Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

DEFINITION OF MERITS. In practice. Matter of substance in law, as distinguished from matter of mere form; a substantial ground of defense in law.

A defendant is said to swear to merits or to make affidavit of merits when he makes affidavit that he has a good and sufficient or substantial defense to the action on the merits. 3 Chit. Gen. Pr. 543, 544. Merits, in this application of it, has the technical sense of merits in law, and is not confined to a strictly moral and conscientious defense. Id. 545; 1
Burrill, Pr. 214; Rahn v. Gunnison, 12 Wis. 529; Bolton v. Donavan, 9 N. D. 575 84 N. H. 429, 45 Atl. 243; Blakely v. Frazier, 11 S. C. 134; Rogers v. Rogers, 37 W. Va. 407, 16 S. E. 633; Oatman v. Bond, 15 Wis. 26.

As used in the New York Code of Procedure, 349, it has been held to mean the strict legal rights of the parties, as contradistinguished from those mere questions of practice which every court regulates for itself, and from all matters which depend upon the discretion or favor of the court. St. John v.
West, 4 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 332.

A defense upon the merits is one which depends upon the inherent justice of the defendants contention, as shown by the substantial facts of the case, as distinguished from one which rests upon technical objections or some collateral matter. Thus there may be a good defense growing out of an error in the plaintiffs pleadings, but there is not a defense upon the merits unless the real nature of the transaction in controversy shows the defendant to be in the right. Blacks Law Dictionary, Second
Edition, 1910

CAL. GOV. CODE 11120: It is the public policy of this state that ... The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. CAL. GOV. CODE 54950: In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares ... The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. Sovereignty itself is, of course not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins Wo Lee v. Hopkins (118 U.S. S. Ct. 356).

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y .) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government....
Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.

Government: Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L. Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 627. Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished

from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.


Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388.

People are supreme, not the state. See: Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93. Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. See: 2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Dict. (1870). The theory of the American political system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow them with such powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the common good. See: First Trust Co. v. Smith,
134 Neb.; 277 SW 762.

In this state, as well as in all republic, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme but the people and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do, not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93.

Any action against me MUST ONLY be brought before the supreme Court of the united States of America. Bringing ANY kind of action against me in any other court will render that action VOID and it WILL HAVE TO BE dismissed or impeached. No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the united states or the state courts and any such actions is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law.
State v. Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Constitution of the united States of America: Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

I, Russell Lee : LaFever, deny that there is an amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America which would allow the supreme Court for the united States of America to remand any action against me to any other court without my sovereign consent. I do NOT consent and I reserve all Rights enumerated under both the New York Constitution and the Constitution for the united States of America, including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence (which are imposed upon the STATE OF NEW YORK) waving NONE of my Rights EVER! No court other than the supreme Court for the united States of America is able to have any kind of jurisdiction over me under ANY circumstance. I do NOT consent to waive this Right! CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 3. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECTION 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Constitution extends to equal protection of the laws to people, not to interest.


Taylor v McKeithen, 499 F.2d 893, C.A. La 1974.

A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law, and thus, an offense created by an unconstitutional statute, is no longer a crime and a conviction under such statute cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment.
State v. Benzel, 583 N.W. 2d 434, 220 Wis. 2d 588 (1998).

As a prerequisite for presiding over a case, a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of an offense and of the person of the defendant; that is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action.
Malone v. Com., 30 S.W. 3d 180 (2000).

If the trial court is without subject matter jurisdiction of defendants case, conviction and sentence would be void ab initio.
State v. Swiger, 708 N.E.2d 1033, 125 Ohio. App. 3d 456, dismissed, appeal not allowed, 694 N.E. 2d 75, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1411 (1998).

Before a court may exercise judicial power to hear and determine a criminal prosecution, that court must possess three types of jurisdiction: jurisdiction over the defendant, jurisdiction over the alleged crime, and territorial jurisdiction.
Const. Art. 1 sec. 9, State v. Legg, 9 S.W. 3d 111 (1999).

Courts, (must) indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and...not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.
Dimmock v. Scalded, 293 US 474 (1935) 304 US at 464.

Threshold issue of whether court has jurisdiction to resolve pending controversy is fundamental and cannot be ignored; accordingly, court may sua sponte address issue, as subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of parties, but must be vested in court by constitution or statute.
State v. Roberts, 940 S.W. 2d 655, on remand 1997 WL334879. (1996).

Subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on a federal court by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver.
U.S. v. Burch, 169 F. 3d 666. (1999).

Jurisdiction can not be conferred to court by agreement of parties.


Akins v. State, 691 So. 2d 587 (1997).

Lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waived by entry of a guilty plea; doctrine of waiver cannot be effective when court lacks jurisdiction over the case itself.
Harrell v. State, 721 So. 2d 1185 rehearing denied, review dismissed 728 So. 2d 205 (1998).

Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent; nor may subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of parties.
State v. Trevino, 556 N.W. 2d 638, 251 Neb. 344 (1996).

While superior court lacks authority to try a defendant for a felony charged by information with an offense not previously subjected to a preliminary hearing, violation of this limitation on the superior courts power would constitute action in excess of jurisdiction, waivable error, and not non-waivable subject matter jurisdiction.
People v. Burnett, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629, 71 Cal. App. 4th 151 (1999).

Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, nor any authority by statute or rule.
State v. Rodriguez, 725 A. 2d 635, 125 Md. App 428, cert den 731 A. 2d 971, 354 Md. 573 (1999).

A courts authority to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over a case may be restricted by failure to comply with statutory requirements that are mandatory in nature and, thus, are prerequisite to courts lawful exercise of that jurisdiction.
Moore v. Com., 527 S.E. 2d 406, 259 Va. 431 (2000).

Power of courts to proceed, i.e., their jurisdiction over the subject matter, cannot be conferred by mere act of litigant, whether it amounts to consent, waiver, or estoppel, and hence the lack of such jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal.
People v. Lopez, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 511, 52 Cal. App. 4th 233 (1997).

Party cannot stipulate to jurisdiction when court lacks it.


Sterling v. State, 682 So. 2d 694 (1996).

A court is without power to render a judgment it lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter...In such cases, the judgment is void, has no authority and may be impeached.
OLeary v. Waterbury Title Co., 117 Conn 39, 43, 166 A. 673.

Jurisdiction over a defendant requires both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
Boles v. State, 717 So. 2d 877 (1998).

Territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of a crime, and a state is required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id

Territorial jurisdiction is question of states power to prosecute and punish accused for crime and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. al-Ladkani, 647 N.Y . S. 2d 666, 169 Misc. 2d 720 (1996).

In legal prosecution, all legal requisites must be complied with to confer jurisdiction on the court in criminal matters, as district attorney cannot confer jurisdiction by will alone.
People v. Page, 667 N.Y . S. 2d 689, 177 Misc. 2d 448 (1998).

Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case.
Fontenot v. State, 932 S.W. 2d 185.

Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.


State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W. 2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
State v. LaPier, 961 P. 2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998).

Judgment made when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void.
Clark v. State, 727 N.E. 2d 18, transfer denied 741 N.E. 2d 1247 (2000).

Anyone who arrests me without an actual injury having been my fault, and without the actual injured party to prove it, and without a corpus delecti, is GUILTY of an assault and battery. This includes arrest by detainment while I am traveling on public roads which is an infringement of

my Right to liberty. Traffic stops without an actual injury, injured party AND corpus delecti made to someone traveling by Right in contradistinction to driving with privilege of commerce IS ASSULT AND BATTERY. In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the corpus delecti, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.
People v. Lopez, 62 Ca. Rptr. 47, 254 C.A. 2d 185.

The corpus delicti consists of two elements, namely, (1) the injury or loss or harm; and (2) a criminal agency causing them to exist. People v. Frey, 165 Cal. 140, 146 [131 P. 127]; Iiams v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.2d 80, 82 [45 Cal.Rptr. 627].
People v. Wong (1973) 35 Cal. App. 3d 812 [111 Cal. Rptr. 314]

Where no cognizable crime is charged, the court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction, i.e. it is powerless in such circumstances to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to declare the punishment for an offense.
Robinson v. State, 728 A. 2d 698, 353 Md. 683 (1999).

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

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.

Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction.
U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F. Supp. 1415 (1997).

Acts of Congress are not applicable to sovereigns in the 50 states.


18 USC, Rule 54 C Positive Law enacted Titles of United States Code.

. . . The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared.
Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93;

McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).

in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign. Statues employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.
United States v. Fox (94 U.C. 315)

A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192 ...
Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. SECTION 4. "Person" means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company. The Michigan Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court concurred and made it perfectly clear the term person does not include the sovereign and that for a sovereign to be bound by statue the sovereign must be specifically named.
WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)

I, Russell Lee : LaFever having had my Sovereign Status accredited and verified as evidenced and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the public document State of New York, SECRITARY OF STATE, APOSTILLE, CERTIFIED NO. 509964, of which a copy is herein attached; state that I, Russell Lee : LaFever, am not a person nor am I specifically named in ANY statue, foreign or domestic. Therefore I am NOT bound by ANY statue. Russell Lee : LaFever is NOT a person! NO statute contains the name: Russell Lee : LaFever The living, breathing man Russell Lee : LaFever is not bound by ANY statute. Whoever violates my sovereign Right to immunity may be sued. So as with my Right to travel. So as with my Rights not to perform on any commercial contract I did not give my knowing consent to as per UCC 1-308 which was formerly UCC 1-207. So as with ALL of my Rights! A plaintiff need not pursue his state remedies before instituting a 1983 action.
Monroe v. Pape (or perhaps Pope), 365 US 167 (1961).

ALL courts MUST protect my sovereign Right to immunity. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 LRA 630 AM ST 459.

Judges MUST defend and protect my Rights and they have NO immunity from infringing upon ANY

OF MY RIGHTS! ALL judges swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. This means ALL judges swore to defend my Rights. If ANY judge does not defend my Rights, it is an action of treason and sedition. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of...rights on the strength of 18 USC 242.
Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 37.

Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts.


Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871).

A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act.
Ex Parte Virginia, 100 US 339 (1879), 54 US v. Moylon 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction.


Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871).

When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Cohens v, Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L Ed 257 (1821)

Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property.
Firemans Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Washburn County, 2 Wis 2d 214, 85 N.W. 2d 840 (1957).

Courts acquire authority to adjudicate matter if they have both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.
McKinneys CPL v. sec. 1.20 subd. 9. People v. Marzban, 660 N.Y . S. 2d 808, 172 Misc. 2d 987 (1997).

Whether or not the government takes out the interstate commerce element of an offense has no effect on the district courts subject matter jurisdiction.
U.S. v. Degan, 229 F. 3d 553, 2000 Fed. App 367 P. (2000).

To maintain an action under (42 USC) 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposely, or in furtherance of a conspiracy... it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation... was the natural consequences of Defendants acting under the color of law...
Ethridge v Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Sup 83(1967), Whirl v. Kern, CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968) Ury v. Santee, DC Ill, (1969).

A conviction under an unconstitutional law is...illegal and void and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment; the courts must liberate a person imprisoned under it...one imprisoned...may be discharged by the writ of Habeas Corpus.
16 Am Jur Sec 150.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958).

In February of 2007: I, Russell Lee : LaFever served upon the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (sic), the UNITED STATES (sic), and the Treasury of the UNITED STATES (sic) a "Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments" which included but was not limited to: a Birth Certificate, a Social Security Card and a California Driver's License all which were forced/coerced upon me. I also served upon the same parties an ACTUAL NOTICE OF FAULT, DEFAULT and DEFAULT JUDGEMENT along with a Writ of Prohibition, Writ of Mandamus, and a Writ of Execution. Attached here within are: A copy of the Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments and its ACTUAL NOTICE OF FAULT, DEFAULT and DEFAULT JUDGEMENT. A copy of the Writ of Prohibition to prevent parties and their agents from visiting harm upon me as they have NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OVER ME. A copy of the Writ of Mandamus to compel parties and their agents to honor the Demand as stated in said document. A copy of the Writ of Execution ordering the statutorily defined Articles of the UNITED STATES (sic) and its instrumentalities to perform as demanded. Page 3 of this Cancellatura (mentioned in Merit 78 above) made it known to all parties that I will never hand any of my unalienable Rights to anyone or anything. On September 16, 2007: I, Russell Lee : LaFever explicitly and FORMALLY made known my rejection of any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code in my NOTICE OF SOVEREIGN STATUS and this document was verified, accredited, acknowledged, and authenticated by the government of the UNITED STATES. This Notice is contained within the Apostille 509964, which is attached. Through this instrument my explicit reservation of Rights served notice upon all agencies of government of the Remedy they must provide for me under common law, whereby I have explicitly reserved my common law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Through this instrument my explicit reservation of Rights served notice upon all agencies of government that they are all limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the common law and that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of the unrevealed commercial agreements. Through this instrument my explicit reservation of Rights served notice upon all agencies of government that my valid reservation of Rights has preserved all my Rights and prevented the loss of any such Rights by application of the concept of waiver or estoppel. Through this instrument my explicit reservation of Rights served notice upon all agencies of government that I would waive NONE OF ANY of my God-given unalienable Rights EVER! On December 24, 2007: I, Russell Lee : LaFever, reserved all of my Rights enumerated under both the California Constitution and the Constitution for the united States of America, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and imposed upon the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, waiving none to the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura and all Plaintiff Parties of Case # 2007624134; after having been arrested (with no crime, no injury, no injured party, and no corpus delecti) while traveling into the parking lot of a grocery store. (See ticket Citation # 935230 contained within the attached copy of court filing.) There was no injury, no injured party and no corpus delecti in my action of legally traveling by Right to go buy food. This court filing, By Special Visitation: Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction, Notice of

Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in California State Court, and Notice that Jurisdiction rests with the supreme Court for the united States of America was served upon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Department of Justice, District Attorney for the County of Ventura, and Officer Tom Woof (Badge #2698). Attached is the By Special Visitation: Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction, Notice of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in California State Court, and Notice that Jurisdiction rests with the supreme Court for the united States of America and its proof of service for Case number: 2007624134. Exhibit A of said attachment is a copy of ticket # 935230. On March 14, 2008, after the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura violated their judicial authority under color of law and in violation of facts of Case 2007624134, and after their participating in extortion attempts to collect money from me in the form of a color of law civil assessment imposition I, Russell Lee : LaFever, AGAIN MADE ANOTHER RESERVATION OF MY RIGHTS. I reserved with the court (and all Parties) all of my Natural God-Given Unalienable Birthrights, waiving none EVER, through the court document By Special Visitation: Notice of Affidavit of Fact That the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura court Lacks of Jurisdiction, and Notice of Void Action for Lack of Jurisdiction in Superior Court of California, County of Ventura State Court. This court filing was FIRST recorded by the Clark County Recorder of Nevada on March 14, 2008 and then filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura on April 1, 2008. As with the other court filing in this case mentioned I had TO INSIST to get the court to even receive and then file this document. (See attached court Docket Information print out which evidences that I had to insist.) This court filing was also served upon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Department of Justice, District Attorney for the County of Ventura, and Officer Tom Woof (Badge #2698). Attached is court filing, By Special Visitation: Notice of Affidavit of Fact That the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura court Lacks of Jurisdiction, and Notice of Void Action for Lack of Jurisdiction in Superior Court of California, County of Ventura State Court and its proof of service for Case number: 2007624134. Attached is Docket Information printout for Case # 2007624134. This Merit here stands in support of the necessity of my having to PUBLICLY defend and protect my Rights: After giving proper Notice to the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura of Void Action for Lack of Jurisdiction, the court again violated their judicial authority under color of law and participated in further extortion attempts to collect money from me under color of law by adding a failure to pay charge. The Docket Information printout for Case # 2007624134 shows that something was supposedly mailed to an undeliverable address. However the address on my court filings was correct and this is the same address I use to this day; while the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA and the CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD were able to correctly mail fraudulent color of law bills to my correct address. I received multiple mailings which attempted to extort money from me under color of law, while I did not receive ANY of the other supposed mailings mentioned on the Docket Information printout for Case number: 2007624134 in order to defend myself.

See attached SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA fraudulent contract offer by connivance as a bill under color of law, that was returned to them by Certified Mail as Refused for case without dishonor. The cause is fraud. for Case number: 2007624134. See attached CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD fraudulent contract offer by connivance as a bill under color of law, that was returned to them by Certified Mail as Refused for case without dishonor. The cause is fraud. for Case number: 2007624134. See attached second CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD fraudulent contract offer made over 8 months later and again by connivance as a bill under color of law, that was returned to them by Certified Mail Accepted for Value and Returned for Settlement for Case number: 2007624134. Note that the amounts in the attachments # 83 a, b and c do NOT add up to the amount listed in the Docket Information printout for Case number: 2007624134. One amount is $544 and the other three are $509. Did the later three just deduct the $35 fine amount of the ticket because I was NEVER convicted of anything?!!! See Case Information page printout for Case number: 2007624134. Note that the Docket Information printout for Case number: 2007624134 does NOT show that ANY judge EVER LOOKED AT THIS CASE! This Merit here stands in support of the necessity of my having to PUBLICLY defend and protect my Rights: On June 3, 2010, Case number: 2007624134 was still open, nearly 3 years later, even though I, Russell Lee : LaFever was NEVER convicted of anything, AND even though there was no injured party that came forth, no evidence of any injury AND no corpus delecti. The California DMV was still attempting to extort $509 from me 3 years after the action was brought and 3 years after no conviction was ever able to be obtained. See attached June 3, 2010 DMV Inquiry showing outstanding amount due of $509. My sovereign Right to immunity is maintained at all times, in all places, and in all my actions. This includes while I exercise my Right to travel. This includes anything regarding the Uniform Commercial Code. On June 8, 2010: I, Russell Lee : LaFever, made an ADDITIONAL PUBLIC Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 thereby AGAIN reserving my Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and thereby made it publicly known that I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement by AGAIN reserving all of my Rights at all times and in all places to all agencies of the government. This was publicly published by the Ventura County Recorder of California, received by their OFFICE OF CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, and stamped as such by their agent Rosa Gonzalez. This Notice was made as a PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL; Notice to Agents is Notice to Principles; Notice to Principles is Notice to Agents; Applications to all Successors and Assigns; All are without excuse. This Notice was also served upon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Department of Justice, District Attorney for Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, the California DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, the Los Angeles Regional Office of Office of Foreign Missions, and Clay Hays Chief of Community Relations for the Diplomatic

Motor Vehicle (DMV) Office, Office of Foreign Missions in Washington, D.C. A copy of this mentioned June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 is attached. A copy of Proof of Service for this is attached. October 14, 2010: the June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 was served upon additional government agents; including Supreme Court Judges and NUMEROUS Judges in CALIFORNIA, VENTURA COUNTY, and Washington D.C. A copy of this Proof of Service is attached. November 4, 2010: the June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 was served AGAIN to the California DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, the Los Angeles Regional Office of Office of Foreign Missions, and Clay Hays Chief of Community Relations for the Diplomatic Motor Vehicle (DMV) Office, Office of Foreign Missions in Washington, D.C. when said agents/agencies received their copy of the California DMVs contract offer for myself (as the Sovereign Russell Lee : LaFever) to alter the California license plate numbered 8N85524 so as to use it as identification (in contradistinction to registration) to all personnel and government agents (on my Nissan VIN # 1 N6AA06V65N506515) in acknowledgment of my Right to travel in my 2005 Nissan that is NOT WITHIN their jurisdiction or authority. A copy of the Proof of Service is attached. November 18, 2010: the June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 was served to NUMEROUS Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and additional government agents, including the California Highway Patrol, and AGAIN to: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Department of Justice, the California DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, the Los Angeles Regional Office of Office of Foreign Missions, and Clay Hays Chief of Community Relations for the Diplomatic Motor Vehicle (DMV) Office, Office of Foreign Missions in Washington, D.C., when said agents/agencies were served a copy of the PUBLIC NOTICE that the California DMVs contract (which acknowledges my Right to travel in my 2005 Nissan is not within anyones jurisdiction other than myself) took effect. A copy of the October 14, 2010 Proof of Service mentioned in Merit #87 was also furnished to those being served on November 18, 2010 which informed them of the NUMEROUS other government agents/agencies and judges who were also served the Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308. A copy of PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL: Notification of Nissan VIN #1 N6AA06V65N506515 Identification Plates # 8N85524 Contract and Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 is attached which contains a copy of the actual Contract. A copy of the Proof of Service is attached. The DMV Contract, which GUARANTEES that all government agents shall abide by my immunity while I travel in my Nissan (VIN #1 N6AA06V65N506515) by their ability to recognize my Nissan with the Identification Plates # 8N85524 attached to said Nissan, has been in effect since November 14, 2010. This DMV Contract is a valid contract which legally binds government agents/agencies AND REMAINS IN EFFECT IN PERPETUITY. There is no physical evidence that the DMV ever refused the contract offer. There is no physical evidence that the DMV ever asked for their plates # 8N85524 to be returned to them.

I, Russell Lee : LaFever, properly modified said plates to reflect their no expiry status for the identification purpose, as is the alteration for contradistinction from the old purpose of registration as is stipulated in said contract. The DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES had from June of 2010 through November 14, 2010 to argue my Right to travel as noticed and served upon them in writing. The Contract offered stipulates that if they do not refuse the contract by November 14, 2010, then they give their CONSENT and agree to the terms of the Contract. The DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (nor any other government agent or agency) did NOT ever send me any written, as REQUIRED IN WRITING, disagreement and never argued the validity of this mentioned contract with me, my legal Right to travel, my immunity while traveling, nor did they ever ask for the plates #8N85524 to be returned to them. Any disagreement would have had to have been made IN WRITING to me personally by November 14, 2010 and I, Russell Lee : LaFever, deny that any such activity ever took place and deny that there is any physical evidence of any such activity having ever taken place. I, Russell Lee : LaFever made proper Notice to all parties when said Contract went into effect. I fulfilled my obligation of said Contract by making the alterations to said Plates as stipulated in said Contract; and said Plates are SECURELY LOCKED, with Lockum Brand Plate Holders, onto my Nissan with Lexan covers (approved by the DMV) over the stipulated alterations. The DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES took the benefit of being able to identify me while I travel in my Nissan. Cal. Civil Code 3521. He who takes the benefit must bear the burden. The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence applies. Cal. Civil Code 3519. He who can and does not forbid that which is done on his behalf, is deemed to have bidden it. Cal. Civil Code 3516. Acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it. Cal. Civil Code 3526. No man is responsible for that which no man can control. Cal. Civil Code 3545. Private transactions are fair and regular. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a 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 to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)

Cal. Civil Code 1550. It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be: 1. Parties capable of contracting; 2. Their consent; 3. A lawful object; and, 4. A sufficient cause or consideration.

Cal. Civil Code 1581. Consent can be communicated with effect, only by some act or omission of the party contracting, by which he intends to communicate it, or which necessarily tends to such communication. Cal. Civil Code 1582. If a proposal prescribes any conditions concerning the communication of its acceptance, the proposer is not bound unless they are conformed to; but in other cases any reasonable and usual mode may be adopted. Cal. Civil Code 1583. Consent is deemed to be fully communicated between the parties as soon as the party accepting a proposal has put his acceptance in the course of transmission to the proposer, in conformity to the last section. Civil Code 1586. A proposal may be revoked at any time before its acceptance is communicated to the proposer, but not afterwards. Civil Code 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting. Civil Code 1606. An existing legal obligation resting upon the promisor, or a moral obligation originating in some benefit conferred upon the promisor, or prejudice suffered by the promisee, is also a good consideration for a promise, to an extent corresponding with the extent of the obligation, but no further or otherwise. Civil Code 3547. A thing continues to exist as long as is usual with things of that nature. This Merit here stands in support of the necessity of my having to PUBLICLY defend and protect my Rights: November 29, 2010: the June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 was served upon the California State Franchise Tax Board when said tax boards fraudulent contract offer, by connivance as a bill under color of law, was counter offered and returned to them as Accepted for Value and Returned for Settlement. A copy of the Proof of Service is attached. This Merit here stands in support of the necessity of my having to PUBLICLY defend and protect my Rights: In December of 2010: after being arrested (even though there was no crime, no injury, no injured party, and no corpus delecti); while the CALIFORNIA DMV contracted traveling Identification Plates # 8N85524 were attached securely to my Nissan, while the Contract with the CALIFORNIA DMV was fully in effect; while I was traveling 35 miles per hour on a public road where travelers have the Right to travel freely and privileged drivers are permitted to drive at 35 miles per hour; a. See attached copy of ticket Citation # A83369. and after having SERVED arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) the NOTICE TO OFFICER which had attached the June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308, and after informing the deputy he was in violation of California Civil Code 1708 and pointing out the injury he was causing was an infringement on my Right to travel; A copy of the NOTICE TO OFFICER that was given to Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) is

attached. California Civil Code 1708 Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. and after showing arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) a copy of the PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL: Notification of Nissan VIN #1 N6AA06V65N506515 Identification Plates # 8N85524 Contract and Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 and its Proof of Service showing that this was SERVED UPON: Commissioner M.L. Brown of the California Highway Patrol, Deputy Commissioner J.A. Farrow of the California Highway Patrol, Sheriff Bob Brooks of Ventura California, Undersheriff Mark Ball of Ventura California, and also both Commander Jeff Matson and Chief Deputy Keith Parks who supervise the East County Patrol Station on 2101 East Olsen Road in Thousand Oaks, Ventura County California which is the same Patrol Station that Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) works out of; and after proving to arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) that there were no commercial passengers onboard; and after arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) was not able to prove there was any commercial cargo onboard; and after I informed arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378) that there was NO commercial activity going on; and after watching arresting Sheriff Deputy Goodrich (Badge # 4378), who was never rude in his demeanor, appear to make multiple phone calls in order to decide what to do before issuing ticket # A83369; and after I, Russell Lee : LaFever, was forced to sign said ticket # A83369 or be taken into custody against my will, as informed to me by Deputy Goodrich; and after I, Russell Lee : LaFever, signed said ticket written by my own hand as under protest with all Rights reserved UCC 1-308 while being under duress and under informed physical threat of kidnapping; and after having Case # 2010633019 filed against me with the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura under color of law; I, Russell Lee : LaFever, purchased the website domains www.CynthiaMildred.com and www.CynthiaMildredMiles.com in order to internationally publish and internationally give PUBLIC NOTICE of the reservation of ALL OF MY RIGHTS in order to aid in the defense and the protection of my Rights. A copy of Case Information Page for Case # 2010633019 printed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura is attached. I, Russell Lee : LaFever, am making it known that I do not want any harm to come to Deputy Sheriff Goodrich (Badge #4378) as it appeared that he consulted others in order to decide what to do, and as he was never rude in his demeanor to me. If he was misinformed about his duties or poorly and / or improperly educated during his training period, then he may have been acting on the presumption that a superior was acting in good faith. If this was the case, then and only then, I am extending forgiveness to him ONLY. In January of 2011: my June 8, 2010 Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308 along with this Notice of Reservation of Sovereign Right to Immunity and its attachments and also other

documents/notices were published www.CynthiaMildredMiles.com.

internationally

on

www.CynthiaMildred.com

and

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241 If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
241. Conspiracy against rights

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

California Vehicle Code General Provisions It is unlawful to use a false or fictitious name, or to knowingly make any false statement or knowingly conceal any material fact in any document filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
False Statements

California Vehicle Code Division 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 Section 1805 1805. The failure, refusal, or neglect of any such judicial officer to comply with any of the requirements of Sections 1802, 1803, 1804 and 1816 is misconduct in office and is ground for removal therefrom. Amended Ch. 1622, Stats. 1959. Effective September 18, 1959.
Failure to Comply

California Civil Code 1708 Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of

another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. California Code Penal Code Part 1: OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, Title 7: OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE, Chapter 4: Forging, Stealing, Mutilating, and Falsifying Judicial and Public Records and Documents Penal Code Section 115: (a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, GENERAL PROVISIONS, TITLE 1, DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 3: Crimes Relating to Public Records, Documents, and Certificates, SECTIONS 6200, 6201, & 6203: 6200 Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other person to do any of the following: (a)Steal, remove, or secrete. (b)Destroy, mutilate, or deface. (c)Alter or falsify. 6201 Every person not an officer referred to in Section 6200, who is guilty of any of the acts specified in that section, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment. 6203 (a)Every officer authorized by law to make or give any certificate or other writing is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she makes and delivers as true any certificate or writing containing statements which he or she knows to be false. (Emphasis added.) (b)Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in Section 802 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law, prosecution for a violation of this offense shall be commenced within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense, or within four years after the completion of the offense, whichever is later. (c)The penalty provided by this section is not an exclusive remedy, and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.(Emphasis added.) 102. California Vehicle Code, Division 18, Chapter 1, Article 1 Section 42000 42000. Unless a different penalty is expressly provided by this code,every person convicted of a felony for a violation of any provision of this code shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison or by both such fine and imprisonment. Amended Ch. 1092, Stats. 1983. Effective September 26, 1983. Operative January 1, 1984.
Felony

Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant.

People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y. S. 2d 962, 175 Misc. 2d 421 appeal denied 678 N.Y . S. 2d 26, 92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E. 2d 564 (1997).

Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court.
People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y. S. 2d 824, 176 Misc. 2d 377 (1998).

No valid conviction can occur if the charging instrument is void.


State v. Wilson, 6 S.W. 3d 504 (1998).

Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling.
V.T.C.A., Government Code sec. 54.651 et seq., Davis v. State, 956 S.W. 2d 555 (1997).

Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.

Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights.
Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me. 309 F Sup 95 (1970).

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > SECTIONS 1962 & 1963 1962. Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (Emphasis added.) (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. 1963. Criminal penalties

(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law (1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; (2) any (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over; any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and (3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 22-22.2 22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. 22.1. The will of the supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution. (b) By statutes. 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 1, GENERAL DIVISION 4. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 4. OATH OF OFFICE, SECTION 1360 1360 Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, SECTION 3 SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. ANYONE who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States swore an oath to DEFEND AND PROTECT my Rights and my Sovereignty! California Civil Code Maxims Of Jurisprudence mandates:

3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. Bad faith: (source http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith) The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation. Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or negligence. One can make an honest mistake about ones own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith. The existence of bad faith can minimize or nullify any claims that a person alleges in a lawsuit. Punitive Damages, attorney's fees, or both, may be awarded to a party who must defend himself or herself in an action brought in bad faith. Bad faith is a term commonly used in the law of contracts and other commercial dealings, such as Commercial Paper, and in Secured Transactions. It is the opposite of Good Faith, the observance of reasonable standards of fair dealings in trade that is required of every merchant. A government official who selectively enforces a nondiscriminatory law against the members of a particular group or race, thereby violating the Civil Rights of those individuals, is acting in bad faith. Bad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a bad faith contract or bad faith offer. (See: good faith, fraud, clean hands doctrine) Clean Hands Doctrine n.: a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have clean hands or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. There is a bad faith provision of the 11 U.S.C. Section 303 that provides for remedies against the bad faith creditor. See 11 U.S.C. Section 303(i) The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has fairly recently addressed these remedies, see Fetner v. Haggerty, 99 F. 3d 1180 (D.C.Cir.1996). 11 U.S.C. Section 303(i) (2) against any petitioner that filed the petition in bad faith, for (A) any damages proximately caused by such filing; or (B) punitive damages. TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > SECTION 1986. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and

neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 4. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECTION 2382 MISPRISION OF TREASON 2382. Misprision of Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 4. LEGISLATIVE, SECTION 1.5. SECTION 1.5. the people find and declare that the powers of incumbency must be limited. INCUMBENT ALSO MEANS: adj. 2. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else ... Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.
Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007).

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The Civil Rights Act

To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. (Emphasis added.)
Merrion et al., dba Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. 1982. SCT. 394, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S. L. W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748.

TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > SECTIONS 1983, 1985, and 1986.

1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (1) Preventing officer from performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived

may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. Case number: 2007624134 in the Superior Court of Ventura, California is STILL open (still occurring) and 1986 actions may be commenced on this case through one year after this case is closed. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODES: 3509. The maxims of jurisprudence hereinafter set forth are intended not to qualify any of the foregoing provisions of this Code, but to aid in their just application. 3510. When the reason of a rule ceases, so should the rule itself. 3512. One must not change his purpose to the injury of another. 3513. Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit. But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement. 3514. One must so use his own rights as not to infringe upon the rights of another. 3517. No one can take advantage of his own wrong. 3520. No one should suffer by the act of another. 3521. He who takes the benefit must bear the burden. (My documents attached to this Reservation of Sovereign Right to Immunity evidences the FACT that I have rejected all the benefits of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; therefore I, Russell Lee : LaFever, do NOT have to bear ANY burden of it and have immunity from it!) 3523. For every wrong there is a remedy. 3525. Between rights otherwise equal, the earliest is preferred. 3526. No man is responsible for that which no man can control. 3529. That which ought to have been done is to be regarded as done, in favor of him to whom, and against him from whom, performance is due. 3530. That which does not appear to exist is to be regarded as if it did not exist. 3536. The greater contains the less. 3538. That is certain which can be made certain. 3539. Time does not confirm a void act.

3542. Interpretation must be reasonable. 3543. Where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third, he, by whose negligence it happened, must be the sufferer. 3545. Private transactions are fair and regular. 3546. Things happen according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. 3547. A thing continues to exist as long as is usual with things of that nature. 3548. The law has been obeyed. As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1

We the people... do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1789). What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.
Vanhornes Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. (Emphasis added.)
Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article IX, U.S. Constitution.

No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants.
New Orleans Gas Co v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)

The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people. The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members.
U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have

generally resulted from those causes.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison James Madison's Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution on Friday June 6, 1788.

The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. Wythe in the chair. [The 1st and 2d sections still under consideration.] Gov. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I am a child of the revolution. My country, very early indeed, took me under its protection, at a time when I most wanted it, and, by a succession of favors and honors, gratified even my most ardent wishes. I feel the highest gratitude and attachment to my country; her felicity is the most fervent prayer of my heart. Conscious of having exerted my faculties to the utmost in her behalf, if I have not succeeded in securing the esteem of my countrymen, I shall reap abundant consolation from the rectitude of my intentions: honors, when compared to the satisfaction accruing from a conscious independence and rectitude of conduct, are no equivalent. The unwearied study of my life shall be to promote her happiness. As a citizen, ambition and popularity are no objects with me. I expect, in the course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most sincerely and cordially prefer to all others. The security of public justice, sir, is what I most fervently wish, as I consider that object to be the primary step to the attainment of public happiness. I can declare to the whole world, that, in the part I take in this very important question, I am actuated by a regard for what I conceive to be our true interest. I can also, with equal sincerity, declare that I would join heart and hand in rejecting this system, did I not conceive it would promote our happiness; but, having a strong conviction on my mind, at this time, that by a disunion we shall throw away all those blessings we have so earnestly fought for,and that a rejection of the Constitution will operate disunion, pardon me if I discharge the obligation I owe to my country, by voting for its adoption. We are told that the report of dangers is false. The cry of {66} peace, sir, is false: say peace, when there is peace; it is but a sudden calm. The tempest growls over you: look round wheresoever you look, you see danger. Where there are so many witnesses in many parts of America, that justice is suffocated, shall peace and happiness still be said to reign? Candor, sir, requires an undisguised representation of our situation. Candor, sir, demands a faithful exposition of facts. Many citizens have found justice strangled and trampled under foot, through the course of jurisprudence in this country. Are those who have debts due to them satisfied with your government? Are not creditors wearied with the tedious procrastination of your legal process a process obscured by legislative mists? Cast your eyes to your seaports: see how commerce languishes. This country, so blessed, by nature, with every advantage that can render commerce profitable, through defective legislation is deprived of all the benefits and emoluments she might otherwise reap from it. We hear many complaints on the subject of located lands; a variety of competitors claiming the same lands under legislative acts, public faith prostrated, and private confidence destroyed. I ask you if your laws are reverenced. In every well-regulated community, the laws command respect. Are yours entitled to reverence? We not only see violations of the constitution, but of national principles in repeated instances. How is the fact? The history of the violations of the constitution extends from the year 1776 to this present time violations made by formal acts of the legislature: every thing has been drawn within the legislative vortex.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm

For it can never be maintained in any tribunal in this country that thepeople of a State, in the exercise of the powers of sovereignty, can be restrained within narrower limits than that fixed by the Constitution of the United States . . . the people of a State may, by the form of government they adopt,

confer on their public servants and representatives all the power and rights of sovereignty which they themselves possess; or may restrict them within such limits as may be deemed best and safest for the public interest.
Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Debolt, 16 How 415, 428-9.

The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government; yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. See: 2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267. But it cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it did not intent that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid hardships of particular cases, we must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign powers.
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 WX N.W., 262, 101, N.W. 74; Cook v. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

In this state, as well as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme but the people and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do, not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93.

There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can seize and search him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 39 (1967).

Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, [106 U.S. 196, 209] there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right.
U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882).

The term [liberty] ...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of this own conscience... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action." (Emphasis added.)

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400.

Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable.
16 C. J. S., Constitutional Law, Sect. 202, p. 987.

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
Samuel Adams, 1772

Wherefore the ENTIRE contents of this PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL "Notification of Reservation of Sovereign Right to Immunity," Merits enumerated 1 through 146AND their attachments: 1. Apostille 509964 => Copy of Apostille 509964 2. Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments and its Actual Notice of Fault, Default, and Default Judgment and its Writ of Prohibition, Writ of Mandamus, and Writ of Execution and its Proof of Service. 3. Case # 2007624134 court filing "By Special Visitation: Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction, Notice of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in California State Court, and Notice that Jurisdiction rests with the supreme Court for the united States of America" and its Proof of Service. 4. Case # 2007624134 court filing "By Special Visitation: Notice of Affidavit of Fact That the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura court Lacks of Jurisdiction, and Notice of Void Action for Lack of Jurisdiction in Superior Court of California, County of Ventura State Court" and its Proof of Service. 5. "Docket Information" page printout for Case # 2007624134. 6. "Case Information" page printout for Case # 2007624134. 7. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA fraudulent "contract offer" by connivance as a "bill" under color of law. 8. CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD fraudulent "contract offer" by connivance as a "bill" under color of law. 9. Second CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD fraudulent "contract offer"by connivance as a "bill" under color of law. 10. June 3, 2010 DMV Inquiry. 11. June 8, 2010 "Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308" and its Proof of Service. 12. "Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308" October 14, 2010 Proof of Service which included Supreme Court Judges. 13. "Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308" November 4, 2010 Proof of Service which included both the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Department. 14. "Notice of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308" November 18, 2010 Proof of Service which included both the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Department.

let all be advised that ANY AND ALL actions commenced against me may be in violation of: USC TITLE 18 CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I > CHAPTER 96 1962. Prohibited activities USC TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 241. Conspiracy against rights 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law USC TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I 1986. Action for neglect to prevent USC TITLE 11 > CHAPTER 1 > GENERAL PROVISIONS 101. Definitions 102. Rules of construction 103. Applicability of chapters 105. Power of court 106. Waiver of sovereign immunity 107. Public access to papers 108. Extension of time 109. Who may be a debtor 110. Penalty for persons who negligently or fraudulently preparebankruptcy petitions USC TITLE 22 > FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE (ALL) UCC > ARTICLE 1 > PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law. UCC > ARTICLE 1 > PART 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES INTERPRETATION 1-201. General Definitions 1-202. Notice; Knowledge 1-203. Lease Distinguished from Security Interest 1-204. Value UCC > ARTICLE 1 > PART 3. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL RULES 1-301. Territorial Applicability; Parties' Power to Choose Applicable Law 1-302. Variation by Agreement 1-303. Course of Performance, Course of Dealing, and Usage of Trade 1-304. Obligation of Good Faith Of

1-305. Remedies to be Liberally Administered 1-306. Waiver or Renunciation of Claim or Right After Breach 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights 1-309. Option to Accelerate at Will 1-310. Subordinated Obligations

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi