Welcome To Dismissticket.com
Started this site to expose the Truth...
  Here you will find Law stating you cannot turn a Right into a mere privilege, "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (1st) Highways, Sec 163 inparamateria. 

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." 

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. 

 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 


The following information is  supreme court ruling's and case law please take the time to read it if you have questions e-mail info@dismissticket.com  someone will be happy to respond to every e-mail.

The courts are bound by all of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.  See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-238 (1997); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) - "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents."

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not 
alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. -- South 
Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

In 1945 the Supreme Court, in Hooven & Allison Vs. Evatt, 65 SCt.870, 880,321 U.S 652,89 L.Ed.12, 52 conclusively affirmed that there are two (2) distinctly different United States with TWO OPPOSITE FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS.

"There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.--Learn more about it......
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition at page 1703 defines the term as follows, "UNITED STATES". This term has several meanings. (1) It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends; or, (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
Click Here
Click Here

1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336.  Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America:  1.  The "federal zone" and 2.  "the 50 States".  The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone". 

Therefore, we have now set the course for understanding what has taken place.  On the one hand we have the United States of America.  Then on the other hand we have the de-facto government of the UNITED STATES and/or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a corporation.

“Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of penal enactment.
[Winters v People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507; 68 S. Ct. 665 (1948)]

The Texas Constitution
Article 11 - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Section 13 - CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the legislature may by law define for all purposes those functions of a municipality that are to be considered governmental and those that are proprietary, including reclassifying a function's classification assigned under prior statute or common law. 
(b) This section applies to laws enacted by the 70th Legislature, Regular Session, 1987, and to all subsequent regular or special sessions of the legislature. (Added Nov. 3, 1987.) 


The definition of a "person" is:  The word "person" legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings.  See 1 U.S.C. sec 1. and Church of Scientology  v. U.S Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.


Title 28 U.S.C.3002(10)
(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186  (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott  Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Title 28 U.S.C.3002(15)A
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation; 
Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(A), which is foreign and repugnant to the de-jure United States and its Constitution.

Title 27, 72.11 All Crimes are Commercial---The Federal Tax Lien Act of  1966 also backs this up...... the Entire monetary systems were placed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is the code that regulates all negotiable instruments. 

The Legislative History of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, P.L. 89-719, explains that the entire taxing and monetary systems were placed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is the code that regulates all negotiable instruments. 

Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: 
The U.C.C. doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the people or the Bill of Rights. It only deals with paper. U.C.C. §1-103.6 is your “recourse” from the U.C.C. into the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. It states that the Code (U.C.C.) must be in harmony with the Common Law, as follows: 
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law

Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785: "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state". NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

"The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

All Law, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void, chief Justice Marshall, Marbury Vs. Madison 5. U.S (1 Cranch) 137, 174,176, (1803)

Title 18 USC 9 - Sec. 9. Vessel of the United States defined
The term "vessel of the United States", as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise of the Right.  See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262

If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right with Total Impunity.  See Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S 262.

The definition of a "license" is: "A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on Land without possessing and estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is NOT assignable.  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal or, a trespass, a tort, a clear violation of LAW and/or otherwise NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER AND CONDITION." See People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W. 2nd 2 and 4.

The definition of a "motor vehicle" is: "Motor Vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in the transportation or passengers, or passengers or property, or property or cargo.  Title 18 U.S.C. part 1. chapter 2. sec 31.

Case Thompson v. Smith 154 se 579, has ruled, you cannot turn a right into a mere privilege, the right to use the public streets or highways for mere travel by automobile is not against the law.  

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and posses property, and to pursue happiness and safety."  It includes the right in doing so to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile, thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.  It is not a mere privilege..."Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E 579 inparamateria.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a [state] Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the state or his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to investigation, so far as it my incriminate him.  He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.  He owes nothing to public so long as he does not trespass on their rights" Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S 43 (1905) inparamateria.

"The right to travel is part of Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment" Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S 116,125 inparamateria. 

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (1st) Highways, Sec 163 inparamateria.

"The Motor Vehicle Act is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license, but exempts all others operators of such vehicles from tax and regulation."  [In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal, 294,295]

“.... (The Motor Vehicle Act classifies) drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2.00, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation."  Ex Parte Stork, 167 Cal 294.  The Supreme Court of California Feb 24, 1914 - footnote inparamateria.  Further confirmed in Beamon v. DMV (1960), 180. App.2d 200,4 Cal. Rpter396.

(Burks v. Lasker, 441 US 471)& (U.S v. Grimaud 220 US 506) The issue of Jurisdiction.You will learn that when jurisdiction is not squarely challenged it is presumed to exist...In the courts there is no meaningful opportunity to challenge jurisdiction, as the court merely proceeds summarily. However once jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts, it becomes the responsibility of the plaintiff to assert and prove said jurisdiction..(Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533) as mere good faith assertions of power have been abolished.(Owens v. City of Independence, 100 SCt, 1398, 1980)

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." 

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. 

 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 

Justice is Blind and Not Equal
THE NATURE OF LAWYER-CRAFT IN AMERICA

I.AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;  
A.The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 
B.The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! ( Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
II.The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:
1.ONLY authorizes,
A.To practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
B.Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)
C."CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!
III.The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!!
A.It is a "UNION DUES CARD" . 
B.The "BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION."  1. Like the Actors Union, Painters Union, etc. 2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
C.It is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION. 
IV.The State Bar is;
A.An Unconstitutional Monopoly.
B.AN ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE;
C.Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution.
D.There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure government as agents of a foreign entity!
E.It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of America. The American Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers' Guild and was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind.  In 1909 they incorporated this TRAITOROUS group in the state of Illinois and had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the ABA, could practice law and hold all the key positions in law enforcement and the making of laws. At that time, Illinois became an outlaw state and for all practical purposes, they seceded from the United States of America.
V.The BAR ASSOCIATION then sent organizers to all the other states and explained to the lawyers there how much more profitable and secure it would be for them, as lawyers, to join this union and be protected by its bylaws and cannons. They issued to the lawyers in each state a charter from the Illinois organization.  California joined in 1927 and a few reluctant states and their lawyers waited until the 1930's to join when the treasonous act became DE FACTO and the Citizen's became captives. Under this system, the lawyers could guarantee prejudged decisions for the privileged class against the lower class. This was all made possible by the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION to favor the right and have unlawfully substituted them in place of Constitutional Laws.  The Constitution was written in plain English and the Statutes passed by Congress were also in plain English, with the intent of Congress how each law should be used and not the opinions of various Judges as the codes list.  Any normal person can read the Constitution and Statutes and understand them without any trouble.  The public in California was shocked to learn that the State Government has no control or jurisdiction over the Bar Association or its members.  The state does not accredit the law schools or hold Bar examinations.  They do not issue state licenses to LAWYERS.  The Bar Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them so-called license but keeps the fees for themselves.  The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer. They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the State.  Only the Bar Association or their designated committees can remove any of these lawyers from public office.  The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the Bar.  On August 21, 1984, Rose Bird, Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, another of the Bar Associations Judicial Committee's, stated in essence that the Bar should determine the legality of all initiatives before they were allowed to go on the ballot.  This is contrary to both State and Federal Constitutions, as well as the Laws of this Nation instituted By and For the People as a Sovereign UNITY of Independent States of We The People, not a fraudulent Corporate entity of Lawyers.  This is a tremendous amount of power for a  PRIVATE union that is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois to hold over the Citizens of California or any other state.  The only recourse is through this initiative process and vote by the people. After the Founding Fathers had formed the Constitution, outlining the laws as to the way our government was to be run, Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, "This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws and run a government as well as or better than royalty and the blue bloods of Europe."  The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts of America.  Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, no where is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation.  Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people.  By RIGHT AND LAW THEY HAVE NO POWER, AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION, and must be put out of business by the good Citizens of America in their fight for FREEDOM
VI.The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN FORM of government. Any other form of government is FORBIDDEN.  No public officer or branch of government can be limited to a RULING CLASS of any kind, or the states become ARISTOCRACIES and NOT republics.  Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st Class Citizens, where many public offices and branches of government are open to lawyers only.  All other people are limited to only two branches of government and to only certain offices in those two branches of government, making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens.  When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution REQUIRES, (Article IV, Section 4, we the people, will NEVER rule against themselves.)  In these Unconstitutional courts foreign tribunals (hoodlum centers), "men" in black dresses, that are Unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).  The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to people, as a fiction court or a court/corporation for profit and gain cannot reach parity with a lawful man.  ONLY presidents and governors have the Constitutional Power to grant PARDONS, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting PARDONS with "immunity from prosecution."  Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts.  The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc.  This is Unconstitutional "lawyer system," only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court.  Anything else is Bill of Attainder, NOT permitted under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sections 9 and 10).  The U.S. Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The 6th Amendment is very SPECIFIC, that the accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel and this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.
VII.LAWYERS and LAWYER-JUDGES:  Created Unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" and "Hearings" to have eternal EXTORTIONISTIC litigation’s, which is BARRATRY and also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, as this places defendants in DOUBLE JEOPARDY a hundred times over.  Defendants only have a right to A TRIAL, NOT TRIALS.  When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED BECAUSE OF A FIX and a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY "TECHNICALITY."  Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES,  AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL and also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest laws,  along with the violation of separation of powers and  checks and balances, because "OFFICERS" OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH.  These same LAWYER-JUDGES are awarding or approving LAWYER FEES, directly and indirectly, amounting to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually, all in violation of conflict of interest laws.  As long as there are lawyers, there will never be  any law, constitution or justice.  There will only be MOB RULE, RULE BY A MOB OF LAWYERS.
VIII.CASE "LAW" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:  As CASE "LAW" IS ENACTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.  When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is TAMPERING WITH THE JURY.  He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either "Yes" or "No." The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, and rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he "rules" certain evidence and the truth to be inadmissible. This makes the trial and transcript FIXED and RIGGED, because the jury does not hear the REAL TRUTH and ALL THE FACTS.  Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.  All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the Unconstitutional TITLE OF NOBILITY (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), "Officer of the court."  Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government but non-lawyer Citizens are limited to only 2 of the 3 branches of government.  Lawyers as 1st class citizens, can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government.  Lawyers, "Officers of the Court," in the Judicial Branch, are Unconstitutionally in 2 branches of government AT THE SAME TIME whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches.  This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.  District attorneys and State's attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries FROM the people, where the people are DENIED ACCESS to the grand juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.  The U.S. Constitution, being the Supreme Fundamental Law, is not and CANNOT be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper and we would have millions of interpretations (Unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now.  That is why all judges and public servants are SWORN TO SUPPORT the U.S. Constitution, NOT interpret it.  
IX.Under INTERNATIONAL ORDERS:  ALL LAWYERS, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are EXACTLY THE SAME.  All lawyers have to file the same motions and follow the same procedures in using the same Unconstitutional "lawyer system".  In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone's will and estate.  When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for EACH CHILD and, at times, the lawyer fees EXCEED the total amount of the estate.  An OUTRAGEOUS amount of TAX "MONEY" is directly and indirectly STOLEN BY LAWYERS.  Money that is budgeted to County Boards, School Boards and other local and federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are "TRICKED" and "FORCED" into ETERNAL EXTORTIONISTIC LITIGATION. 

Admiralty Claim – 

Jurisdiction: In international law and according to the law of the land, agents of a foreign principal are required to file any pretended claim in the appropriate district court prior to exercising rights to that claim. The district courts have "exclusive original cognizance" of all inland seizures and this includes vessels in rem (Rule C(3)) such as trust organizations and legal names (abbreviated name. Nomen, PETITIONER NOMEN, Respondent, Paul O'Neill, John Snow etc.) "...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

This fact of protocol - filing a claim in district court according to international law - is beyond dispute and extends into antiquity: "Meanwhile those who seized wreck ashore without a grant from the Crown did so at their peril." Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, Volume II, A.D. 1547-1602; Introduction - Prohibitions, Note as to the early Law of Wreck, Selden Society, p. xl, 1897. Even the IRS recognizes the protocol:
"Place for filing notice; form. Place for filing. The notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be filed -- with the clerk of the district court. In the office of the clerk of the United States district court for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated..." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323.

The issue is simple. Agents of a foreign principal are required to file their complaint in the appropriate district court prior to exercising any claim against a man on the land. This is international and common law. 

There is no excuse for the arbitrary and capricious attorney actions - debt action in assumpsit - that have confronted good men and women since the Banker's Holiday. Roosevelt implemented a "voluntary compliance" national debt (upon the States by Governor's Convention) but utilized the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act to compel citizens of the United States to comply. The substitution of citizen of the United States for the German nationals on this land was against Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U.S. 239 (1921) where the Court clearly expresses "The Trading with the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure..." - directly citing the Constitution Article I, §8, clause 11. The war on the Great Depression 1) does not count and 2) would only last the duration of the emergency if it did.



The 1783 Treaty in conjunction with the 1787 Constitution. The States, by prescription from the King, by Treaty, hold the land for the King under Legislative enactment because they are His corporations. They in turn, parcel out the land to other corporations, and aliens (you) because you are an alien friend allowed to only hold the land in TAIL for your use, but the King still owns it and the State is his agent. Got to remember people that Statute "De Donis" converted all such estates fee simple to estates tail. Did not know that did you? So why is it that you get a document stating in fee simple? Because they slyly made you a CORPORATE SOLE, but not like the King. That is why the United States, the corporator of all the states into a Union can control all the land it owns and if a State cedes land from its corporate domain to the corporate United States the King still owns it and that is why we are considered by the States as "corporation sole" for that is the only way they can collect a tax. Remember Butler v Godley where you are considered two characters? Remember that legal entity, corporate, name on your IMF. Remember the CP 55 UK/US Treaty designation and only corporations can be taxed? Why does the IRS come after you using a CP 515, 516, 517 and 518 notices which are only designed for a BUSINESS Entity? Are you a corporate person of artificial character called a "resident" in legal terms, thereby being a "citizen" (26 CFR 1.1-1 and 26 USC sec. 1) in "joint-venture" and therefore a subject "to the jurisdiction thereof" because you are presumed to be a corporate sole for taxing purposes because you have the privilege of living on the Kings land held in trust by the corporate State and United States? You are also in fee simple so that after your body dies the Corporate Sole still lives on. 
Our fore fathers were, in effect, at the mercy of their business ventures with lands and assets coming to them as a result, and also any lands or rem property they may have inherited from their ancestors. Why? Well as a matter of settled English common law, anyone declared to have committed treason, automatically forfeited any estates or rem property to the king, without a trial. Everyone of our fore fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence were declared traitors and were to be hung if found by British troops. Also, after independence was so called won, everyone swearing their new allegiance to the United States became aliens also, subject to have their estates forfeited to the king, when a senior land holder died and Office found. So ask yourself. Did the king have any leverage over our fore fathers when they negotiated the 1783 Peace Treaty? Is this why even though we said we won in the history books the king granted us the lands in America. Does the defeated country ever grant lands to the victor, or do they not always become property of the Conqueror? This fact along with the above and below court cases prove, because English common law was not defeated and retained by the new states, the king's corporations continued unchanged. All that took place was a reorganization of the king's corporations he set up in America, into individual state corporations, who transferred their corporate sovereignty over to the United States. The war was over in 1781, the Treaty was signed in 1783, the United States Corporation was officially started in 1787. However, the king signed off on its creation. Read the 1783 Treaty again, the United States corporation is mentioned four years before it was chartered and the 6th section was added as a condition for the fore fathers not to lose their estates, and as a matter of quid quo pro, the kind not forfeit his holdings and corporation, and thanks to English common law being recognized in the States the fore fathers knew there was nothing they could do about it, but play word games to cover it up. Patrick Henry recognized their game, using such terms as "We the People" or the united States being change to United States. Mr. Informer, I think this would be a good place to inject the following case, HAMILTON v. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256 (1896). Now those of you in Texas or in other States that claim to be in a Republic not subject to the laws or jurisdiction of the state in which you live, you better reserve judgment for just a minute longer. I know those in Texas claiming they live in a Republic truly believe this, but you have not seen the debilitating fact of the Republic of Texas claiming English common law. Where English common law exists, so does the king's corporation, and all grants stemming there from. Sorry, but it is true, this trumps every argument except one. A grant of land preceding the king's incorporation, the grant from God Almighty that all men are tenants on His land, and are to be stewards of it. Any man cannot own the land as the king and Pope claim, they are only receivers of the grant from God Almighty like all men, co equal. 
"if an ALIEN could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, TO THE KING OF ENGLAND, which would probably be inconsistent with that which he owes to his own natural liege-lord; 
What is inconsistent with your natural liege-lord? The king. So the court stated that the King of England is not your natural liege-lord. The Lord's property is His and under the same principle, YOU, being the steward of the land under the Almighty's command of His word, cannot allow the same thing that the King is claiming. The king is the alien to our true liege-lord and it is he and the State and the United States corporate sole's that are in conflict with the Almighty's contract with man at Genesis 17:1-9. So can we, as stewards of the Almighty's property allow these aliens to claim the land that is permanently our property to protect? Does our liege-lord say we have to pay a property tax on land he gave us? Don't you think this is a good start to rid us of this Satan controlled garbage called the Pope, The King, The State, The United States, The County, The Townships, the legislators and worst of all the "Woe be unto you Lawyers?" Do this and why do you need a "republic?" It, in legal terms, is a commercial bunch of people because it is a commonwealth and that my dear people will put you right back on the path to where you are now and history will repeat itself over and over again. Look at all the "de jure Republics being formed all across the country. 

 
Step by Step instructions how to beat or fight any Traffic  ticket.
 
97% Success Rate!