mortgage contract between the parties, also known as the "FOUR CORNER RULE" of a contract for violations of

TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA),
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA),
HOME OWNERSHIP AND EQUITY PROTECTION ACT (HOEPA),
EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (ECOA),
BREACH OF CONTRACT,
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST,
UNCONSCIONABILITY,
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

Four Corners Of An Instrument

(n) The phrase 'Four Corners of An Instrument ' is used to limit the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document within the expressed words in that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.

Four Corners Rule

(n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.

When applying these rules, the court’s function is to “construe the contract made by the parties, not to make a contract for them. The question for the court is what did the parties agree to as evidenced by their contract. The guiding light in the construction of a contract is the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the words they have used, and courts are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares.” Irwin, 47 Va. App. at 293, 623 S.E.2d at 441 (quoting Wilson, 227 Va. at 187, 313 S.E.2d at 398).

Equity Law:

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.

For the party being foreclosed upon to utilize 3rd party to submit their documented conclusion to the court of their finding of facts and conclusion of law. The 3rd party conducting such analysis can also become a expert witness in not only preventing foreclosure but possible counter-claim against the lender for damages and injuries suffered.

Common Law:

Common Law is based on God’s Law. Any time someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. see: Hale v Henkel Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

If defects are found within the contract, then you can either file a counter-claim with the assistance of an attorney or as pro se. You can also recruit a thirty party firm that will access and document any damages and injuries suffered.

(941)822-4663

Absolute Immunity as a Corporation 28 USC 1608

FSIA(1976,1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611

Florida Notary – F.S. 117

Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

STOPPING FORECLOSURES - SAY "NO" TO LOAN MODIFICATIONS & "YES" TO VERIFICATION

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:37:49 -0600

STOPPING FORECLOSURES - SAY "NO" TO LOAN MODIFICATIONS & "YES" TO VERIFICATION
By Darren Michaels, Private Attorney General
www.homesteadservicesflorida.com

One thing that a homeowner can use as evidence against the alleged lender to possibly stall a foreclosure action is with a a "verification of debt" in demanding for their "alleged" lender to produce the original mortgage documents and note. During the real estate boom, many mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors - often leaving the original note signed by the homeowner lost, stored in a distant warehouse or even destroyed. It is known as "Proof of claim" a.k.a. evidence.

If your lender cannot produce "proof of claim" then they do not have any legal standing or jurisdiction to foreclose or to even collect a mortgage payment.

three basic steps that have been utilized:
1. Temporary Restraining order - stops the foreclosure
2. Petition for Discovery (proof of claim) and if not produce
3. Counter-claim for fraud, civil RICO, deceptive business practices, fraudulent presentments, counterfeit security fraud, mail fraud, etc.

Please note:

But dont use this as your only bullet in your defensive gun - remember EQUITY LAW COMPELS PERFORMANCE OR TO PERFORM TO THE EXACT LETTER OF THE CONTRACT Even if you are not delinquent or not in a foreclosure status, you can still use a "verification of debt" against your lender to validate if they still possess the actual note. Most lenders do not! and do not answer the "verification of debt" or what them by default or what is known as estoppel by acquiescence which means "I say nothing" - the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that Silence can only be equivalent to fraud ! See: Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). “Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth.”

All parties may be liable under Alter Ego Liability – a judicial doctrine applied to corporations where a court may hold the individual shareholders liable where the business entity is merely the "Alter Ego" of its shareholders, a member of a corporation or LLC may also be held liable for the corporation / LLCs debts and liabilities.

Problems with a Loan Modification:
10 POINTS TO CONSIDER

   1. The borrowers will think they are modifying their current loan when in fact they are starting all over again.
   2. The Foreclosing entity which lacks standing to bring lawsuit, is not authorized to modify anything since they are not the owner of the loan in question.
   3. Since the real parties in interest are no where to be found, they are taking it upon themselves with the help of theirl awyers to steal your property.
   4. The borrower is actually getting a new loan which may enjoin borrower from rescinding new transaction.
   5. The foreclosing entity is STILL not using their own fundsto modify (new loan) loan. They are getting funds to lend borrowers through Federal bail outs, insurance proceeds and believe it or not Investors. [same process]
   6. Their lawyers are not acting in a lawyer’s capacity but asBROKERS; [middlemen] they are getting paid commission on every new loan they help brokered.
   7. What Does Loan Modification Mean?A modification to an existing loan made by a lender in response to aborrower’s long-term inability to repay the loan. Loan modifications typically involve a reduction in the interest rate on the loan, an extension of the length of the term of the loan, a different type of loan or any combination of the three. A lender might be open to modifying a loan because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of default.
   8. Why would they need to re-qualify if they claim they would make the borrowers payments and rates to be less?
   9. The borrower took the loan out with lender “A” but an unknown lender “B” is trying to modify it.
10. When the modification is said and done, the borrower will have lender “B” as the lender. What happened to lender “A”???

Anyone need our assistance, you may contact us at:
www.homesteadservicesflorida.com
(941)822-4663

Darren-James: Michaels
Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1988
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 USC 11, 112
Absolute Immunity as a Corporation 28 USC 1608
FSIA(1976,1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611
Florida Notary – F.S. 117
Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest‏ - many "Dirty" cops out there

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:32:53 -0600

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest‏

There are a lot of "dirty cops" out there that are nothing more than ego induced, abuse of power, idiots with guns and that abusing citizens rights on a daily basis. These public servants are fully accountable under the law. I currently have a pending federal law suit against 10+ "dirty cops" from three different agencies in Florida (Sarasota and Orlando) that have clearly abused their authority and jurisdiction.

I have alleged over 60 federal felonies committed against each officer. a formal federal complaint was filed: internal affairs for each dept failed to act, FL Dept of Law Enforcement (LeFiles) failed to act FL ATTY GENERAL failed to act, US ATTY GENERAL (acosta) failed to act, USDOJ failed to act, ACLU wont act, just waiting on the IRS under misuse and abusive of federal funding (Qui Tam Action) by each department.

If a cop abuses your constitutional rights - sue him and his employer!

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of
self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Justice Joseph Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that `a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, `If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the `ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987,
an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

All existing or future so-called "gun and/or ammunition laws", of whatever name or form under "color of law", whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

BE IT KNOWN that any law, statute, or ordinance that is repugnant to the written Constitutions for the United States of America (1787) - Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 137,174, 176, (1803); and the State of
Arkansas (1874) is NULL and VOID, ab initio, ultra vires.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The written Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme
law of the land, any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the written Constitution for the United States of America and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is
succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its inactment, and not merely from the date so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 256

DONT DO A LOAN MODIFICATION - CONTEST YOUR BANK'S STANDING !!

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:53:56 -0600

DEFEATING FORECLOSURE:

IS YOUR BANK ACTING UNDER FRAUD?? MOST BANKS ARE

RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER - PASCO FLORIDA - CHIEF JUDGE - "NO NOTE, NO FORECLOSURE"

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PASCO AND PINELLAS COUNTIES, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2008081
PA/PICIR
printerfriendly
version
RE: MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS BY INSTITUTIONAL LENDERS
Mortgage foreclosure cases have increased at an unprecedented rate in the Sixth Judicial Circuit. In the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the last year alone, mortgage
foreclosure case filings increased approximately 118%. Frequently, attorneys who handle a large volume of mortgage foreclosure cases do not have their pleadings in
order or fail to appear at scheduled hearings, causing the court to reschedule or delay hearings in mortgage foreclosure cases. The volume of the cases and the resetting of
these hearings results in difficulties scheduling these summary proceedings. In light of the court’s finite resources, it is necessary to establish procedures for more efficient
handling of mortgage foreclosure cases.
Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215, the Chief Judge has the authority to adopt administrative orders necessary to administer the court’s affairs.
Therefore, it is

ORDERED:
1. Filing of Initial Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint: An institutional mortgagee lender that after January 19, 2009, files a complaint to foreclose a mortgage
on homestead property must provide the following to the Clerk of Circuit Court with the initial filing:
a. A Notice to Homeowner, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment A.
b. A Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment B.
Homestead property is property designated as “homestead” by the property appraiser’s office on the date of filing the complaint. The plaintiff must include the Notice to
Homeowner and Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet with each summons serving a complaint on the owner of residential homestead property.
2. Certificate Filed Prior to Requesting Summary Judgment Hearing Dates: Prior to requesting a mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearing date
from the court, the attorney of record for the plaintiff must file a uniform certificate titled “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk. The
uniform certificate is
Attachment C to this Administrative Order. The uniform certificate provides the attorney’s certification of the completion of requisite actions and the dates on which they
were completed.
3. Foreclosure Judgment Packet Prior to Hearing: Unless the presiding judge provides otherwise, the plaintiff’s attorney must deliver a foreclosure
judgment packet to the presiding judge’s office at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date for a motion for summary judgment. The foreclosure
judgment packet consists of the following documents:
a. Proposed Uniform Final Judgment. Include sufficient copies for conforming and stamped, addressed envelopes for all parties;
b. Original Promissory Note (unless previously filed);
c. Notice of Sale;
d. A copy of the Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures; and
e. A copy of the Notice of Hearing.
4. Uniform Final Judgment: All proposed final judgments of foreclosure shall be in the format of the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth
Judicial Circuit as provided in Attachment D unless otherwise specifically approved by the judge entering the final judgment. Any changes to the Uniform Final Judgment
of Foreclosure from that prescribed in Attachment D shall be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the final judgment hearing.
5. Cancellation of Foreclosure Sale by Clerk upon Suggestion of Bankruptcy: If the Clerk of Circuit Court receives, prior to the commencement of a
foreclosure sale, a mailed or faxed suggestion of bankruptcy on behalf of a named defendant in a pending foreclosure action, the Clerk is directed to cancel the foreclosure
sale. The Clerk shall not cancel the sale if subsequently directed otherwise by the presiding judge or a United States Bankruptcy Judge. The plaintiff is responsible to
separately file with the Clerk any order from a United States Bankruptcy Judge that would preclude the Clerk from canceling a foreclosure sale; such filing must not be an
attachment or exhibit.
6. Additional Procedures: The judicial practice preferences of each judge, which may contain a judge’s individualized procedures for mortgage foreclosure
cases, may be found on the Circuit’s Internet site at http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/PracticeRequirementsofJudges.html. The Chief Judge may update or make
other amendments to the attachments of this Administrative Order without further amendment to this Administrative Order.
7. Application: This Administrative Order applies to all mortgage foreclosure actions by institutional lenders except that paragraph one only applies to
homestead property.
8. Effective Dates: All mortgage foreclosure complaints filed after January 19, 2009, and all mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearings scheduled to
occur after January 19, 2009, must comply with this Administrative Order.
A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and already has a foreclosure summary judgment hearing
scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, may keep the scheduled date and time. However, the plaintiff’s attorney must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as
prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, including the “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least
five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The presiding judge may cancel a schedule hearing that does not have the Foreclosure Judgment Package filed
by that day.
A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and has yet to schedule a foreclosure summary judgment
hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing
hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing
date. Additionally, the plaintiff must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, with the Clerk of Circuit Court at
least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
A plaintiff who files a mortgage foreclosure complaint after January 19, 2009, must comply with all requirements of this Administrative Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of December 2008.
_____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr., Chief Judge
Attachment:
cc: All Judges
The Honorable Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas County
The Honorable Jed Pittman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pasco County
Paula O’Neil, Chief Deputy, Pasco County Clerk’s Office
Debbie Gay, Assistant Court Services Director, Pasco County Clerk’s Office
Carol Heath, Executive Director, Pinellas County Clerk’s Office
Gay L. Inskeep, Trial Courts Administrator
Bar Associations, Pasco and Pinellas County
Law Libraries, Pasco and Pinellas County
(A) Notice to Homeowner (html)
(A) Notice to Homeowner (word version)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (html)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (word version)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (html)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (word version)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (html)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (word version)

Florida has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country.

Is your bank operating under fraud?? MOST OF THEM ARE

I can’t tell you how many calls that I get from homeowners asking me if there is any way that they can prevent foreclosure. One very important issue is normally in the complaint that is filed by the plaintiff (bank) in a case.

Typically what I have seen is that most of the foreclosures are based on blatant, premeditated fraud by the banks and mortgage companies. In their complaint, there may be a paragraph that states "the original note has been lost or misplaced" this may be true or maybe a blatant lie but it is the real issue to challenge the plaintiff's complaint by filing a petition for discovery and/or deposing the bookkeeper for the bank and getting down the "brass facts" of what really happened to the original note.

There has been more and more federal cases surfacing in which some (honest) federal judges are dismissing the plaintiff cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction because they cannot produce the original mortgage note.

In Florida, Florida’s best evidence rule “requires that when the contents of writing … are being proved, an original must be offered unless a statutory excuse.

The Florida Evidence Code provides that Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording or photograph. § 90.952, Fla. Stat. The requirement of an “original” ensures that the evidence presented is an accurate transmittal of the critical facts contained within it. See McKeehan v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). the “original writing is required because oral testimony may be inaccurate [or] fraud may result.” C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 952.1. See also U.S. v. Howard, 953 F.2d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1992).

The Evidence Code, however, does permit the introduction of duplicates under certain circumstances:
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless:
….
(2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.

(3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Thus, for the copies of the purported Holder paper to be admissible, (a) the copies must be “duplicates,” (b) no genuine question can exist regarding authenticity; and (b) it must be fair to admit the paper in lieu of the original. When there is insufficient proof to establish that the photocopy is the same as the original, the evidence must be excluded. A duplicate may not be admitted into evidence if there is “genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.” § 90.953(2), Fla.
Stat. As a leading treatise on Florida evidence explains,

If there is a genuine question concerning the authenticity of the duplicate, the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). For example, if a defendant alleges that he did not sign a contract upon which the plaintiff sued, but rather signed a different contract, a genuine question is “raised about the authenticity of the original” and the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). The original must be offered unless an adequate excuse for its non-production is demonstrated under section 90.954.” See: C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 953.1 (2004).

The bottom line is "proof of claim" , the burden of proof falls back into the lap of your bank - if your bank cannot provide prima facie evidence that they do not have standing or jurisdiction to sue you in a foreclosure action. Furthermore, it makes your bank subject to counter-claim under false claim act 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (federal) or Florida False Claims Act 68.081-68.09, not to mention, violations of FDCPA, FTC "deceptive business practices" and "fraudulent presentments", SEC, and mail fraud, etc.

The court recognized that the debtor had the necessary motive to fabricate the “letter” to serve his own self-interest. Some banks have sold the original note in asset backed trust pool to international investors. Similar to "factoring" where the note is sold for a discounted price or cash to a new owner.

The biggest hurdle that any pro-se litigant or non-attorney faces today is the corruption of our courts but don’t give up - winners never quit and quitters never win. Fight for your rights and for your home.

Ten Tips for Success in Court: by Fredrick graves, Esq.

1. Deserve the Judgment You Seek
2. Follow the Rules
3. Make Everyone Follow the Rules

a. Rules of Civil Procedure
b. Rules of Evidence
c. General Legal Principles
d. Common-Sense & Reason

4. Allow No Monkey-Shines!
5. Demand the Truth

a. Require Sworn Testimony
b. Verify Pleadings & Motions

6. Make an Effective Record

c. Use Well-Paid Court Reporters
b. Do Not Go Off-the-Record

7. Use Simple Sentences
8. Manage Your Own Case

a. Don't Allow Opponent Control
b. Don't Allow Court Direction

9. Expect a Favorable Judgment
10. Demand Your Right to Win!

NEVER GIVE IN AND NEVER GIVE UP!

If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact us at:

(941)822-4663 OR INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM

www.homesteadservicesflorida.com

Respectfully Submitted,

Darren Michaels

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 42 U.S.C. 1988

QUALIFIED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: 18 U.S.C. 1510

FEDERAL PROTECTED WITNESS: 18 U.S.C. 1512-13

AMBASSADOR/ORDAINED MINISTER 18 U.S.C. 112

FLORIDA NOTARY F.S. 117

FLORIDA INSURANCE BROKER: LIC. 215,216,218,240,266, ASSET PROTECTION/ESTATE PLANNING

LEGAL RESEARCHER/WRITER

DISCLAIMER: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal or tax advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association and for tax advice please consult a CPA or qualified accountant.

KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE - DONT EVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE.

DEFEATING FORECLOSURE - IS YOUR BANK ACTING UNDER FRAUD??

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:10:21 -0600

DEFEATING FORECLOSURE:

IS YOUR BANK ACTING UNDER FRAUD??

Florida has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country.

Is your bank operating under fraud??

In Florida, Florida’s best evidence rule “requires that when the contents of writing … are being proved, an original must be offered unless a statutory excuse.

Ten Tips for Success in Court: by Fredrick graves, Esq.

1. Deserve the Judgment You Seek
2. Follow the Rules
3. Make Everyone Follow the Rules

a. Rules of Civil Procedure
b. Rules of Evidence
c. General Legal Principles
d. Common-Sense & Reason

4. Allow No Monkey-Shines!
5. Demand the Truth

a. Require Sworn Testimony
b. Verify Pleadings & Motions

6. Make an Effective Record

c. Use Well-Paid Court Reporters
b. Do Not Go Off-the-Record

7. Use Simple Sentences
8. Manage Your Own Case

a. Don't Allow Opponent Control
b. Don't Allow Court Direction

9. Expect a Favorable Judgment
10. Demand Your Right to Win!

NEVER GIVE IN AND NEVER GIVE UP!

If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact us at:

(941)822-4663 OR INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM

www.homesteadservicesflorida.com

Respectfully Submitted,

Darren Michaels

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 42 U.S.C. 1988

QUALIFIED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: 18 U.S.C. 1510

FEDERAL PROTECTED WITNESS: 18 U.S.C. 1512-13

AMBASSADOR/ORDAINED MINISTER 18 U.S.C. 112

FLORIDA NOTARY F.S. 117

FLORIDA INSURANCE BROKER: LIC. 215,216,218,240,266, ASSET PROTECTION/ESTATE PLANNING

LEGAL RESEARCHER/WRITER

KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE - DONT EVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE.

FLORIDA - lien against your property? we can make it "legally Unforceable"

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:16:41 -0600

PROTECT YOUR HOME ANY ATTACHMENT OF ANY NON-EQUITY JUDGMENTS, LIENS, LEVIES, or ENCUMBRANCES

DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST YOU OR YOUR HOME ???
WE CAN ASSIST YOU IN MAKING IT LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!

DO YOU HAVE A LIEN, JUDGMENT, OR PENDING LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU & CANT REFINANCE OR SELL??

Such as: credit cards, hospital bills, code enforcement, child support, bad debts, etc.

WE CAN ASSIST YOU IN MAKING IT LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!

FLORIDA HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION – Florida has the best homestead protection laws in the country but very few homeowners truly understands its contents and its benefits.

18 states have homestead laws but Florida has the most protection, then followed by Texas, etc. - Do you have a legal status of homestead? Bet you don't!

Most Residential Homeowners do not realize that they DO NOT have a legal status of Homestead but rather a false presumption in thinking their residential property is legally homesteaded – IT DOES NOT!

Example: let's use Florida
The Florida Homestead Exemption form is primarily for tax purposes (ad valorem) and is filed with the Florida Dept of Revenue and not a part of a Florida homeowner’s public records.

Florida Homestead Exemption provides a $25k discount off the ad valorem taxes based on the assessed (not appraised) value of the home which is pursuant to “Save Our Homes” Act.

The majority of all Florida homeowners have NOT officially proclaimed their Florida home as homestead. "But I filed and qualify for Homestead Exemption each year" - The paramount question is - Does the protect your home? Answer: NO!

Fact: Homestead Exemption does not officially proclaim your home as homestead.

Homestead Exemption has two main functions:

1) $25,000 annual exemption discounted off their real taxes based on the accessed value and not to increase more than 3% per annum (Save our Homes Legislation)

2) Prevents a "forced" sales from a "non-equity" lienor from forcing you to sell your home to pay a debt, lien, levy, judgment or encumbrances BUT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A "NON-EQUITY" LIEN FROM ATTACHING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY...... not until you have acquired a legal status of homestead which is a completely different Statutory and Separate Filing than Homestead Exemption!

Once you have a legal homestead status then NO "non-equity" liens, judgments, levies, encumbrances can be applied against your homestead property. Only when a lienor has an "equity-interest" in your homestead property can they make any claim against it pursuant to the Florida Constitution (art x, 4(a)) which only list four (4) equity lienors:

   1. Bank or mortgage company - who holds the note on your home
   2. Real Estate (ad valorem) taxes - apply to U.S. citizens and Aliens
   3. Assessment or maintenance fees - condo, villa or deeded communities
   4. Construction or Mechanic liens - party that has labored on the realty

So then what is a "non-equity" lien?
It can be judgments, liens, credit card debt, medical bills, child support, charge-offs, repossessions, etc.

What is an "equity lien"?
As clearly defined in the Florida Constitution art. x, sec 4(a) - it is those 4 liens listed above. Everything else is non-equity

CALL ME TODAY !!! 941-822-4663

Respectfully Submitted,
Darren Michaels
President
Senior Legal Researcher
Private Attorney General
Qualified Criminal Investigator
Financial Advisor - Asset Protection / Estate Planner
Florida Notary
Licensed Broker since 1984

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663 or (305)647-5232

(515)474-5123 FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

Disclaimer: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association.

Florida Code Enforcement Liens - Are the Unconstitutional against Homestead Property?

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:23:58 -0500

Most Florida homeowners are unaware that judgment liens can be applied against homestead property UNLESS certain specific statutory requirements are fulfilled in their entirety. Once these requirements are fulfilled then a code enforcement lien can NOT be "legally enforceable" against your home.

FIRST, Any code enforcement officer or police officer or sheriff must have a bona fide search warrant or prior consent and approval from the owner which is legally required to step one foot on your private property for any search of your premises. Never grant them consent! You do not even has to speak to a law enforcement officer without the present of counsel and they know this - so keep your mouth shut! This is also a protected unalienable right. See: MILLS v ROGERS, 457 US 291 (1982), the court ruled that People of the states have the right to secure greater liberties within that state than secured under federal law.

Let them go through the legal requirements of obtaining "probable cause" to acquire a signed search warrant to enter on your private property - why make it easy for them? A local government code inspector or even a law enforcement officer is not legally authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant. If they violate your rights then they are operating outside their legal scope of authority and can be legally accountable,or possibly sued. All government employees must be bonded or insured against such unlawful acts involving the general public.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,[5] guarantees to all persons the right to be secure from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Further, the Florida Constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures in Article I, section 12:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution."[6] See: BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) and MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Administrative searches or inspections conducted outside the judicial process without consent and without prior approval (as evidenced by an administrative search warrant) are not reasonable, unless it can be shown that the administrative search or inspection falls within one of the well-established exceptions to this rule.[7] The protection from unreasonable searches provided by section 12, Article I, Florida Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are extended to both business or commercial premises and to private residences.[8]

If your personal and/or private rights have been violated against any illegal search and even seizure that has occurred by any government employee than you have a right to file a civil and criminal complaint and/or possibly sue against all parties that trespassed upon your property, including law enforcement officers also. These parties are operating under "color of law" and outside their lawful scope of their duties.

ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED - The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see: Palazzolov. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S. Ct. (2001) (no\expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L. Ed. 2d 882S.Ct.(1998).

Secondly, Florida Homestead Exemption does not protect your homestead property against judgment liens or code enforcement liens (non-equity) since the exemption form is filed directly with the Florida Department of Revenue and is not a part of your public records.

A lien pursuant to chapter 55 of any lienor upon whom such notice is served, who fails to institute an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the constitutional homestead status of the property described.

FLORIDA APPEALS COURT DECISIONS:

Fong v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 864 So.2d 76 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003)
constitutional prohibition against forced sale of homestead property prevents town from imposing lien on owner's real property for continuing code violations where property had not lost its homestead status); Miskin v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 661 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (lien for code violation not enforceable against homestead property).

In re Clements, 194 B.R. 923, 925 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
homesteads in Florida may not used to satisfy court judgments, except: unpaid property taxes for homestead itself, mortgages for purchase or improvements of homestead itself, or mechanic's lien's for work performed on homestead).

In re Lapea, 254 B.R. 501, 507 (M.D. Fla. 2000), citing Palm Beach Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Fishbein, 619 So.2d 267, 270 (Fla. 1993) (homestead cannot be employed as an instrumentality of fraud).

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROTECTION AGAINST CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS or OTHER LIENS, JUDGMENTS, ETC. AGAINST YOUR HOME,

PLEASE CONTACT US AT:
www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - WEBSITE
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email
(941)822-4663
(305)647-5232
(305)359-1122
(515)474-5123 FAX

Our founding fathers created all levels of government to be the biggest protector of our "person" and "property". Sadly today, our government is the biggest confiscators of our property through a very corrupt court system which operates in a administratively role only, not judicial. The only proper judicial court is the U.S. COURT of CLAIMS in Washington D.C. since U.S. Congress replaced state sovereignty which in December 9th 1945 through the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.

Thomas Jefferson said "The Greatest threat to American Citizens is the Judiciary". HALT's 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card is the nation's first rated Florida comprehensive evaluation of the systems that discipline and remove incompetent and abusive members of the state and federal judiciaries. See: American Comm v Douds - 339 US 382 442 - 1950 - The Citizen to keep the Govt from falling into error

FLORIDA'S JUDICIAL OVERALL GRADE = "C"
HALT interviewed judicial conduct administrators, analyzed statistics from the American Judicature Society and the Center for Public Integrity, evaluated judicial conduct Web sites and rules of disciplinary procedure, studied state and federal statutes that govern judicial financial disclosure and gift receipt, and reviewed the United States Judicial Conference's new 2008 rules on judicial conduct and disability.

Furthermore, through numerous excellent pro se litigant groups and their unyielding legal research against the willful tyranny committed by our local courts and their officers of court. A good and personal friend of mine, Bob Hurt of Clearwater, FL had exposed the indisputable fact, that MOST Florida state judges, appeals judges and even several Florida Supreme Judges are not nor have ever been properly qualified to adjudicate any orders from the bench since their oaths (FS 876.05, FS 105.031) has never been properly attested to and has failed to contain a proper or mandated jurat. As a Florida Notary myself, I can attest to this apparent evidenced of fact.

REMEMBER, the power is still with "the People" but we have let these officials get away with so many unlawful and illegal acts for so long, it is extremely difficult to break through hold of power and stop this trend but it's not impossible. Don't let anyone tell you what your rights are - know them yourself! As the bible says in Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge" - Don't be a sheep, get involved!

Respectfully Submitted,
Darren Michaels
Private Attorney General - 42 U.S.C. 1988
Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510
Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512
Publicly ordained Minister - 18 U.S.C. 112 - Protection of foreign officials,
official guests, internationally protected persons
Florida Notary - F.S. 119

WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER GET A MARRIAGE LICENSE! NEVER !

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:22:13 -0500

Darren Michaels
Private Attorney General - 42 USC 1988
Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510
Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512
Publicly Ordained Minister -18 U.S.C. 112
305-647-5232 or 305-359-1122 or 941-822-4663

WWW.HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM - WEBSITE

INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM - EMAIL

Question: DO I NEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE?

Answer: NO ! WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER, EVER GET ONE!

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARRIAGE VS HOLY MATIMONY

This topic is very detail and not based on conjecture, theory, or opinion but rather it is based on truth, law and facts. This topic is specific in nature but is generally related and associated with many other similar areas. There is nothing in the legal or financial arenas that happens by accident or mistaken but rather by a cleverly, pre-ordained, pre-conceived, pre-mediated agenda. There is an intellectual deceptive and enslaving purpose that was designed specifically for the so-called "marriage license" which underlying purpose is for conquest, taxation and jurisdiction. Just remember, open your mind to assume nothing especially on issues that you have previously been taught or heard. There is a huge difference in reading about a topic verses researching about a topic. Let's begin..

First, to define any word and its meaning exclusively, you need to look at the "legal" definition of a word and to expand on this little endeavor there is also the term "lawful" definition. Do you understand the difference between legal and lawful? Typically "legal" means statutory, i.e. statutes and "lawful" mean by right or by law. This is one clever design in hidden within the specific, not general, meaning of a word. When you truly begin to see, as contained within the article, the considerable distinctions is certain words that you have been brainwashed in believing should apply to you or define you

For simple purposes on this particular topic, let's just stay to the term "legal".

Step 1 - let's break down term "marriage License" into "marriage" and "License".

•1. Marriage is given by the authority of the State in which you possess your lawful abode.

•2. Holy Matrimony is by the authority of God and not a country, state or church.

Some of the marriage traditions are actually based on the pagan tradition such as the wedding ring which is traded to the worship of Saturn or the God of Saturn El. Let's take it deeper, the roots of Judaism and its origin from Egypt that stems from three pagan gods; Isis, Ra, Saturn El = Is+ra+el = Israel

There are six basic (6) laws that are practiced in today's court rooms, they are:

•· Equity Law (administrative),

•· Law Merchant,

•· Admiralty Law,

•· Canon Law (ecclesiastical court / Law of Nature)

•· Common Law. rarely practiced is

•· Trust Law

What people do not realize nor do most attorneys, is that we are currently under to foreign laws in the United states of America - they are Roman Law, and Common Laws of England.

a) Roman Law - History. Of these two divisions, I is subdivided into: A. Persons; B. Things; C. Actions.

The most easiest way to distinuigh the use of Roman Law in today courts is how your name is spelt

"Marriage License".
Invokes the Corporate State to be the third party to your union and whatever you conceive is theirs and becomes their offspring (children).

That is why they can take away your children at any time at their discretion. The State leaves them in your custody and care unless or until they find reason not to.

Definitions from BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Ed:
"license" "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

"marriage license"
"A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry."

What if you apply and the State says "no"?

"Intermarry" is "Miscegenation"

"Miscegenation"
"mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro."

Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage.

"marriage certificate"
"An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.
It seems that a certificate would be more appropriate than a license.

The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union

this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State's permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. one cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. If a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so then they act as an agent of the State! The priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. would have to sign the marriage license, and would have to mail it into the State. Given the State's demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it's unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for any priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. to do so.

When you marry with a marriage license, you are similar to polygamist. From the State's point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that can be found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State ."

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

The original purpose for the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons: 1). in the case of divorce,

2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, not a state or country, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. But jurisdiction is voluntarily given through contract, via marriage license.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
So why do the clergy (ministers, priests, pastors, rabbis, etc) and their churches require you and your spouse to obtain a marriage license?? So they will get their tax breaks and/or deductions from the Federal Government instead of being an unincorporated, non-501c3 church !! In other words, they sold out their congregation to Caesar (Federal Govt) for 30 pieces of silver (tax breaks & deductions) like Judas (the clergy).

Holy Matrimony (by the authority of God.)

vs.

Marriage (by the authority of the State.)

Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure. In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law."

"The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature."

By these definitions and maxims we see that the union of a man and woman is a relative, yet, private and natural relationship; and as a natural relationship is subject to "natural law," natural law being "divine will... in contradistinction to positive law," positive law being that law "established, under human sanctions." The natural relation of Husband and Wife and its products, such as children should be relatively free of any interference by government and so it should be for, "Matrimony ought to be free."

"The laws of nature are unchangeable."

The word, "marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married."

First, it is clear that marriage is distinguished, essentially different, from both the "agreement to marry" and the "act of becoming married." Secondly, marriage is a civil status. Civil is a word used in "contradistinction to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to ...an ecclesiastical station" It also explains that the obligations of the man and woman are not merely to each other but also to the "community" and that these civil duties are "legally incumbent." An incumbent is then defined as, "A person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." The words "person" and "individual" are not synonymous. "Person" being defined as "a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes." The word "individual" in the book Language, found in the Volume Library, is treated as a word "frequently misused" and clarifies its meaning with the statement, "The word (individual) should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in ‘Changes both in individuals and communities.'"

"Every person is a man, but not every man a person,"

A person by definition is legally bound and connected to the community, while the individual seems to be equal to or on a separate footing from the community. The individual is apparently not obligated to the bureaucratic administration in the same degree as those in the legal community. The administrative system has coined the phrase "an individual person" or "natural person." As usual their attempt to alleviate confusion seems to have done more to add to the chaos.

"Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law"

So, today's Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is "divine will," nor is it ecclesiastical, which is "distinguished from ‘civil' or ‘secular,'" but it is civil.

As spoken of earlier, in Bouvier's, the "private" relationships of "husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward" are not the same as the "legal" relationship granted by a Marriage license, which is clearly "public" such as "the relation of the magistrate and people."

"The laws of nature are most perfect and immutable; but the condition of human law is an unending succession, and there is nothing in it which can continue perpetually. Human laws are born, live, and die."

It should be becoming clear that there is at least two types of marriages and therefore at least two types of husband and wife relationships.

"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties - the husband, the wife and the state."

"Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word ‘contract' but upon the word ‘civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance.

This statement sets a distinct division between religious freedom and the absence of it. On the one side he mentions religious freedom in relation to ecclesiastical marriage but it seems a simple step to realize the reciprocal conclusion. If the ecclesiastical authority to marry has no influence in the realm of civil marriages then a civil marriage would then have no influence in the realm of ecclesiastical matrimony. This principle applies also to the marriage between the legal churches and the state and the state which established it. The legal church is not operating under the religious freedom aspect of Law in America.

Religious freedom means freedom from dominion over religious practices which should include the law established by religious belief as well as rituals, ceremonies and customs. Religious practices are not merely incantations, sprinkling of water and smoky rituals. Religious practices includes almost every aspect of life itself.

However, a marriage performed by an "ecclesiastical organization" should not be confused with a marriage performed by today's churches which are incorporated entities ¹⁹ of the state performing civil marriages as agents of the state. In most cases churches will not marry any couple who has not obtained permission to marry, through the purchase of a license, from the state prior to the ceremony. Almost all marriages performed in these churches are performed by the authority vested in those churches and ministers by the state in which they have agreed to act as an agent. This makes the minister an officer of the state carrying out the official duties of that state. Those marriage are not ecclesiastical because they do have legal significance.

What does it mean to have no legal significance?

Marriage by contract is still just as binding between Husband and Wife. It is the contract that binds the individuals. This is a right recognized by the civil state. A civil marriage is a three party contract between the state and the couple binding the couple to the ever changing terms of the state or enacted law. It is a prenuptial agreement with the state that imposes extraordinary or incumbent obligations and restriction upon the couple and is not required to establish a valid binding marriage contract as Husband and Wife. An ecclesiastical marriage can be just as binding between the couple and disputes may be resolved in ecclesiastical or civil courts if both parties agree at a later time. The couple are just as bound to each other before God. In an ecclesiastical marriage there is a mutual assent or agreement but the Church merely stands as a solemnizing witness and recorder of the contract.

The word ‘Church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word ‘ekklesia' which comes from two words ‘ek' meaning "out" and ‘kaleo' meaning to "call". Today's incorporated churches are not marrying couples ecclesiastically but are calling their people into an unequal civil relationship with the state.

In old English law "Marriage is used in the sense of ‘maritagium,' (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage." This is also, in principal, how the word is used today. To clarify this relationship of ‘lord and ward' we may consider Clark's statement, "the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves," shows that it is the third party known as the state that has the right to fix the extent of the privileges and duties by law, which is more than an equal position to hold in that three party relationship. The word law here refers to the legal system which has already obtained or at least assumed that it has obtained a jurisdictional authority over the parties by their consent, either before their application for license (permission) or at the time of its public solemnization.

Marriage is also defined as that which "signifies the act, ceremony or formal proceeding by which persons take each other for husband and wife." Note the use of the word "persons" and the lack of capitalization of the words "Husband and Wife." In the same law dictionary the word "for" is defined as "instead of" or "in place of." So the legal status of marriage by civil authority is where you take each other, assenting into a civil relationship with the state, not as Husband and Wife but "instead of" Husband and Wife or in other words for husband and wife and children, wards of the state.

"Each child belongs to the state."

Note, that a "common law marriage" is simply when the state assumes and recognizes what did appear at first to be a "Husband and Wife" relationship At Law to be in fact a solemnized civil marriage of ‘husband and wife' and ‘state' in equity.

"A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband."²⁷

According to the natural law and the common law, "All things which are the wife's belong to the husband." Not because of any misguided assumption that she is inferior but because she is one with her husband. It is understood in the natural law that the, "Husband and Wife are considered one person in law." Even in the definition of Husband and Wife it is called, "One of the great domestic relationships." That relationship, "being that of a man and a woman lawfully joined in marriage, by which, at common law, the legal existence of the wife is incorporated with that of her husband." In other words it is a lawful joining of the woman's status to the man.

The Church does not marry the couple, but they marry each other. Cannon laws clearly state in many denominations over the centuries that the Church gains no exercising authority over the marriage. In Civil marriages the states is a party and may gain an additional jurisdiction and control as a dominant party to the agreement to marry depending on the rites 7 of that each state.

There is a legal distinction between a civil and ecclesiastical marriage. If your minister was performing a civil marriage by the license of the state, both for himself and the couple, then it was not an ecclesiastical ceremony. Since, there is separation of Church and State he can only act as agent for one institution, either civil or Church.

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a fem-covert; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture." Sir William Blackstone Commentaries, Vol. 1, Chap XV.

"At common law a married woman's contract is absolutely null and void ab initio ... It is settled by the

decisions in this state that married women have no power, except such as is affirmatively given by statute, to bind themselves personally by contract." Saunders v. Powell, 67 S.W. 402, 403 (1933).

"Marriage is defined to be a covenant between a man and a woman, in which they mutually promise

cohabitation and a continual care to promote the comfort and happiness of each other. It is an institution of God, and a very honorable state. The Saviour honored it by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle: Buck Theo. Dictionary, 261, Lonas v. The State, 50 Tenn. 287, 308.

"It is well established that the failure to procure a marriage license does not have the effect of rendering the marriage void. The requirement of the license preliminary to marriage is wholly of statutory origin ... When a marriage has been proven there is a presumption in favor of its continuance." Browning v. Browning, 224 Md. 399 (1960)

"failure to procure a license does not invalidate a ceremonial marriage... In affirming the marriage as valid, the Court relied on the common law principle that a marriage without a license is universally held to be valid in the absence of an express declaration by the Legislature that such a marriage is void. Hollopeter, 52 Wash. At 45; see Weatherall v. Weatherall, 63 Wash. 526, 529, 115 P. 1078 (1911) (absence of license or failure to properly file a license would not invalidate a marriage otherwise valid.)"

"The rule stated in Hollopeter remains the rule today. In the eyes of the common law, marriage is a civil contract. As Blackstone put it, the law treats marriage ‘as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.' Picarella v. Picarella, 20 Md. App. 499, 316 A.2d 826, 832, n.10 (1974) (quoting 1 William Blackstone Commentaries, Book I, ch 15, section 433.) (Lewis's Ed.) "16

Here is the holding from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Meister

v. Moore, 96 US 76 (1877): "As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because

marriage is a thing of common right..." [emphasis added]

"If a ceremonial marriage is in fact established by evidence or admission it is presumed to be regular and valid, and the burden of showing that it was an invalid marriage rests on the party asserting its invalidity." Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 143

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government. Or phrased another way, the

God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right.

In its decision in Meister, the Court refused to even examine the numerous state court decisions prior to making its own decision. While this was assailed by legal commentators of the day as an egregious choice, we can only agree with the Court in its choice because a state court opinion has no authority to affect a fundamental right that existed antecedent to the formation of the state.

It should be noted that Meister has never been reversed and is still controlling case law concerning the fundamental right to marry without state interference.

"Recognized" versus "Unlawful""

A lot of Americans hold the incorrect perception that common law marriage is unlawful. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no state law anywhere that claims to make common law marriage "unlawful". Given the decision in Meister, such a law could not withstand the scrutiny of the US Supreme Court. And of course the exercise of a fundamental right is always lawful!

It is true that in many states common law marriage is not "recognized". Given the fact that common law marriage is lawful, one might reasonably ask what it meant by "not recognized". Without getting into a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo "not recognized" means that in the eyes of the State "the marriage is not known /understood/ perceived to exist". We agree with that legal concept and we can see nothing in that matter to concern us.

A "statutory marriage" is registered with the State as a result of the man and woman applying for a State marriage license and thus entering into a three-party contract with the State. Obviously the State keeps records of all contracts to which it is a party and therefore such a marriage is "known to exist" to State authorities. It is equally obvious that a private common law marriage would not be "known to exist" to State authorities. The problem arises from the erroneous view that "not recognized" is synonymous with "invalid". Because of Meister, no state can arbitrarily declare common law marriage invalid by legislation, and none have done so! To state the point most clearly - "not recognized" does not mean, "invalid".

The issues that a court may review in determining the validity of a marriage are:

??Consent of both parties.

??The existence of a marriage contract - oral or written.

??The existence of a marriage contract - present or future tense

??Prior marriages still in effect.

??Whether or not there is/was cohabitation.

??Solemnization or ceremony.

??Marriage Certificate providing evidence of a ceremony.

??A secret or deceptive marriage.

??A marriage based on false representations.

??Whether the scope and effect of an impediment produces an invalid marriage.

??Whether there are children that will be rendered bastards.

??Whether a religious figure performed the marriage ceremony.

The person who wishes to establish an incontrovertible record of a valid common law marriage should make sure to steer clear of areas that leave room for ambiguity. One who wishes to make an

incontrovertible record should:

1) Have both parties sign a marriage contract and have the document notarized.

2) Have a ceremony with witnesses present.

3) Have three witnesses sign a marriage certificate.

4) Memorialize the ceremony in photographs or on video.

5) Cohabitate after the contract has been signed or the ceremony performed.

6) Let friends, co-workers, and people in the community know you and your

spouse are married.

By applying each of these elements, there is no court in America that can declare your common law marriage invalid.

Property and Custody Right

There is a perception that there are no protections for property rights and/or child custody concerns in a common law marriage. That is one of the many inaccurate perceptions of common law marriage.

All marriages, statutory and common law, are based on a contract. In the case of a statutory marriage, the contract is between three parties - the husband, the wife, and the State - the State being the superior party of interest. In such marriages, if the husband and wife wish to dissolve the marriage they must do so through a court that is enforcing that State's Family Law Code. We say "must" because once the State was involved in the contract as the superior party of interest, the husband and wife are legally bound to obey the State in matters that are controlled by the State's Family Code.

In the case of common law marriage, there are two ways that property rights and child custody issues can be addressed. The first and most desirable method is to structure the contract to include the mechanism by which a termination of the contract shall occur. The parties to the contract (husband and wife to be) can sit down and agree on how they would want to dissolve the marriage if that circumstance were to occur. In a section of the contract concerning the dissolving of the contract, the parties can specify how property is to be divided and how child custody issues will be addressed. Often times constructing a framework for such matters when you're happy and in love will help provide a smoother road if the unfortunate occurs. We suggest structuring methods that involve submitting your possible disputes to your church elders or to a small panel of trusted friends. In this way the decisions that you're seeking will be rendered by people who know you and love you, rather than by some government bureaucrat in a black robe.

If pre-structuring a mechanism for divorce within the contract doesn't appeal to you, you always have the option of submitting your marriage to the jurisdiction of your State's family law court. And have no doubt, if you submit your marriage contract to the Family Law Court, it will assume jurisdiction. You should understand that if you take this route, you are surrendering your independence to the State. You cannot back out if you don't like what the court decides. You will be bound by the decisions of the court just as if you'd entered into a statutory marriage.

OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE LICENSES

Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871 [Civ. No. 15818. Second Dist., Div. Two. Oct. 17, 1947.]
[4] In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants.

[5] Jurisdiction over divorce proceedings of residents of California by the courts of a sister state cannot be conferred by agreement of the litigants.

[6] As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions.

[7] Not only is a divorce of California [81 Cal.App.2d 880] residents by a court of another state void because of the plaintiff's lack of bona fide residence in the foreign state, but it is void also for lack of the court's jurisdiction over the State of California.

[8] This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.
[9] It therefore follows that a judgment of divorce by a court of Nevada without first having pursuant to its own laws acquired...
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties. The husband, the wife and the state..."

Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146; 5-97-0108 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ---WEST v. WEST No. 93-F-92 JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court: This action was brought in April of 1993 by Carolyn and John West (grandparents) to obtain visitation rights with their grandson, Jacob Dean West. Jacob was born January 27, 1992. He is the biological son of Ginger West and Gregory West, Carolyn and John's deceased son...

However, this constitutionally protected parental interest is not wholly without limit or beyond regulation. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). "[T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare." Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. at 442. In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183. This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity. Has the State intervened too early or perhaps intervened where no intervention was warranted? This question then directs our discussion to an analysis of the provision of the Act that allows the challenged State intervention (750 ILCS 5/607(b) (West 1996)).

cestui que trust n. (properly pronounced ses-tee kay, but lawyers popularly pronounce it setty kay) from old French. 1) an old fashioned expression for the beneficiary of a trust. 2) "the one who trusts" or the person who will benefit from the trust and will receive payments or a future distribution from the trust's assets. (See: beneficiary)

CESTUI QUE TRUST, A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q.v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

2.01 - Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

•775.01 Common law of England.--The common law of England in relation to crimes, except so far as the same relates to the modes and degrees of punishment, shall be of full force in this state where there is no existing provision by statute on the subject.

The law of England, which inspired much of the law formed in the United States, was a mixture of canon law and Common Law (principles and rules of action embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments). Canon law and English common law borrowed heavily from each other throughout medieval times and together formed the basis for many of the legal procedures used in the United States. For example, canon law's influence is still visible in the concepts of the Grand Jury, presentment (a description of a criminal offense that is based on the jury's own knowledge), and some characteristics of U.S. marriage law.

Canon law has its origins in ancient church writings, decisions made by the general councils of local bishops, and rulings issued by the pope. These ideas were organized in the mid-twelfth century by an Italian law teacher, Gratian. He sorted the collection into religious law, penal law, sacramental law, and other categories. Along with a set of decisions by the pope called Decretals of Gregory IX, Gratian's work formed the main body of canon law for nearly eight hundred years. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV recodified (revised) the canons. Pope John Paul II reissued the Code of Canon Law in 1983-authorizing increased participation of laity in the church, recognizing the needs of disabled people, and making other changes. A related text, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was reissued by the Holy See (the seat of papal government) in 1990.

In the Middle Ages, canon law was used in ecclesiastical courts (church) to decide many types of cases that in modern times are decided by civil courts, including criminal offenses. This was because most English Christians did not make a great distinction between secular and spiritual offenses. Crimes that were tried by the church included Adultery, blasphemy, slander, heresy (opposition to official religious views), money lending, and gambling. From the late fourteenth to the early sixteenth centuries church courts also heard many breach-of-faith cases concerning contracts, as well as inheritance and marriage-related cases.

Canon law n. laws and regulations over ecclesiastical (church) matters developed between circa 1100 and 1500 and used by the Roman Catholic Church in reference to personal morality, status and powers of the clergy, administration of the sacraments and church and personal discipline. Canon law comprises ordinances of general councils of the church, decrees, bulls and epistles of the Popes, and the scriptures and writings of the early fathers of the church. Canon law has no legal force except within the Vatican in Rome, Italy, and in those nations in which the Catholic Church is the "official" church and where it prevails in religious matters which may affect all citizens (such as abortion and divorce). In Great Britain there is also a body of canon law dating back to pre-reformation in the 16th Century, which is used by the Anglican (Episcopal) Church. Canon law is not to be confused with professional canons, which are rules of conduct with no religious connection.

Canon Law Opinion

Excerpt from a Canon Law Opinion Outlining
the "de facto" Catholic Antenuptial Agreement

(submitted 8/23/04 by the defendant in an Ohio divorce case)

1. As Catholics, to enter into marriage in the Catholic Church is to be introduced into an ecclesial order of spouses (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1631 and 1537).

a) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1631: "This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:

· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is

necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it."

b) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1537:
"The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without basis in Sacred Scripture, has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,...."

2. Among the effects of being incorporated into the ecclesial order of spouses is the assumption of certain rights and duties towards one's spouse and one's children. (See supra Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1631). These rights and duties are governed by canon law.

a) Code of Canon Law, canon 1059: "Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law, but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage."

3. Among the rights and duties that bind those in the order of spouses are the duty and the right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1151).

4. Before spouses may separate, the spouses have the duty and the right to follow the canons regarding the "Separation (of the Spouses) with the Bond Remaining," the substantive law of which is found in Code of Canon Law, canons 1151-1155, and the procedural law of which is found in Code of Canon Law, canons 1692-1696 (see below).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

CANON LAW

SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND REMAINS

Can. 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

Can. 1152
§1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other's fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.

§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153
§1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation.

CASES CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF SPOUSES

Can. 1692
§1 Unless lawfully provided otherwise in particular places, the personal separation of baptized spouses can be decided by a decree of the diocesan Bishop, or by the judgment of a judge in accordance with the following canons.

§2 Where the ecclesiastical decision does not produce civil effects, or if it is foreseen that there will be a civil judgment not contrary to the divine law, the Bishop of the diocese in which the spouses are living can, in the light of their particular circumstances, give them permission to approach the civil courts.

§3 If the case is also concerned with the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge is to endeavor, without prejudice to the provision of §2, to have the case brought before the civil court from the very beginning.

Can. 1693
§1 The oral contentious process is to be used, unless either party or the promoter of justice requests the ordinary contentious process.

§2 If the ordinary contentious process is used and there is an appeal, the tribunal of second instance is to proceed in accordance with can. 1682 §2, observing what has to be observed.

Can. 1694 In matters concerning the competence of the tribunal, the provisions of can. 1673 are to be observed.

Can. 1695 Before he accepts the case, and whenever there appears to be hope of success, the judge is to use pastoral means to induce the parties to be reconciled and to resume their conjugal life.

Can. 1696 Cases of separation of spouses also concern the public good; the promoter of justice must, therefore, always intervene, in accordance with can. 143

The Five Types of Legal Argument succeeds both as a work of legal theory and as a practical guide to legal reasoning for law students, lawyers and judges. The five types of legal arguments (text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy

Every citizen ought to know the Law of the Land. There is no excuse for not knowing the law. It will not help a person defend him or herself in a legal crisis. Ignorance can never be explained away.

Even when you have not acted against the law, you might need to know the law in order to protect yourself from people who might violate the law. To know ones rights and privileges is not only beneficial, it is absolutely essential. You will never know when the information you have at your disposal might come in handy. Having it ready before any crisis strikes will help you take immensely wiser and more informed decisions which you will not regret later. Just as there are varied disciplines in the field of medicine, there is a wide range of divisions when it comes to law. For instance, everyone knows that you don't visit a general physician for a severe heart ailment. You want to consult a heart specialist in this case. Likewise, for every particular type of law, there are specific attorneys who specialize in that particular field. It really helps to search and identify the suitable attorney for your particular case, instead of heading to the nearest or most familiar attorney for every case.

There are many ways in which a legal system increases its limited authority but it is most complete through the consent of the individual. In China they have "the one child contract." If you sign it, you will become eligible for many of the benefits offered by the government, such as free medical care, schooling and better paying jobs. If later the mother becomes pregnant and refuses to abort the child the family becomes responsible for paying for all the expense of the second child, paying back all the benefits they received for the first child and often suffer the loss of their present employed position and pay scale. In America the pressure to abort a child is often much more subtle.
The same dealt subtly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children [fetus] 1 , to the end they might not live2 2 . (Acts 7:19)

      If children survive the financial and social pressure to be aborted, they must still overcome the strain of the mental, spiritual and contractual pressures society shall place upon them.
      Unfortunately, society as a whole is continuously degrading the family as a unit through economic, social and legal means even though the family is the foundation from which the society is built.
      If we want better people to make a better world, then we will have to begin where people are made --- in the family. 3

Economic pressures may burden and exhaust the parents. Social Security often removes the grandparents from the family unit. School systems distance the parents from the mental development of the children as they are molded outside the family unit. The media and socially applied peer pressures add their own unique and varied distortions to the child's development.
"When the foundation fails all fails."

The few parents who feel compelled to protect their children from exposure to these pressures or simply feel a sense of responsibility to raise their children directly, often find their way blocked by a legal system that seems to be usurping the authority of the parents by assuming custody of children in the name of "The Law." Yet, is it usurpation or have we unwittingly waived custody of our children by some previous legal contract or consensual agreement.
In Bouvier's definition of law we find stated that:

"3. An analysis of the science of law presents a view, first, of the rights of persons, distinguishing them as natural persons and artificial person, or body politic or corporations. These rights are deemed either absolute, as relating to the enjoyment of personal security, liberty, and of private property or, on the other hand, as relative, - that is, arising out of the relation in which several persons stand. These relations are either, first, public or political, viz.: the relation of magistrate and people; or, second, are private, as the relations of master and servant, husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, to which might be added relations arising out private contracts, such as partnerships, principal and agent, and the like."

"8. Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure. In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law."4

"The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.5

Here by these definitions and maxims we see that the union of a man and woman is a relative, yet, private and natural relationship; and as a natural relationship is subject to "natural law," natural law being "divine will...in contradistinction to positive law," positive law being that law "established, under human sanctions." If we have identified these concepts properly it does seem that the natural relation of Husband and Wife and its products, such as children should be relatively free of any interference by government and so it should be for, "Matrimony ought to be free."6

The laws of nature are unchangeable." 7
Let us look at the word, "marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married." It "is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose association is found on the distinction of sex." 8

It also explains that the obligations of the man and woman are not merely to each other but also to the "community" and that these civil duties are "legally incumbent." An incumbent is then defined as, "A person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." 10

The words "person" and "individual" are not synonymous. "Person" being defined as "a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes." 11

The word "individual" in the book Language, found in the Volume Library, is treated as a word "frequently misused" and clarifies its meaning with the statement, "The word (individual) should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in `Changes both in individuals and communities.'"

"Every person is a man, but not every man a person," 12

A person by definition is legally bound and connected to the community, while the individual seems to be equal to or on a separate footing from the community. The individual is apparently not obligated to the bureaucratic administration in the same degree as those in the legal community. The administrative system has coined the phrase "an individual person" or "natural person." As usual their attempt to alleviate confusion seems to have done more to add to the chaos.

      "Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law" 13
      So, today's Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is "divine will," nor ecclesiastical, "distinguished from `civil' or `secular,'" 14 but it is civil.
      As spoken of earlier, in Bouvier's, the "private" relationships of "husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward" are not the same as the "legal" relationship granted by a Marriage license, which is clearly "public" such as "the relation of the magistrate and people."
      The laws of nature are most perfect and immutable; but the condition of human law is an unending succession, and there is nothing in it which can continue perpetually. Human laws are born, live, and die.15

A "Marriage license:" is "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,...By statute it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage."16 as opposed to ecclesiastical solemnization.
It should be becoming clear that there is at least two types of marriages and therefore at least two types of husband and wife relationships.

"Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word `contract' but upon the word `civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance. Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves. Hence marriages are not within the provision of the United States Constitution forbidding a state to impair the obligation of contracts.".17

      In the first paragraph we see again that at least one type of marriage is "civil" or "public" as distinguished from another which may be "private," "ecclesiastical" or "natural." Ecclesiastical organizations have "no legal significance" and therefore no civil effect.
      This statement made by Clark sets a distinct division between religious freedom and the absence of it. On the one side he mentions religious freedom in relation to ecclesiastical marriage but it seems a simple step to realize the reciprocal conclusion. If the ecclesiastical authority to marry has no influence in the realm of legal marriages then a legal marriage would then have no influence in the realm of ecclesiastical matrimony. This principle applies also to the marriage between the legal churches and the state and the state which established it. The legal church is not operating under the religious freedom aspect of Law in America.
      Religious freedom means freedom from dominion over religious practices which should include the law established by religious belief as well as rituals, ceremonies and customs. Religious practices are not merely incantations, sprinkling of water and smoky rituals. Religious practices includes almost every aspect of life itself.

However, a marriage performed by an "ecclesiastical organization" should not be confused with a marriage performed by today's churches which are incorporated entities 18 of the state performing civil marriages as agents of the state. In most cases churches will not marry any couple who has not obtained permission to marry, through the purchase of a license, from the state prior to the ceremony. Almost all marriages performed in these churches are performed by the authority vested in those churches and ministers by the state in which they have agreed to act as an agent. This makes the minister an officer of the state carrying out the official duties of that state. Those marriage are not ecclesiastical because they do have legal significance.

What does it mean to have no legal significance? (see Law vs. Legal).

The word `church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word `ekklesia' which comes from two words `ek' meaning "out" and `kaleo' meaning to "call". Today's incorporated churches are not marrying couples ecclesiastically but are calling their people into an unequal civil relationship with the state.
Clark states that this civil marriage contract is a "mutual assent." As is the case with all contracts there must be mutual consent and valid consideration. In a natural joining of a man and a woman as Husband and Wife there is a mutual consent and consideration, but if one or both are persons and have a "legal status" and are obligated to another, then there cannot be a valid consideration without the permission of the one to whom the party is subject. In old English law "Marriage is used in the sense of `maritagium,' (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage."

This is also, in principal, how the word is used today. To clarify this relationship of `lord and ward' we may consider Clark's statement, "the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves," shows that it is the third party known as the state that has the right to fix the extent of the privileges and duties by law, which is more than an equal position to hold in that three party relationship. The word law here refers to the legal system which has already obtained or at least assumed that it has obtained a jurisdictional authority over the parties by their consent, either before their application for license (permission) or at the time of its public solemnization.
Marriage is also defined as that which "signifies the act, ceremony or formal proceeding by which persons take each other for husband and wife."20

Note the use of the word "persons" and the lack of capitalization of the words "Husband and Wife." In the same law dictionary the word "for" is defined as "instead of" or "in place of."21

So the legal status of marriage by civil authority is where you take each other, assenting into a civil relationship with the state, not as Husband and Wife but "instead of" Husband and Wife or in other words for husband and wife and children, wards of the state.

""Wife and son are names of nature.""22

In 1906, the Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that: "It (marriage) differs from all other contracts 23

in its far-reaching consequences to the body politic itself, and for that reason, in dealing with it or the status resulting therefrom, the state never stands indifferent, but is always a party whose interest must be taken into account."24

"Each child belongs to the state."25

The state can and will always consider itself a party in a civil marriage performed by its officers in accordance with the duties and obligations imposed by the permitting authority, but it has no jurisdictional authority over the natural matrimony by "divine will" between two free and natural individuals. It is the previous connecting contractual commitments to the legal society that bind a person's obedience to the commands of that legal society.
Note, that a "common law marriage" is simply when the state assumes and recognizes what did appear at first to be a "Husband and Wife" relationship At Law to be in fact a solemnized civil marriage of husband and wife and state in equity.

"A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband."26

According to the natural law and the common law, "All things which are the wife's belong to the husband."27

Not because of any misguided assumption that she is inferior but because she is one with her husband. It is understood in the natural law that the, "Husband and Wife are considered one person in law."28

Even in the definition of Husband and Wife it is called, "One of the great domestic relationships." That relationship, "being that of a man and a woman lawfully joined in marriage, by which, at common law, the legal existence of the wife is incorporated with that of her husband."29

In other words it is a lawful joining of the woman's status to the man.
"And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:8.)

This authority that a man holds at law over his wife is not a problem to a good woman as long as the husband truly loves, honors and cherishes her and she is as willing to humble herself to his will as he is willing to humble himself to God's divine will. As with all contracts there must be valid and mutual consideration.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:22, 25)

Despite the fact that the husband is to have custody of his children the individual state governments and bureaucracies are constantly claiming regulatory right and custody. Are these claims of the state usurpations, without any basis in law, or is there an aspect to the relationship of a husband and a wife that is shared by the state?

"And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who [are] those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant." (Genesis 33:5)

It was the custom that if a man and a woman were married as Husband and Wife, then the husband had custody of the children and held the wife's right to contract in a domestic trust.30

The common law also agrees with the natural law, for "at the common law the father had an almost absolute right to the custody of his children." 31

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" (Ephesians 5: 28, 29)

When a daughter wished to marry, she would obtain her father's permission and he in turn gave her in marriage. The son would also gain permission from his father if he wished to continue to take his father's name as his own. If the husband and wife are wards of the state then their children must obtain permission to marry from their parent's master. Unless they become adopted by a father who is not subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's master.

"Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in." 32

Who is the father from whom permission should be obtained? By and under whose authority should a man and woman be joined together in the ceremony of Holy Matrimony?

And what concord hath the Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that beleiveth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God: as God hath said, I will dwell in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean (thing); and I will receive you.And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (II Corinthian 6:15-18)

It is, more often than not, the remedy and will of the public magistrates 33 that husbands and wives under their jurisdiction divorce. It is the magistrate that decides the fate of the children in his custody in contradistinction to the law of nature and the common law.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:5,9)

The implications of all this can seem to create confusion. We should see that neither a bride nor groom can obtain clear permission 34 to marry from a father who has assented to the same restrictive legal civil status that they are trying to avoid. And the state by its very nature cannot offer permission to the God fearing couple to marry as a Natural Husband and Wife. These problems can seem to compound as we discover that no minister or priest is available to conduct a purely ecclesiastical ceremony which would exclude the state and its authoritarian and bureaucratic legal controls.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (II Corinthian 6:14)
Why should we give authority to the state over that which God has ordained? If we have faith in the Lord's blessing and authority why do we also ask for the government's blessing and authority?

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
      This is probably one of the most frequently repeated quotes from the Bible that is used by men holding positions of authority in societies today. If there is no power but of God and it is He that ordains the powers that are truly in authority then what criteria does God use to establish "the higher powers."
      Are we subject to a higher power or are we making the state a higher power by obtaining a marriage and or other licenses? If matrimony, through the Law of Nature and the Common Law of the Land, is the domain of God and our children are His gifts then why would we turn our family and ourselves over to the civil authority of the State? Is that not like rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's?
      The Bible mentions the word covenant over 300 times. It tells us many stories of the binding of man to man and man to God. It is made very clear that God requires the fulfillment of our agreements and compliance with our words. Paul has told us to let our yes be yes. Does he want us to enter into covenants, even quasi covenants, with those who do not follow the spirit of God and His Laws?
      Why should we ask others for permission to do that which God has ordained? Is God's permission and blessing not enough?

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:14,15)

Does God want us to give custody of our children to the State? Does He want you to put your Husband and Wife relationship under the authority of a system that prefers and compels divorce as the most common solution to marital strife?

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8)

If God has given us the Holy Relationship of Matrimony, He therefore has dominion and authority over that relationship. So why should we render unto the state a legal authority over that relationship which rightfully belongs to God?

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Mt 22:21- Mr 12:17 - Lu 20:25)

If you are married in Florida, England or Kuwait you are considered married in Oregon and everywhere else in the world, so why is not the Kingdom of God acceptable? In fact it is. An ecclesiastical marriage is a lawful marriage that offers no equitable or legal benefits, obligations or jurisdiction.
It would seem that in this life we may choose in many ways who we would have over us. So, is the choice not ours?

Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. (John18:37)

If we have been joined together in the name of God and by His authority then why must we call on any other name or authority? If we call on another will they assume a power and authority that will take away or parental rights?

"Those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the children.
The latter give them only life; the former teach them the art of living." 35

Should you call upon another just to gain the financial and worldly benefits of a legal marriage?

And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Ac 2:21)

Should we turn over the custody of the children that the LORD God has given us to a civil authority that does not follow Christ?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6).

Are there other ways that we are going under authorities of men by making covenants?

And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that [were] round about them, [concerning] whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them. (2Ki 17:15)

Have we returned to the bondage of Egypt and the covenants of Rome and the spirit of Babylon?

And if we have entered into covenants with strange gods can we return to the LORD God?

But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I [am] the LORD. (Le 26:45)

FOOTNOTES

ARE WE STILL UNDER ROMAN LAW? ........ THE "ALL CAPS" ARGUMENT

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:32:41 -0500

WHY IS MY NAME IN "ALL CAPS"?

ANY TIME THAT YOU ARE SERVED COURT DOCUMENTS, OR A LETTER FROM A CREDITOR OR ANY CORRESPONDENCE IN WHICH YOUR "LAWFUL" NAME IS LISTED IN "ALL CAPS", - THIS IS A LEGAL FICTION, A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST OR CESTUI QUE TRUST OR CORPORATION WHICH LAWFULLY DIFFERENT FROM A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN.

Respectfully Submitted,
Darren Michaels
President
Senior Legal Researcher
Private Attorney General
Qualified Criminal Investigator
Financial Advisor - Asset Protection / Estate Planner
Florida Notary

(305)359-1122 or (305)647-5232 - summer telephone - until mid Oct 2008
Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663
(515)474-5123 FAX
http://www.homesteadservicesflorida.com - website
info@homesteadservicesflorida.com - email

An Attorney can only sue or represent a trust, corporation or "ward of the court" that is why you will never see anu court pleadings in upper and lower case lettering. It appears that your government will always try to register your property through the use of your name written in "all upper-case letters" -- in the following way: "JOHN DOE" [which creates a "legal fiction"] instead of using your "true and Proper" name [which must be written in both "upper and lower case" letters] -- as follows: "John Doe".

For example, the following documents that you accepted from your government are all contracts" (Driver's License, Social Security Card, Voter's Registration Card, Credit Cards, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, Summons and Complaints, the registration of your real estate for taxation, etc.).

Blacks Law Dictionary - Revised 4th Edition 1968

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) - In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. - Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Roman Law

In the following article this subject is briefly treated under the two heads of; I. Principles; II. History. Of these two divisions, I is subdivided into: A. Persons; B. Things; C. Actions. The subdivisions of II are: A. Development of the Roman Law (again divided into periods) and B. Subsequent Influence.

I. PRINCIPLES

The characteristic of the earlier Roman law was its extreme formalism. From its first secret administration as the law of the privileged classes it expanded until it became the basis of all civilized legal systems. The Roman law in its maturity recognized a definite natural-law theory as the ultimate test of the reasonableness of positive law, and repudiated the concept that justice is the creature of positive law. Cicero (De leg., I, v) tells us "Nos ad justitiam esse natos, neque opinione sed natura constitutum esse jus" (i.e. Justice is natural, not the effect of opinion). Justice was conformity with perfect laws and jurisprudence was the appreciation of things human and divine - the science of the just and the unjust, but always the science of law with its just application to practical cases. Law was natural or positive (man-made); it was natural strictly speaking (instinctive), or it was natural under the Roman concept of the jus gentium (law of nations) - natural in itself or so universally recognized by all men that a presumption arose by reason of universality. The Romans attributed slavery to the jus gentium because it was universally practised, and therefore implied the consent of all men, yet the definition of slavery expressly states that it is contra naturam , "against nature ". The precepts of the law were these: to live honestly; not to injure another; to give unto each one his due. Positive law was the jus civile , or municipal law, of a particular state.

Gaius says that all law pertains to persons, to things, or to actions.

A. Persons

Man and person were not equivalent terms. A slave was not a person, but a thing; a person was a human being endowed with civil status. In other than human beings personality might exist by a fiction. Status was natural or civil. Natural status existed by reason of natural incidents, such as posthumous or already born ( jam nati ), sane and insane, male and female, infancy and majority. Civil status had to do with liberty, citizenship, and family. If one had no civil status whatever, he had no personality and was a mere thing. Men were either free or slaves : if free they were either free born or freedmen. Slaves were born such or became slaves either by the law of nations or by civil law. By the law of nations they became slaves by reason of captivity; by civil law, by the status of their parents or in the occasional case where they permitted themselves to be sold in order to participate in the price, if they were over twenty years of age. An ungrateful freedman, again, might become a slave, as might one condemned to involuntary servitude in punishment for crime. Freeborn, in the later law, were such as were born of a mother who was free at conception, at birth, or at any time between conception and birth. Freedmen were former slaves who had been emancipated under one of several forms. They owed obsequium - i.e., respect and reverence - to their former masters. The Lex Ælia Sentia placed restrictions on emancipation by minors and in fraud of creditors. The Lex Fusia Caninia restricted the right of manumission proportionately to the number of slaves owned.

Men were either citizens or foreigners ( peregrini ), perhaps more accurately "denizens". Assuming that one had civil status, he might be either sui juris (his own master) or alieni juris (subject to another). The power to which he was subject was termed a potestas: slaves were under the dominical power, and children were under the patria potestas exercised by a male ascendant; the marital power was termed manus (i.e., "the hand", signifying force).

Slaves were at first insecure in their lives, but later the master's power of life and death was taken away. They were in commerce and might be sold, donated, bequeathed by legacy, alienated by testament, or manumitted. They had nothing of their own, and whatever was acquired through them accrued to the masters. Only very rarely could they bring their masters into legal relations with third persons.

The paternal power over children (descendants) was a close patriarchal relationship, dating from remote antiquity and at first extending to life and death. Between paterfamilias and filius familias (father and son), no obligation was legally enforceable (see Prejudicial action below). During his lifetime the paterfamilias was the owner of accessions made by the filius familias . The later law, however, recognized a quasi-partnership of blood and conceded an inchoate ownership in the paternal goods, which was given expression in the system of successions. A child under power might have the administration of separate goods called his peculium . The paterfamilias did not part with the ownership. The military and quasi-military peculium became a distinct, separate property. Even the slave at his master's sufferance might enjoy a peculium . The paternal power was stripped of the power of life and death, the right of punishment was moderated, and the sale of children was restricted to cases of extreme necessity. In the earlier law, it had been permitted to the father to give over his child (as he might give over a slave ) to some person injured through the act of the child, and thus escape liability. With the growth of humane sentiment, the noxal action in the case of children was abolished. Between parents and children, only affirmative or negative actions on the question of filiation or the existence of the paternal power were permitted. The paternal power was held only by males, and extended indefinitely downward during the lifetime of the patriarch: i.e., father and son were under the patria potestas of the grandfather. The potestas was in no wise influenced by infancy or majority. In the case given, upon the death of the grandfather the paternal power would fall upon the father. The patria potestas was acquired over children born in lawful wedlock, by legitimation, and by adoption.

Marriage ( nuptiœ or connubium ) was the association or community of life between man and woman, for the procreation and rearing of offspring, validly entered into between Roman citizens. It was wont to be preceded by sponsalia (betrothal), defined as an agreement of future marriage. Sponsalia might be verbally entered into, and required no solemnities. The mutual consent of the spouses was requisite, and the object of marriage was kept in mind so that marriage with an impotent person ( castratus ) was invalid: the parties must have attained puberty, and there could be but one husband and one wife. It is true that more or less continuous extra-matrimonial relations between the same man and woman in the absence of any other marriage were considered as a kind of marriage, under the jus gentium , by the jurists of the second and third centuries. The connubium , or Roman marriage, was for Roman citizens: matrimonium existed among other free persons, and contubernium was the marital relation of slaves. The latter was a status of fact, not a juridical status. Marriage might be incest, indecorous, or noxal: incest, e.g., between blood relations or persons between whom affinity existed; indecorous, e.g., between a freeman and a lewd woman or actress; noxal, e.g., between Christian and Jew, tutor or curator and ward, etc.

Cognation or blood relationship is indicated by degrees and lines; the degree measures the distance between cognates, and the line shows the series, either direct (ascending or descending) or collateral; the collateral line is either equal or unequal in the descent from the common ancestor. In the direct line, in both civil and canon law, there are as many degrees as there are generations. In the collateral line there is a difference: by civil law, brother and sister are in the second degree, although each is only one degree removed from the common ancestor, the father; by canon law, they are in the first degree. The civil law counts each degree up to the common ancestor and then down to the other collateral. The canon law measures the cognation of collaterals by the distance in degrees of the collateral farthest removed from the common ancestor. Uncle and niece are three degrees distant by civil law ; by canon law they are only two degrees removed. Affinity is the artificial relationship which exists between one spouse and the cognates of the other. Affinity has no degrees. By Roman law, marriage in the direct line was prohibited; in the collateral line it was prohibited in the second degree.

Marriage was usually accompanied by the dowry, created on behalf of the wife, and by donations propter nuptias , on behalf of the husband. The dowry ( dos ) was what the wife brought or what some other person on her behalf supplied towards the expenses of the married state. Property of the wife in excess of the dowry was called her paraphernalia . The dowry was profective, if it came from the father; adventitious, if from the wife or from any other source. The husband enjoyed its administration and control, and all of its fruits accrued to him. Upon the dissolution of the marriage the profective dowry might be reclaimed by the wife's father, and the adventitious by the wife or her heirs. Special actions existed for the enforcement of dotal agreements.

The offspring of incest or adultery could not be legitimated. Adoption, which imitates nature, was a means of acquiring the paternal power. Only such persons as in nature might have been parents could adopt, and hence a difference of eighteen years was necessary in the ages of the parties. Adoption was of a minor, and could not be for a time only. Similar to adoption was adrogation, whereby one sui juris subjected himself to the patria potestas of another.

The paternal power was dissolved by the death of the ancestor, in which case each descendant in the first degree became sui juris; those in remoter degrees fell under the paternal power of the next ascendant: Upon the death of the grandfather, his children became sui juris , and the grandchildren came under the power of their respective fathers. Loss of status ( capitis diminutio , media or maxima ), involving loss of liberty or citizenship, destroyed the paternal power. Emancipation and adoption had a similar effect.

One might be sui juris and yet subject to tutorship or curatorship. Pupillary tutorship was a personal public office consisting in the education and in the administration of the goods of a person sui juris , but who had not yet attained puberty. Tutorship was testamentary, statutory, or dative: testamentary when validly exercised in the will of the paterfamilias with respect to a child about to become sui juris , but under puberty. A testamentary tutor could not be appointed by the mother nor by a maternal ascendant. The agnates, who were an important class of kinsmen, in the early Roman law were cognates connected through males either by blood relationship or by the artificial tie of agnation. Statutory tutorship was that which the law immediately conferred, as the tutorship of agnates, of patrons, etc. The first statutory tutors were the agnates and gentiles called to tutorship by the Twelve Tables. Justinian abolished the distinction in this respect between agnates and cognates, and called them promiscuously to the statutory tutorship.

Similar to tutorship, although distinct in its incidents, was curatorship. In tutorship the office terminated with the puberty of the ward. The interposition of the tutor's auctoritas in every juridical act was required to be concurrent, both in time and place. He had no power of ratification, nor could he supply the auctoritas by letter or through an agent. Curators were given to persons sui juris after puberty and before they had reached the necessary maturity for the conduct of their own affairs. Curators were appointed also for the deaf and dumb, for the insane and for prodigals. The curator of a minor was given rather to the goods than to the person of his ward; the curator's consent was necessary to any valid disposition of the latter's goods. Tutors and curators were required to give security for the faithful performance of their duties and were liable on the quasi-contractual relationship existing between them and their wards. In certain cases the law excused persons from these duties, and provision was made for the removal of persons who had become "suspect".

In the law of persons, status depended upon liberty, citizenship, and family ; and the corresponding losses of status were known respectively as capitis diminutio maxima , media , and minima . The minima , by a fiction at least, was involved even when one became sui juris , although this is disputed.

B. Things

Things were divini vel humani juris (i.e., governed by divine or by human law ). Things sacrœ were publicly consecrated to the gods; places of burial were things religiosœ things sanctœ were so called because protected by a penal sanction - thus the city walls, gates, ditch, etc. were sanctœ . None of these could be part of an individual's patrimony, because they were considered as not in commerce.

Things humani juris were the things with which the private law concerned itself. Things are common when the ownership is in no one, and the enjoyment open to all. In an analogous way, things are public when the ownership is in the people, and the use in individuals. The air, flowing water, the sea, etc. were things common to all, and therefore the property of none. The seashore, rivers, gates, etc., were public. Private things were such as were capable of private ownership and could form part of the patrimony of individuals. Again, things were collective or singular. The once important distinction between res mancipi and nec mancipi was suppressed by Justinian. Res mancipi were those things which the Romans most highly prized: Italian soil, rural servitudes, slaves, etc. These required formal mancipation.

Things were either corporeal or incorporeal: corporeal were those quœ tangi possunt (which can be touched - tangible). Detention or naked possession of a thing was the mere physical faculty of disposing of it. Possession was the detention of a corporeal thing coupled with the animus dominii , or intent of ownership. It might be in good faith or in bad: if there was a just title, the possession was just: if not, unjust. A true possession was possible of a corporeal thing only; quasi-possession was the term employed in reference to an incorporeal thing, as a right. The jus possessionis was the entirety of rights which accrued to the possession as such. The advantages of possession as independent of ownership were as follows: the possessor had not the burden of producing and proving title; sometimes he enjoyed the fruits of the thing; he retained the thing until the claimant made proof ; he stood in a better position in law than the claimant, and received the decision where the claim was not fully established; the possessor might retain the thing by virtue of the jus retertionis , until reimbursed for charges and outlays; the possessor in good faith was not liable for culpa (fault). One might not recover possession by violence or self-help.

A right in re was a real right, valid against all the world; a right ad rem was an obligation or personal right against a particular person or persons. Rights in re were ownership, inheritance, servitudes, pledge, etc. Ownership was quiritarian or bonitarian: quiritarian, when acquired by the jus civile only available to Roman citizens; bonitarian, when acquired by any natural, as distinguished from civil, means. This distinction was removed by Justinian. There could be co-ownership or sole ownership.

The modes of acquiring ownership were of two genera, arising from natural law and from civil law. One acquired, by natural law, in occupation, accession, perception of fruits, and by tradition (delivery). Occupation occurred in acquisition by hunting, fishing, capture in war, etc. The right of post-liminium was the recovery of rights lost through capture in war, and in proper cases applied to immoveables, moveables, and to the status of persons. Finding was also a means of occupation, since a thing completely lost or abandoned was res nullius , and therefore belonged to the first taker.

Accession was natural, industrial, or mixed. The birth of a child to a slave woman was an instance of natural accession ; so also, was the formation of an island in a stream. This accrued to the riparian owners proportionately to their frontage along the side of the river towards which the island was formed. Alluvion was the slow increment added to one's riparian property by the current. Industrial accession required human intervention and occurred by adjunctio , specificatio , or commixtio , or by a species of the latter, confusio . Mixed accession took place by reason of the maxim: Whatever is planted on the soil, or connected with it, belongs to the soil.

In perception of fruits the severance or taking of revenue might be by the owner or by another, as by the usufructuary, the lessee (in locatio-conductio ), by the creditor (in antichresis ), and by the possessor in good faith.

Tradition was the transfer of possession and was a corporeal act, where the nature of the object permitted. Corporeal things were moveables or immoveables. In modern civil law, incorporeal things are moveables or immoveables, depending upon the nature of the property to which the rights or obligations attach. In Roman law obligations, rights, and actions were not embraced in the terms moveables and immoveables .

The vindicatory action ( rei vindicatio ) went to the direct question of ownership, and ownership was required to be conclusively proved. Complete proof of ownership was often extremely difficult, or impossible, and the Prætor Publicius devised the actio publiciana available to an acquirer by just title and in good faith, but who could not establish the ownership of his author. It was available to such an acquirer against a claimant who possessed infirmiore jure .

Ownership ( dominium ) is an absolute right in re . A servitude (sometimes called a dismemberment of ownership) was a constituted right in the property of another, whereby the owner was bound to suffer something, or abstain from doing something, with respect to his property, for the utility of some other person or thing. A servitude was not a service of a person, but of a thing, and to adjoining land or to a person. Servitudes due to land were real (predial), while servitudes due to a person as such were personal. There were servitudes which might be considered as either real or personal, and others, again, which could only be personal, such as usufruct, use, habitation, and the labour of slaves. A real servitude existed when land was servient to land. Such a servitude was either urban or rural, depending not so much on whether the servitude was exercised in the city or country as upon its relation to buildings. Servitudes consisted in something essentially passive, in patiendo vel in non faciendo; never in faciendo . Servitudes which consisted in patiendo were affirmative and those in non faciendo were negative. Servitudes could arise by agreement, last will, or prescription.

There were numerous urban predial servitudes: as onus ferendi , by which one's construction was bound to sustain the columns of another or the weight of his wall; tigni immittendi , the right to seat one's timbers in his neighbour's wall; projiciendi , the right to overhang one's timbers over the land of another, although in no way resting on the other's soil; protegendi , a similar right of projecting one's roof over another's soil. The servitudes stillicidii and fluminis recipiendi , were similar: stillicidium was the right to drip; and fluminis recipiendi , the right to discharge rainwater collected in canals or gutters. The servitude altius non tollendi was a restriction on the height of a neighbour's construction while altius tollendi was an affirmative right to carry one's construction higher than otherwise permitted. Servitudes of light and prospect were of similar nature.

Rural predial servitudes were iter , actus , via , aquœductus , and the like. The servitude of iter (way) was an eight-foot roadway in the stretches, with accommodation at the turns. It included the right of driving vehicles and cattle, and the lesser right of foot-passage. Actus was a right of trail of four feet in which cattle or suitable narrow vehicles might be driven. Iter was a mere right of path. In these servitudes the lesser was included in the greater. The nature of the right of aquœductus is obvious, as well as the various servitudes of drawing water, of driving cattle to water, of pasturage, of burning lime, of digging sand or gravel, and the like. Servitudes of this character could be extinguished by the consolidation of ownership of both servient and dominant estate in the same owner, and by remission or release; by nonuser for the prescriptive period, and by the destruction of the dominant or servient estate.

Usufruct was the greatest of personal servitudes; yet, as its measure was not the strict personal needs of its subject, it exceeded a personal servitude. During the period of enjoyment it was almost ownership, and was described as a personal servitude consisting in the use and enjoyment of the corporeal things of another without change in their substance. Ususfructus was the right utendi , fruendi , salva substantia . In a strict sense it applied only to corporeal things which were neither consumed nor diminished by such use. After Tiberius a quasi-usufruct (as of money) was recognized. 1Ioney, although not consumable naturaliter , was consumable civiliter . Usufruct could arise by operation of law, by judicial decision (as in partition), by convention, by last will, and even by prescription. The natural or civil death of the usufructuary extinguished the right, as did non-user and the complete loss of the thing.

Use and habitation were lesser rights of the same general nature. Usus was the right to use the things of another, but only to the extent of the usee's necessities, and always salva substantia . Habitation was the right of dwelling in another's building in those apartments which were intended for habitation, salva substantia (i.e., without substantial modification). The personal servitude operœ servorum embraced every utility from the labour of another's slave or slaves. The actions from servitudes were confessoria or negatoria , in assertion of the servitude or in denial of it.

Ownership might further be acquired by usucaption ( usucapio ) and prescription for a long period. Prescription (a slight modification of the older usucaption) is the dispensing with evidence of title, and is acquisitive when it is the means of acquiring Ownership and extinctive (divestitive) when it bars a right of action. Acquisitive prescription required

(1) a thing subject to prescription,
(2) good faith,
(3) continuous possession, and
(4) the lapse of the prescribed time.

Again, ownership could be acquired by donation, the gratuitous transfer of a thing to another person. Donations were mortis causa or inter vivos , and the former was in reality a conditional testamentary disposition and very similar to a legacy, while the latter did not require the death of the donor for its perfection. A species of donation inter vivos was the donatio propter nuptias from the husband.

The juridical consequence of ownership is the power of alienation, and yet the law limited certain owners in this respect. The husband owned the dowry, but was subject to restrictions; the pupil under tutorship was owner, but without power to alienate, except probably in the single case of a sister's dowry. Even where one was owner without these specific limitations, if he had conceded rights in re to another, he could not alienate prejudicially to such other: thus, the pledge debtor could not prejudice the rights in re of the pledge creditor.

Acquisition could be made, not only personally, but through children and slaves ; and, in the later law, through a mandatory or procurator. Acquisition could be made of possession, of ownership, and of the right of pledge.

Succession

Succession to a deceased person was either testate or intestate: particular things were acquired by legacies or by trust-bequests ( fidei-commissa ). A universal succession was an inheritance. The Twelve Tables recognized the right of testation, and the civil law later conceived of a partnership of blood in both testate and intestate successions. The præetor's intervention was frequent in testamentary matters; and in equitable cases he softened the rigour of the law and gave the possessio bonorum . A testament was the legally declared last will in which an heir was instituted. Some departure from the strict formalities was permitted in the case of soldiers' wills. The right of testament was active and passive. Persons generally who were under no incapacity could make a will; those prohibited were such as had some defect of status, some vice or defect of mind, or even some sufficient defect of body, and those guilty of crime or improbity. The passive right of testament was the right to take under a will. Heirs were voluntary or necessary (forced). In the early freedom of the law, Romans might disinherit without cause; later, this liberty was restricted to disherison for just cause, and a legitima , or statutory provision, was prescribed. Disherison was the express exclusion from the whole inheritance of one who was entitled to the legitima . One was prœteritus who was neither instituted an heir nor disinherited. Since disherison was required to be express, one conditionally instituted was only pretermitted. Further, disherison required exclusion from all heirs and from every degree. Under the early law, Sons were required to be excluded by name; daughters and grandchildren could be excluded by class. The later law required that all children should be deprived by name. Justinian enumerated the "just" causes of disherison in Novel cxv; they are substantially the same in the modern civil codes.

The instituted heir, as successor to the universal rights of the decedent, was required to have passive testamentary capacity at the time of the will and at the time of the death; the intervening period was of no consequence. It was, however, requisite that he should retain capacity from the time of the death until the taking of the inheritance. In a conditional institution of the heir, capacity was necessary at the time of the will, at the time of the death, and at the time of the happening of the condition. Slaves as well as freemen could be instituted heirs, and, in the case of a slave the gift of liberty was implied. Uncertain and indeterminate persons might be instituted if they could be rendered certain; such were the poor, the municipalities, and licit corporations. Where coheirs were instituted without definite shares, they took equally. The heir might be instituted absolutely or conditionally, but not merely for a time. A physically impossible condition, negatively added, left the institution absolute; in general, the conditions annexed were various and quite similar to the classes of conditions known to the modern civil law. Where one of several co-heirs failed to take, his portion accrued to the others as a matter of law, without their knowledge and even against their will: this was called the jus accrescendi .

As already intimated, the testator might institute one or several heirs; if all were instituted at the same time, they were direct heirs; but one might be direct and the other substituted by way of fidei-commissum. Again, the testator could substitute an heir, in case the first should not take. Direct substitution, therefore, was the institution of a second heir, in case the first failed to take: with respect to the person making the substitution, it was either military or non-military. The case in which the substitution was intended to take place classed it as vulgar, pupilary, or quasi-pupilary: vulgar was the ordinary substitution in which one was named to take, in case the first heir defaulted or died; pupillary, was where an heir was instituted to succeed a child under puberty (since such child could not make a will, the parent in a sense made two wills, one for himself to the child and one for the child in case the latter should die before puberty).

Testaments were vitiated in several ways: nullum , void from the beginning, where there was a defect in the institution of the heir or incapacity in the testator; injustum , not legally executed and hence void; ruptum , by revocation or by the agnation of a posthumous child, either natural or civil; irruptum , where the testator had lost the civil status necessary for testation; destitutum , where the heir defaulted because dead or unwilling, or upon failure of the condition ; recissum , as the consequence of a legal attack upon an undutiful will.

It has been said that heirs were either necessary or voluntary : necessary heirs were either such as could not be pretermitted or such as were forced to accept. These were again sui et necessarii or necessarii only. The former were children under the patria potestas , and they were sui because one's own, and necessarii , because the civil law made them forced heirs, although the prætor gave to such the beneficium abstinendi . Voluntary heirs were strangers who had a perfect right of election to accept or reject the inheritance. The prætor conceded to the heir a period of time in which to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the inheritance, called the jus deliberandi . Justinian added to this the benefit of inventory.

Aside from the inheritance proper, a will could contain legacies whereby things were bequeathed by a single title and by express words; they could be imperative or precative. Legacies were by vindication, where the express words justified a direct legal claim by the legatee; by condemnation, where the language condemned or ordered the heir to transmit the legacy ; by prœceptio , where a legacy was left to one only of several co-heirs; and sinendi modo , by permissive words. As in the case of joint-heirs, the jus accrescendi existed also among joint-legatees.

By reason of the ambulatory character (as Heineccius terms it) of man's will, legacies and trust-bequests ( fidei-commissa ) were subject to ademption and transfer to another legatee. The Lex Falcidia, which created the statutory fourth portion, applied to legacies as well as to other testamentary provisions. Fidei-commissa were created by precative words addressed to the conscience of the heir, and were at first not legally enforceable. Trust-bequests were later given legal sanction ; and they were universal or of single things. The modern civil law is hostile to trusts of any kind.

If a last will contained the institution of an heir, it was a testament; if it contained less, it was a codicii. Originally, codicils were only letters; later, they began to have testamentary force, containing, however, nothing which pertained to the direct institution of the heir. There could be several nonrepugnant codicils. Not only could they contain no institution of an heir, but they could not provide for disherison or substitution. They were made either in connexion with a will or, in some cases, with a view to the intestate succession of the heir.

If there was an invalid will or no will at all, the succession was intestate: in. the ancient law the basis of intestate succession was the peculiarly Roman artificial family made up of the agnates. Emancipated children and non-agnatic cognates did not succeed, since they were no part of the family. In the first rank, the heirs were the decedent's children (natural or adoptive) who took per capita , in the nearest degree and per stirpes , or by representation, in remoter degrees. Emancipated children had no claim until later, when they were aided by the prætor's edict, "Unde liberi". The Twelve Tables provided that, in the absence of children, the nearest agnate should be called: this was known as the statutory succession of the agnates. Those only were called who were bound in agnation to the deceased through males; hence females beyond sisters were not called. The prætor, however, provided for the more remote in the edict, "Unde cognati". Agnates by adoption enjoyed the same rights as agnates by nature. The nearest agnate took, and there was no right of representation, although here again the prætor made innovations which were supplemented by the legislation of Justinian. The father did not succeed to the son, consistently with the idea that the son could have nothing of his own, and, where the father took, it was by right of resumption. The father succeeded to his emancipated child, not as an agnate, but as a manumissor. The mother was not an agnate, and did not succeed to her children, nor did they succeed to her. Here, again, changes were effected by the edict, "Unde cognati", and by the Senatus-consulta Tertullianum and Orphitianum. The former senatus-consultum provided that, if a free mother gave birth to three children, or a freedwoman to four, there should be a right of succession, and this legislation was modified by Justinian even more favourably to the mother. The Senatus-consultum Orphitianum was the complement of the other, and provided that the right of succession between mother and children should be reciprocal. These rights were extended by imperial constitution to grandchildren.

If agnates were wanting, the Twelve Tables called the gentiles in the next rank, and not the cognates: the prætor, however, in the edict "Unde cognati", called the cognates in this rank.

Servile cognation (that contracted in slavery ) had been an impediment of marriage; but the slave woman, manumitted with her children, could not avail herself either of the Senatus-consultum Tertullianum or of the possession of goods derived from the edict "Unde cognati". Justinian created rights of succession to remedy this defect.

The former master or, by assignment of freedmen, his children, stood in loco parentis to the freedman, and succeeded to his patrimony. Even the predeceased patron, through his nearest children (representation being excluded) succeeded to the goods of his former slave. Libertini , freedmen, were restricted. in their capacity to make a will. The prætor considered it no more than equitable that the libertinus should leave one-half his property to his former master. A higher equity arose where the freedman left children of his own, and in this case the patron might be excluded, the whole patrimony going to the freedman's children. In all other cases, and even contra tabulas , the patron took one half: later, in special circumstances depending upon the freedman's wealth, Justinian, developing the principles of the Lex Papia Poppæa, increased the patron's portion.

The prætor's intervention in succession matters did not directly overturn the provisions of the jus civile , but he devised the possessio bonorum , applicable to both testate and intestate successions. Justinian recognized and gave sanction to three kinds of possessio: first, contra tabulas (contrary to the will), where persons had been inequitably pretermitted; second, secundum tabulas; third, possession of an intestate's estate. The bonorum possessor was not an heir in accordance with jus civile , yet he enjoyed all of the privileges of an heir. Justinian placed the right of succession upon a basis of cognation, or blood relationship, and succession by right of blood occurred in four orders which may be indicated as follows:

First order

(a) the sui heredes , or natural heirs, who succeeded in virtue of the con-dominium in the inheritance;
(b) those whose strict legal right had been barred (as by emancipation), but whom the prætor called to the inheritance;
(c) emancipated sons to whom Justinian's constitution restored natural rights.

Second order

(a) statutory heirs, agnates;
(b) persons entitled under the Senatus-consultum Tertullianum;
(c) those entitled under the Senatus-consultum Orphitianum.

Third order

the cognates. (Heineccius gives tables of descent both before and after Justinian's legislation).

None of these orders being entitled to take, the estate escheated to the fiscus , or public treasury. The adjective law (below, under C. Actions ) supplied various forms for the hereditas petitio. Collatio , or the return of advancements, was required in order that there might be a fair distribution. This is the collation of the modern civil codes.

Another means for the acquisition of ownership was adrogation, whereby a person sui juris was adopted into the paternal power of another. Originally the obligations of the adrogatus were strictly and logically extinguished, but the injustice to creditors was the subject of remedial legislation.

Again, one might acquire the goods of another by sectio or venditio bonorum , a sale at auction for the benefit of creditors.

The rights growing out of pledge were also a means for the acquisition of property. This institution was, in its inception, only a fiduciary pact without means of enforcement, and the title passed to the pledge creditor; later, it took the form of pignus , or pledge proper, whereby the creditor was placed in possession of a moveable with certain duties towards the debtor; a form of the same contract was extended to immoveables, and this was known as antichresis . In antichresis the creditor was placed in possession of the immoveables and obliged to pay, first, his interests and charges, and then to deduct from the principal debt whatever he received as revenue. Hypotheca , or mortgage, was a development and in scientific theory is the substructure of the modern law of mortgage. Privileges were akin to modern civil-law rights of the same name and to the liens of the common law ; but possession was not of prime importance.

Pledge was extinguished by the extinction of the principal debt, by express release, by expiration of the time, by destruction of the thing pledged, etc. The actions growing out of it were the Servian and general hypothecary, or quasi-Servian action.

Real rights ( in re ) differ essentially from personal rights ( ad rem ), or obligations, which have persons as their immediate objects. Even these have things as their remote objects, since they tend to the attainment of a thing through a particular person and by reason of their being usually convertible into a money value. Obligations (dismissing at once those which were purely natural and hence unenforceable) were broader than either contract or tort, and included liability arising from both. They were civil or prætorian, and could arise from contract, quasi-contract, delict, and quasi-delict. In conventional obligations some things were essential, others accidental. Contractual obligations arose through delivery of a thing, through words, through writing, or merely through the consent of the parties; and were, accordingly, contracts re, verbis, littens , or consensu .

Contracts re were the bailments, loan for use, loan for consumption, deposit, and pledge.

Contracts verbis were entered into by a formal stipulation consisting of a direct question and an adequately responsive answer. They could take immediate effect, could commence in futuro , or could be conditional. Stipulations were prætorian, judicial, common, and Aquilian: the prætorian and judicial were scarcely voluntary. The common stipulation was used in the ordinary affairs of men and by persons in fiduciary relationships (e.g., in this form the tutor gave security for the faithful discharge of his duties ). The Aquilian stipulation, in connexion with acceptilatio , was a means of general release for the dissolution of any obligation. Stipulations required the same consensual elements that were necessary in other agreements, in addition to their own peculiar formalism. If a conditional response were made to a direct question, the stipulation was void; so also, if made by letter or messenger. The relation of suretyship could be created by stipulation: suretyship was an accessory contract, and the surety was known as the fidei-jussor . Sureties had the beneficium divisionis , which was conceded by Hadrian. They enjoyed also the beneficium ordinis , invented by Justinian, and the beneficium cedendarum actionum , or subrogation to the right of action of the creditor against the principal debtor, or pro rata against the co-sureties.

Contracts litteris took their juridical efficacy from writings, which evidenced the fact that an obligation subsisted or that it had been extinguished. The latter were called apochœ . Writings evidencing a subsisting obligation were syngraphic or chirographic respectively, as they expressed a mutual or a unilateral obligation. A writing in the book of the debtor which supported the creditor's entry was conclusive, and even he creditor's entry created a strong presumption.

Contracts consensu were not peculiar in that they required consent, which was requisite in all contracts. Their peculiarity was in the fact that consent alone sufficed. They were five in number: buying and selling ( emptio-venditio ); letting and hiring ( locatio-conductio ); the emphyteuticary contract ; partnership ( societas ); and mandate (gratuitous agency). In sale, there was necessary the consent of the parties, an object and an agreed price. Letting and hiring might be considered a temporary sale, and the essential incidents of a valid contract were the same as in sale. Emphyteusis strictly was neither a sale nor a letting; it was rather a quit-rent lease dependent in its duration upon the payment of the agreed canon . Its special incidents were a quasi-ownership in the tenant and a right of pre-emption in the dominus . Similar to emphyteusis was the right of superficies; but as it applied only to the surface - that is, to buildings - it was less permanent. Partnership was general or universal; particular or special; and, finally, singular. As consent was of its essence, withdrawal of consent worked its dissolution. Partnership was an entity distinct from the individual partners; it gave rise to the actio pro socio . The leonine partnership ( societas leonina ) was illegal. Mandate was a consensual contract whereby one undertook gratuitously to attend to an affair for another; it was commissioned agency and was an actual contract ; it was distinguishable from negotiorum gestio (uncommissioned agency) in that the latter belonged to quasi-contract. It gave rise to the actio mandati, directa , or contraria .

The contracts which had a definite name and form of action for their enforcement were nominate contracts. There were others termed innominate because they had no special names: these were summed up in the four formula: Do, ut des; Do, ut facias; Facio, ut des; and Facio, ut facias . They were enforced by the general action in factum or by the action prœscriptis verbis .

All of the foregoing contracts, nominate and innominate, were contracts in the true sense of the word, but there was another class of relations in which the law imposed duties and obligations as if the parties had actually contracted. These were the so-called quasi-contracts, and the forms were negotiorum gestio , tutorship, inheritance, administration in common, hereditatis aditio, indebiti solutio (payment under mistake of fact), and a few others of similar nature.

Obligations could be acquired through the paternal and dominical powers and through mandataries. A civil obligation once constituted could be extinguished by an exception (plea in bar) or by its own terms. Pleas in bar were divers and could arise from a will, a contract or pact, a judicial decision, etc.

The means of extinction common to all obligations were: solutio (payment);

Changed from the Roman civil law to the Common Civil Law/ 11 - see section on Roman Civil Law.]

Jefferson continued and said that liberty would be destroyed anytime there is,

".... the establishment of the opinion that the state has a perpetual right to the services of all its members." /12

The term "that liberty" to which Jefferson refers is Public Law for private purposes and "that liberty" is self-evident and comes before the State and is opposite to "the Blessings of Liberty " in the preamble of the Constitution - which is commercial./ 13

Roman Civil Law

Those who have studied U.S. History from the traditional standpoint do not realize there is a lot more to U.S. History. There is probably more about the history of the (u)nited States of America /14 that you have not been told than what you have been told. Take for example our federal government. The provisions for setting it into operation were written into the Constitution, but its present look and function are a far cry from what our founding fathers intended. What has happened to make such a difference from the original intent? In world history, religion has always been a key center for accumulating wealth while ignorance and superstition promote religion. Religion has been used by everyone from Kingly dictators to preachers to persuade people to give up everything from gold and land to their own lives. Wealth meant power and the power to get wealth was religion. The Roman Church discovered this early and became a "storehouse" for the money and property the people were persuaded to give in exchange for limited liability - go directly to heaven instead of hell. As the people became more educated and saw what was really behind the power of religion, the Roman Church fell under greater and greater criticism. This led to the development of a banking system to handle and control church wealth and take the critical focus of the church. In a nutshell, this was how the church's influence has always figured so heavily in the administration and control of world politics. The bank learned from the church about limited liability. If you could get people to borrow money beyond their ability to pay back, you could get them to keep performing on the debt (liability) without ever demanding it back, thereby, loaning out that same credit to more than one individual or company. This meant that the bank was limiting the liability of the borrower so he was not fully responsible for the debt as long as he continued to perform by paying the interest. This way real money (gold) became credit (paper money) by loaning to more than one person. Being involved in this sort of commerce was called "private commerce." With the churches control over wealth, this private commerce became standard practice in world trade upon the sea - private international or admiralty/maritime law became known as Roman civil law as it began to figure heavily in the politics of every city and country it touched through international commerce.

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation from England under the king's assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law"/ 15 or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law") was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients; Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church, Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over 1000 years.

Starting with Constantine , religious belief had come to be as important, for the state, as religious practice. Constantine was, among other things, a "teacher of knowledge about God." The unity of a threatened empire was seen to depend on a unity of religious belief among its subjects. So it was that in a theocratic society it was increasingly hard to be sure where things temporal ended and things spiritual began.

"Where a necessary qualification for citizenship was Orthodoxy in religious belief, it was natural that the canons of the church councils which had defined that belief should also be the law of the land. Justinian had decreed that `the canons of the first four councils of the church ... should have the status of law. For we accept as holy writ the dogmas of those councils and guard their canons as laws.' .... But some emperors thought themselves empowered to do likewise and to legislate on ecclesiastical or even doctrinal matters. Hence there came into existence the collections known as nomocannones in which the laws of the church and the laws of the state were set down side by side and compared, though the former always precede the latter ... The nomocanones and the commentaries of the canonists advertised the fact that church and state went together. The two were interdependent and it was generally believed that the one could not exist without the other ... In the last and apparently hopeless years of the empire's existence, there were various schools of thought about what had gone wrong. By far the most prevalent explanation was that God was punishing the people for their sins. This was the favorite theme of sermons in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ... The only hope of salvation lay in a return to the faith and practice of the pure, unadulterated Orthodox faith ..." /16

Yes, history is being repeated even now as you read this. Guilt and self righteousness compels the alteration of public policy in more bizarre ways by the pressure of the special interest groups of the trust - and the inquisition is being repeated.

Church law first got involved with commercial ventures when the Roman Church started funding the Roman Army during the time they were fighting Greece. From there it was an easy transition to becoming directly involved in the civil government of Rome and then converting the Roman Empire, what was left of it, into their own commercial state. When the Roman Church set up their own state they became a commercial enterprise. It was from that point on that Church law, controlling civil government, became known as Roman civil law.

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called "licenses." But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts unless it was through a trust.

With the spread of commerce, the church's influence and wealth grew. Around 596 A.D., Pope Gregory began a process of moving Roman civil law into England. Up until that time it had not been a part of the English economy, but Pope Gregory was determined to have his inspiration of Roman law and economy supreme there.

He [Pope Gregory] was inspired with the idea of converting England not to Christianity, [for the British branch of the Catholic Church was already there] - but to the discipline of Rome. /17

Moving Roman civil law into England was strictly using a commercial venture of the mercantile Church to take over the economy and the country and enslave its people to the private or conscience law of the Church. It was the authority and conscience of the Roman Church that dictated the Statutes, Codes and laws through the King and Parliament for controlling human behavior that resulted in the best economic and commercial advantage for the Church. Anyone who was not controlled by Roman civil law at that time was considered to be pagan. That is, if you were operating free of the Roman civil law - under the common law - you were a heathen as far as the Roman Church was concerned. It was their intent to enslave everyone possible to the Roman civil law for a commercial advantage. By the way, this Roman civil law was referred to as "Black Letter Law." /18

To see how this law is acknowledged, look up the books in which your state's Constitution and Statutes are published. What many have found is that the titles to the first volumes, that cover the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the state's Constitution, are printed differently than the titles to the volumes that cover the consolidated Statutes and Codes of the state. We are aware that in many states (possibly all) you will find the titles to the volumes that begin the state Statutes will be printed in black gothic letters. This confirms the fact the "black letter law" - Roman civil law - is the basis of state Statutes that dictate public municipal policy via private laws of the trust. It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the "commercial law system of the American states." It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield./19 In fact, it was this decision that sparked the American revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by Mansfield./ 20

In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814, Jefferson goes into minute detail to show how the private ecclesiastical law [Roman civil law] got mixed with the common law of England. He outlines the fact that the common law was in England 200 years before Christianity. In describing when Christianity was possibly included into the common law, Jefferson said:

"If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Carta. But of the law of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, ... But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law."/ 21

Yet the common law of England did become polluted with the compelled performance of private church law and Jefferson's understanding of the problem marked out the path for the new commercial system of the American states to be protected from the slavery of ecclesiastical authority dictating public commercial law ( policy).

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has never made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ... And thus they incorporate into the English code, laws made for Jews alone, and the precepts of the Gospel, intended by their benevolent Author as obligatory only for their conscience; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them;/ 22

Unfortunately, because Jefferson saw the tyranny of private ecclesiastical law dictating public commercial policy and compelled performance, he was attacked by the "do gooders" as being a heretic. In reality, he saw so clearly the need for separation of powers and how Public Law would be vital for private use to protect individual rights of the minority. Thus he stood vehemently on the ground that private law has absolutely no place in dictating, public policy. Those who opposed his views totally missed his solid Christian principles based on liberty of conscience."The common law protects both opinions [both his and theirs], but enacts neither into law." Those that did not thoroughly understand this were the first to promote their private conscience (religious) opinions into Public Law (policy) - the rope of compelled performance hanging us today.

"All honor to Jefferson - to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, and so to embalm it there, that today and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression." /23

One of the most important aspects of the common law before 1760 was that it did not recognize unilateral contracts where there was no full disclosure and no meeting of the minds. The right to the private law of contracting was basic to the common law. However, those common law contracts always meant that all parties involved understood all the facts and clauses and all parties had to agree by endorsement in order for the contract to be valid. Everything was spelled out. No hidden implications or strings attached.

Roman civil law relies entirely on unilateral or implied contracts. This is where one party agrees by the simple act of accepting a benefit(s) the civil government has to offer. In other words, the individual has something offered to him that he accepts - usually an economic or mercantile benefit. The act of acceptance, with or without a signature of acceptance, comes with strings of compelled performance attached. This is because the very act of voluntary acceptance (by your silence) implied your endorsement. The implied endorsement creates a constructive trust/ 24 arrangement with the civil government for your assumed benefit. This means the trust becomes the third party who can dictate the Statutes, Codes and laws by its legislature and we are compelled to align our lives with them, because of our silent volunteering. After accepting some benefit under Roman civil law and you discover the hidden strings that you do not like, too bad, you are bound to perform or suffer the consequence of those holding the strings. If you wrong the trust that you are involved with, you are assumed guilty and the burden of proof is up to you to clear yourself. Your job, under the Roman civil law, is to jump even when you didn't have to. Their job - the civil administrator and their courts - is to tell you how high. The Roman civil law is a perversion of private conscience law because it is placing the private conscience of one or a few over the private consciences of the masses. And it is done without full disclosure of bilateral contracts. This allows government to always become a superior entity to the citizen by binding him in constructive trust arrangements. This is why there is no separation of power, only one power and that is government. The people are subservient because they are involved in a constructive trust that controls their conscience and they are not even aware of it.

Take a look at the illustration of "The Great Seal Of The State Of California." This seal is a dramatic representation of how the Roman civil law is the basis of the franchise of the "several states of the union" granted by the people of the Republic. Each state has its own corporate seal and most use much of the same symbolism. Remember, under Roman civil law the corporate state is a diocese of the National Church of the 14th Amendment trust.

Note first the seal contains a woman seated on a rock wearing a Roman military uniform holding both a shield and spear. This woman is the Goddess Minerva/ 25 from Roman mythology. This represents the authority of the Roman civil law founded on the rock (church) of private law of the woman (or law of changing conscience or "e-motion" that is not absolute law), the mother of all private law. The shield itself has the indications of Roman symbols denoting further private authority in the public sector. Across the top are 31 stars that represent the 31 states in existence at the time California was incorporated as a state. This also shows the relationship with the other "several states of the union" who also based their civil law from the Roman law. The word: "eureka" means: "I've found it." It was an _expression that has been said to have originated with Archimedes, a Greek mathematician and physicist. He used the _expression when he discovered a method of detecting the amount of alloy mixed with the gold in the crown of the king of Syracuse . Archimedes also invented the Archimedean screw or "water snail" which, when rotated, would move water uphill. Because of the symbolism of the seal, it most likely represents the moving of the law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] uphill and over to dominate the substance of the law we know as the land. Also it could be saying the same thing by expressing the fact that the substance of absolute law - gold/real property - is taken over by the emotion of private law. Note also the sailing ships in the water. This represents the law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] as the vehicle for private commercial Roman civil law in the state. In the left lower area of the seal is a miner digging and behind him is a sluice box. This represents the labor and industrial control by the private Roman civil law. There is also grain in the foreground as a symbol of the control of the land and its substance called "food." The bear represents the fact that the Republic is still there - the California Republic is called the "Bear Republic ."

FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AVOID ATTACHMENT AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:12:00 -0500

FIRST, Any code enforcement officer or police officer or sheriff must have a bona fide search warrant or prior consent and approval of the owner is required to step one foot on your private property for a search of these premises. Never grant them consent! You do not even has to speak to a law enforcement officer without the present of counsel and they know this! This is also a protected right.

Let them go through the legal requirements of obtaining probable cause to acquire a search warrant to enter on your private property. A local government code inspector or even a law enforcement officer is not legally authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant. If they violate your rights then they operating outside their legal scope of authority and can be legally accountable. All government employees must be bonded or insured against such acts involving the general public.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,[5] guarantees to all persons the right to be secure from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Further, the Florida Constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures in Article I, section 12:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution."[6]

Administrative searches or inspections conducted outside the judicial process without consent and without prior approval (as evidenced by an administrative search warrant) are not reasonable, unless it can be shown that the administrative search or inspection falls within one of the well-established exceptions to this rule.[7] The protection from unreasonable searches provided by section 12, Article I, Florida Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are extended to both business or commercial premises and to private residences.[8]

If your personal and/or private rights have been violated against illegal search and seizure that has occurred by any government employee than you have a right to file a civil and criminal complaint and possibly sue against all partiesthat came on your property, including law enforcement officers also. These parties are operating under "color of law" and outside their lawful scope of their duties.

Secondly, Florida Homestead Exemption does not protect your homestead property against judgment liens or code enforcement liens (non-equity) since the exemption form is filed directly with the Florida Department of Revenue and is not a part of your public records.

A lien pursuant to chapter 55 of any lienor upon whom such notice is served, who fails to institute an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the constitutional homestead status of the property described.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROTECTION AGAINST CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST YOUR HOME, PLEASE CONTACT US AT www.homesteadservicesflorida.com

Our founding fathers created all levels of government to be the biggest protector of our "person" and "property". Sadly today, our government is the biggest confiscators of our property through a very corrupt court system which operates in a administratively role only, not judicial. The only proper judicial court is the U.S. COURT of CLAIMS in Washington D.C. since in 1933 U.S. Congress replaced state sovereignty and eliminated all public offices pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1608, also see 22 U.S.C. 11

Thomas Jefferson said "The Greatest threat to American Citizens is the Judiciary". HALT’s 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card is the nation’s first rated Florida comprehensive evaluation of the systems that discipline and remove incompetent and abusive members of the state and federal judiciaries.

FLORIDA'S JUDICIAL OVERALL GRADE = "C"

HALT interviewed judicial conduct administrators, analyzed statistics from the American Judicature Society and the Center for Public Integrity, evaluated judicial conduct Web sites and rules of disciplinary procedure, studied state and federal statutes that govern judicial financial disclosure and gift receipt, and reviewed the United States Judicial Conference’s new 2008rules on judicial conduct and disability.

Furthermore, through numerous excellent pro se litigant groups and their unyielding legal research against the willful tyranny committed by our local courts and their officers of court, such as a good and personal friend of mine, Bob Hurt of Clearwater, FL had exposed the indisputable fact, that MOST Florida state judges, appeals judges and even several Florida Supreme Judges are not nor have ever been properly qualified to adjudicate any orders from the bench since their oaths (FS 876.05, FS 105.031) has never been properly attested to and has failed to contain a proper or mandated jurat. As a Florida Notary myself, I can attest to this apparent evidenced of fact.

REMEMBER, the power is still with "the People" but we have let these officials get away with so many unlawful and illegal acts for so long, it is extremely difficult to break this trend but not impossible. Don't let anyone tell you what your rights are - know them yourself! As the bible says in Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge"

Darren Michaels

Private Attorney General - 42 USC 1988

Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510

Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512

Publicly ordained Minister - 18 U.S.C. 112 Protection of foreign officals, official guests, internationally protected persons

Florida Notary - F.S. 119

AVOIDING FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST HOMESTEAD PROPERTY

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:06:48 -0500

Most Florida homeowners are unaware that judgment liens can be applied against homestead property UNLESS certain specific statutory requirements are fulfilled in their entirety. Once these requirements are fulfilled then a code enforcement lien can NOT be "legally enforceable" against your home. FIRST, Any code enforcement officer or police officer or sheriff must have a bona fide search warrant or prior consent and approval of the owner is required to step one foot on your private property for a search of these premises. Never grant them consent! You do not even has to speak to a law enforcement officer without the present of counsel and they know this! This is also a protected right. Let them go through the legal requirements of obtaining probable cause to acquire a search warrant to enter on your private property. A local government code inspector or even a law enforcement officer is not legally authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant. If they violate your rights then they operating outside their legal scope of authority and can be legally accountable. All government employees must be bonded or insured against such acts involving the general public. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,[5] guarantees to all persons the right to be secure from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Further, the Florida Constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures in Article I, section 12: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution."[6] Administrative searches or inspections conducted outside the judicial process without consent and without prior approval (as evidenced by an administrative search warrant) are not reasonable, unless it can be shown that the administrative search or inspection falls within one of the well-established exceptions to this rule.[7] The protection from unreasonable searches provided by section 12, Article I, Florida Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are extended to both business or commercial premises and to private residences.[8] If your personal and/or private rights have been violated against illegal search and seizure that has occurred by any government employee than you have a right to file a civil and criminal complaint and possibly sue against all parties that came on your property, including law enforcement officers also. These parties are operating under "color of law" and outside their lawful scope of their duties. Secondly, Florida Homestead Exemption does not protect your homestead property against judgment liens or code enforcement liens (non-equity) since the exemption form is filed directly with the Florida Department of Revenue and is not a part of your public records. A lien pursuant to chapter 55 of any lienor upon whom such notice is served, who fails to institute an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the constitutional homestead status of the property described. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROTECTION AGAINST CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST YOUR HOME, PLEASE CONTACT US AT www.homesteadservicesflorida.com Our founding fathers created all levels of government to be the biggest protector of our "person" and "property". Sadly today, our government is the biggest confiscators of our property through a very corrupt court system which operates in a administratively role only, not judicial. The only proper judicial court is the U.S. COURT of CLAIMS in Washington D.C. since in 1933 U.S. Congress replaced state sovereignty and eliminated all public offices pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1608, also see 22 U.S.C. 11 Thomas Jefferson said "The Greatest threat to American Citizens is the Judiciary". HALT’s 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card is the nation’s first rated Florida comprehensive evaluation of the systems that discipline and remove incompetent and abusive members of the state and federal judiciaries. FLORIDA'S JUDICIAL OVERALL GRADE = "C" HALT interviewed judicial conduct administrators, analyzed statistics from the American Judicature Society and the Center for Public Integrity, evaluated judicial conduct Web sites and rules of disciplinary procedure, studied state and federal statutes that govern judicial financial disclosure and gift receipt, and reviewed the United States Judicial Conference’s new 2008 rules on judicial conduct and disability. Furthermore, through numerous excellent pro se litigant groups and their unyielding legal research against the willful tyranny committed by our local courts and their officers of court, such as a good and personal friend of mine, Bob Hurt of Clearwater, FL had exposed the indisputable fact, that MOST Florida state judges, appeals judges and even several Florida Supreme Judges are not nor have ever been properly qualified to adjudicate any orders from the bench since their oaths (FS 876.05, FS 105.031) has never been properly attested to and has failed to contain a proper or mandated jurat. As a Florida Notary myself, I can attest to this apparent evidenced of fact. REMEMBER, the power is still with "the People" but we have let these officials get away with so many unlawful and illegal acts for so long, it is extremely difficult to break this trend but not impossible. Don't let anyone tell you what your rights are - know them yourself! As the bible says in Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge" Darren Michaels Private Attorney General - 42 USC 1988 Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510 Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512 Publicly ordained Minister - 18 U.S.C. 112 Protection of foreign officals, official guests, internationally protected persons Florida Notary - F.S. 119

AVOIDING FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST HOMESTEAD PROPERTY

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:04:50 -0500

AVOIDING CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS

that came on your property, including law enforcement officers also. These parties are operating under "color of law" and outside their lawful scope of their duties.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROTECTION AGAINST CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST YOUR HOME, PLEASE CONTACT US AT www.homesteadservicesflorida.com

FLORIDA'S JUDICIAL OVERALL GRADE = "C"

rules on judicial conduct and disability.

Darren Michaels

Private Attorney General - 42 USC 1988

Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510

Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512

Publicly ordained Minister - 18 U.S.C. 112 Protection of foreign officals, official guests, internationally protected persons

Florida Notary - F.S. 119

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION - does not protect you like you think !!

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:33:12 -0500

PROTECT YOUR HOME ANY ATTACHMENT OF ANY NON-EQUITY JUDGMENTS, LIENS, LEVIES, or ENCUMBRANCES !!

HAVE A CURRENT JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST YOUR HOME ???
WE CAN ASSIST YOU IN MAKING IT LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS !!

FLORIDA HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION – Florida has the best homestead protection laws in the country but very few homeowners truly understands its contents and its benefits.

18 states have homestead laws but Florida has the most protection, then followed by Texas, etc. - Do you have a legal status of homestead? Bet you don't!

Most Residential Homeowners do not realize that they DO NOT have a legal status of Homestead but rather a false presumption in thinking their residential property is legally homesteaded – IT DOES NOT!

Example: let's use Florida
The Florida Homestead Exemption form is primarily for tax purposes (ad valorem) and is filed with the Florida Dept of Revenue and not a part of a Florida homeowner’s public records.

Florida Homestead Exemption provides a $25k discount off the ad valorem taxes based on the assessed (not appraised) value of the home which is pursuant to “Save Our Homes” Act.

The majority of all Florida homeowners have NOT officially proclaimed their Florida home as homestead. "But I filed and qualify for Homestead Exemption each year" - The paramount question is - Does the protect your home? Answer: NO!

Fact: Homestead Exemption does not officially proclaim your home as homestead.

Homestead Exemption has two main functions:

1) $25,000 annual exemption discounted off their real taxes based on the accessed value and not to increase more than 3% per annum (Save our Homes Legislation)

2) Prevents a "forced" sales from a "non-equity" lienor from forcing you to sell your home to pay a debt, lien, levy, judgment or encumbrances BUT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A "NON-EQUITY" LIEN FROM ATTACHING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY...... not until you have acquired a legal status of homestead which is a completely different Statutory and Separate Filing than Homestead Exemption!

Once you have a legal homestead status then NO "non-equity" liens, judgments, levies, encumbrances can be applied against your homestead property. Only when a lienor has an "equity-interest" in your homestead property can they make any claim against it pursuant to the Florida Constitution (art x, 4(a)) which only list four (4) equity lienors:

   1. Bank or mortgage company - who holds the note on your home
   2. Real Estate (ad valorem) taxes - apply to U.S. citizens and Aliens
   3. Assessment or maintenance fees - condo, villa or deeded communities
   4. Construction or Mechanic liens - party that has labored on the realty

So then what is a "non-equity" lien?
It can be judgments, liens, credit card debt, medical bills, child support, charge-offs, repossessions, etc.

What is an "equity lien"?
As clearly defined in the Florida Constitution art. x, sec 4(a) - it is those 4 liens listed above. Everything else is non-equity.

***Florida Homestead Exemption of $25k applies only to U.S. citizens and Aliens (but does not apply to state Citizens, Native Americans, Indians (U.S. Const art. 6).

P.S.
THERE ARE SEVERAL IDIOTS ON THE INTERNET THAT ARE SIMPLY SELLING A HOMESTEAD FORM AS A "SILVER BULLET" OR "QUICK FIX". NEVER, EVER JUST BUY A FORM UNLESS YOU HAVE THE FULL UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE IN KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THAT FORM DOES !!!

Respectfully Submitted,
Darren Michaels
President
Senior Legal Researcher
Private Attorney General
Qualified Criminal Investigator
Financial Advisor - Asset Protection / Estate Planner
Florida Notary
Licensed Broker since 1984

Homestead Services & Credit Restoration
(941)822-(HOME) 4663 or (305)647-5232

HOW TO RESTORE YOUR CREDIT SCORES - WE CAN HELP

darren michaels (Homestead Services & Credit Restoration) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:22:04 -0500

Help your clients qualify for a home loan. Close 20% - 50% more loans in qualifying your sub-prime borrowers!

Do you know of any credit repair or credit restoration companies that are deemed through their state dept with an official certificate as a "Credit Service Provider"????

Through our affiliate office in Illinois which holds a bona fide certificate as a "Credit Service Provider" since 1989 (listed on our website) which very, very few credit firms in the entire USA possess such a highly accredited certification and can do what we do regarding client's credit reports.

In addition, our compliance staff has decades of experience in financial services ranging from credit restoration, banking, insurance, securities, legal research, and real estate.

We have had outstanding success in removing negative items from credit reports, such as,

Bankruptcies,
Tax Liens,
Foreclosures,
Inquiries,
Charge-offs,
Late Payments,
Judgments,
Repossessions,
Collections,
Medical Bills,
Credit Cards,

Credit Scores are defined as follows:

Prime - If your credit score is above 680

Mid-Prime - If your credit score is below 680 but above 620

Sub-Prime - Below 620 is sub-prime (which is 75% of the US Population

There are Federal & State laws in place designed to protect you from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting. We make conclusive documented verification that these reporting requirements are in full compliance by the “Big 3” credit reporting agencies through our detailed, multi-stage process.

There are currently over 200 laws and 400 by-laws involving credit reporting and what is defines in these laws and by-laws is the protocol of what a credit reporting agency "can" and "cannot" do regarding your credit report.

A consumer has certain safe guards and protections under the Federal Credit Reporting Act that safeguards them against any unlawful reporting by any credit reporting agency!

Your clients can now pay for our various services on the website listed below. www.homesteadservicesflorida.com *click on the payment tab

need to review - go to the credit restoration tab

single: Only $775 for 1 full year - no app fee/no monthly fees

couple: Only $999 for 1 full year - no app fee/no monthly fees

We are able to remove 132 negative items from the "Big 3" credit reports in one year's time

This unique system will help acquire a better credit score for you and/or for your clients and is utilized by numerous real estate and legal professionals nationwide. Here are few reasons

1. Database tracking system for correspondence .
2. Huge network of debt attys, mortgage brokers, loan

officers, and Realtors nationwide that use us.
3. One small, annual fee per person or per couple.
4. Can dispute 132 negative credit items per year!
5. No Application fees.
6. No Monthly fees.
7. 1 year membership.
8. 1 year support.
9. "CERTIFIED" CREDIT SERVICES PROVIDER

Don't be fooled by intimidators or copy cat systems or false promises. They cannot do what we do.... That is a fact!

Why use our credit restoration services vs. our competitors?

Beware of imitators, false claims, bogus promises and high fees. We see soooooo many "so-called" credit repair or credit restoration companies that charge too much and do too little........

Beware of companies ......

That charges an application fee ($50 to $199)

That charges a monthly fee ($49 to $199)

That charges a PER credit report fee ($500 - $1,000+)

That charges a PER deletion fee ($75+)

That charges various levels of service (bronze, silver, gold, platinum plans)

That sells you a "how to" book to figure everything out

Who letters and actions are ineffective

Respectfully Submitted,
Darren Michaels
President
Senior Legal Researcher
Private Attorney General
Qualified Criminal Investigator

PO Box 18893, Sarasota FL 34276
941-822-(HOME)4663
website: www.homesteadservicesflorida.com
email: info@homesteadservicesflorida.com