Breaking News

By what authority, rebuttal No legal authority.pdf. BAR members (attorneys, judges and law professors) claim we the People have no authority to restore Common Law, but they cannot show by what authority they make such a claim, We the People answer them. Letters from NY Court tru counsel - Prudinti tru counsel 9-26-13.pdf  Prudinti tru counsel 10-10-13.pdf


Breaking News - December 8th 2014 - Fifty Common Law Grand Juries filed Presentments indicting Code Enforcement Officer Pantaleo for the murder of Eric Garner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of NY: Read the Presentment HERE > Officer_Pantaleo_NY._Presentment.pdf for the murder of Eric Garner

Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices, see video below.

Breaking News October 29, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury files mandamus.pdf  ordering Federal Judge to show cause why he did not obey the Law of the Land

BREAKING NEWS October 17, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury granted Terry Trussell's petition for Writ Habaes Corpus - Terry was asked to serve on a statutory grand jury in Dixie County. He was selected by the presiding Judge Munkittrick as the foreman. As foreman, he was made aware of alleged criminal behavior by those government officials pushing Common Core curriculum in our public schools , who allegedly took bribes of money to change the curriculum. So, according to his duty, Terry tried to present the evidence to the statutory grand jury but the State Attorney Siegmeister interfered with his ability to perform the job of Grand Jury Foreman as per Florida Grand Jury Handbook and Florida Statutes 905.

So Terry wrote up and put into the public record a Bill of Information that included criminal charges of obstruction of justice along with jury tampering for the SA, and also hand delivered a 7 page letter to Judge Munkittrick , among other things, detailing to her the alleged felonies that he had witnessed Siegmesiter commit. Due to the actions of Seigmesiter, Terry declared the statutory grand jury as tainted and dismissed it.

Nothing happened so Terry was in a position where his sworn duty was to investigate any crime that came to his awareness according to Florida Statutes but the statutory grand jury had become tainted by State Attorney Seigmesiter. So Terry, knowing that the US is a Common Law Country and Florida is a Common Law state, asked the People of Dixie County if they wanted to, in accordance with the 5th amendment to our US Constitution,  stand up their own independent Common Law Grand Jury, which they did. After considering the evidence, The People's Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County handed down two True Bills of Presentment, one against the alleged crimes of the SA and the other against the officials, after accepting money, pushing Common Core. This True Bills were also put into the public record.

In an act of retaliation against Terry for reporting crimes, the establishment is attacking Terry for doing his job as Grand Jury Foreman by reporting the True Bills and putting them into the public record. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent Frank Linton filed a defective affidavit, including with perjury and omission of exculpatory evidence, which Terry rebutted, but the Court Clerk has removed evidence from the public record. Also, the judge's order was defective as well as the arrest warrant was defective, all for various serious reasons.

So Terry is charged for crimes because he reported crimes, and he was first in early Sept, kept in jail about 24 hours, and bailed out. He then was arrested at his arraignment Oct 9 on charges of Failure to Appear because he did appear but the judge refused to recognize him. Pls go to and find all the articles and audio on Terry. You can listen to  Judge Hankinson call Terry's name 3 times, and Terry respond three times, and then the judge can be heard to say something like ...let the record show that Terry George Trussell did not appear, and I order his bail revoked and his immediate arrest. The sheriffs simply walked over and took Terry by the arm and lead him out of the court room and handcuffed him and took him to jail. There are over 20 signed, sworn, notarized affidavits that Terry did indeed appear even though the judge said he did not.

The coverup that is being engineered to hide criminal activity and to punish Terry appears to include many officials in both the county government and in the Circuit Court judicial system as well as FDLE. Please remember that as a Grand Juror, Terry has complete immunity for anything he does except for if he were to breach a witnesses rights. Since there were no witnesses called, he certainly did not breach anybody's rights. As a result on October 17, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury granted Terry Trussell's petition for Writ Habaes Corpus. see petition and Habaes Corpus below.

  • BREAKING NEWS SEPTEMBER 16, 2014: In-Depth Interview with Terry Trussell of Dixie County, FL - Arrested by a Corrupt Judiciary. On Friday, September 12th, 2014, on the 5-year anniversary of the 9/12 March On Washington where 1.2 million people gathered in protest of the despicable behavior by their representatives in Washington, D.C., Terry Trussell of Dixie County, FL and I sat down for an in-depth interview to discuss why he was arrested and charged with several felonies. On September 2nd, 2014 just after 3:00 PM in the afternoon, Terry Trussell's life was changed forever. terry_trussell_interview.mp3

  • Consolidated True Bill.pdf Filed July 14th 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York In one federal filing we refiled the indictments of 14 State judges and 2 clerks.

  • Bill of Information.pdf Filed July 14th 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York Paper revealing that New York courts are controled by tyrants.

  • Hybrid papers disclaimer.pdf The purpose of this disclaimer is to deny any connection with Mr. Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch, who titles himself a God Grace Administrator, concerning his filing of papers in Sheridan County, Nebraska and any other papers he may have filed in other states/counties.
  • PRESS RELEASE DISCLAIMER.pdf The purpose of this disclaimer is to deny any connection with David Robinson’s PRESS RELEASE For JULY 4, 2014. NLA does not support or share the views of the following contents.

POSTED MAY 27, 2014 Federal Court Order to dismiss case and our response with a writ of error and an ultimatum. Take note that in the file Mandamus there is one Mandamus commanding the Federal Court to obey and a second (to be signed by the judge) from the Federal Court to the State courts.

POSTED MAY 9, 2014 Court date JUNE 2, 2014, stay-tuned for details.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; James T. Foley Courthouse; Suite 509; 445 Broadway; Albany, NY 12207 on the 2nd day of June, 2014 at 9:30 AM;

POSTED APRIL 23, 2014 .

(518) 625-3160;    FAX - (518) 943-0247
If you need assistance with coordinating travel from your area, you may call or email Ollie Johnson, one of the NY State coordinators at (845) 204-8158 and
Court Hearing Thursday April 24, 2014 at 9:3o AM. If you cannot make it please fax, mail and call to let them know we are watching.

On March 28, 2014 the Columbia County Clerk retured our March 26th filing. We then filed the Writ of Quo Warranto, Writ of Probition and Writ of Mandamus.pdf with the Greene Couty Clerk on April 10, 2014and our hearing is now scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 9:30 AM.

Posted Monday March 26, 2014
Writ of Prohibition, Warning to the Court. WRIT OF PROHIBITION.pdf

Posted Monday March 24, 2014
Quo Warranto filed in Columbia County New York, This is the begining of the end we need everyone paying attention. Quo Waranto filed 3-24-14.pdf

Posted Friday March 21, 2014
6th Open Letter to all NY Oath-takers, acting Judicial gate keepers, elected or appointed to secure the Republic Dear Sheriff.pdf

Posted Thursday March 10, 2014
5th Open Letter to all NY Oath-takers, acting Judicial gate keepers, elected or appointed to secure the Republic - 14-03-25 memo Sovereign.pdf

Posted Thursday March 6, 2014
News Wire Press Release 3-5-14.pdf
New York Law Journal, Albany NY. - John Caher Senior Reporter 3-6-14.mp3 

Posted Tuesday March 10, 2014
4th Open Letter to all NY Oath-takers, acting Judicial gate keepers, elected or appointed to secure the Republic -
Letter from Franklin County New York Sheriff to the Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury and the UNYCLGJ response - Franklin Sheriff letter and response.pdf

Posted Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Jersey City man advocating grand jury system with no government involvement.pdf

Posted Monday, Febuary 24, 2014
3rd Open letter to all New York Oath-takers 14-2-25 Memo to oath takers.pdf

Posted Thursday, February 20, 2014 Peliminary interviw 14-2-21 Fox News.com_.mp3 
The Anti-Defamation League claims adherents of the sovereign citizen movement are forming their own vigilante “grand juries”  ADL Press Release.pdf NLA Press release in response to ADA's fabricated press release. NLA answer to ADL Press Release.pdf

Posted Thursday, February 20, 2014 -
Phone call from Daily News in Charleston South Carolina press release - Press phone call 2-20-14.mp3

Posted Thursday, February 20, 2014 -
2nd Open Letter to all NY Oath-takers
, acting Judicial gate keepers, elected or appointed to secure the Republic - 14-2-20 MEMORANDUM.pdf

Posted Wednesday, February 19, 2014 -
Written article on Who is Organizing CLGJ's.pdf

Posted Wednesday, February 19, 2014 -
A must listen to  American Underground Network.mp3 recording on NSA's plan to shut down communications and what you can do about it

Posted Wednesday, February 12, 2014 -
Broome County NY answer to memo 2-12-14.pdf
answering 14-2-10 MEMORANDUM.pdf (letter) to oath takers.

Posted Monday, February 10, 2014
New York Unified Common Law Grand Jury Indicts Green County Judge and Court Clerk for Felony Rescue and other charges. Presentment 2-10-14.pdf, with letter.pdf to judge

1st Open Letter to all NY Oath-takers, acting Judicial gate keepers, elected or appointed to secure the Republic14-2-10 MEMORANDUM.pdf

Posted Monday, January 20, 2014
Saint Johns County Florida Common Law Grand Jury files Writ of Mandamus.pdf demanding access in the courthouse in order to function under judicial auspices.

Posted Wednesday, January 1, 2014 
From the Unified New York Supreme Court Bench to Greene County New York Supreme Court - Mandamus to Judge.pdf and Mandamus to Clerk.pdf Final notice to be delivered by sheriff Monday January 6, 2014.

Posted Saturday, Nov. 22, 2013
KVSL Radio 1450AM/107.9FM; Lakeside, AZ Guest Speaker John Darash, spokes person for the Common Law Grand Jury movement.

Published: Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
Citizens group wants common law grand jury in Westmoreland County

Friday - November 8, 2013, By Rich Cholodofsky, A citizens group filed court documents on Friday seeking to convene a common law grand jury in Westmoreland County, but legal experts say such a body has no real authority. More...

11-7-13 letter from green county.pdf
Letter from New York Supreme Court, Greene County to the People of New York the common law fifth Amendment is null and Void. The Peoples' response - 11-11-13Letter to greene county clerk.pdf

November 7, 2013
Web Conference call with Randy Shannon and guest speaker John Darash, spokes person for the Common Law Grand Jury movement.

November 6, 2013
Web Conference call with Jeremy and guest speaker John Darash, spokes person for the Common Law Grand Jury movement.

November 4, 2013 -
Common Law Grand Jury files Quo Warranto.pdf with Greene County Supreme Court for hesitating to process True Bill of Indictment, against their colleagues, as required by law for arraignment, scheduling, and the removal from office ... For more details read the Quo Warranto.

October 31, 2013
Blog Talk Radio with Drake Bailey's interview with John Darash, spokes person for the Common Law Grand Jury movement, who explains how Liberty’s Light is moving across America by the constituting of Common Law Juries in all 3141 counties which has taken deep roots, now in 48 states, in just four short months.

October 25, 2013  Press Release 10-25-13.pdf copy
Released by

COPY OF FILED INDICTMENT Presentment 10-21-13-1.pdf
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 an indictment was handed down, and filed at the New York Supreme Court, Greene County; located at 320 Main Street Catskill, NY by (Eighteen) Unified New York Common Law Grand Juries from Bronx County, Columbia County, Dutchess County, Greene County, Kings County, Nassau County, New York County, Orange County, Putnam County, Queens County, Rockland County, Sullivan County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, Niagara County, Ulster County, Monroe County, and Schenectady County of New York; against New York (1) Supreme Court Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti; (2) Deputy Chief Judge Michael V. Coccoma; (3) Suffolk County District Administrative Judge Judge C. Randall Hinrichs; and (4) Administrative Judge Allan D. Scheinkman, 9th Judicial District; for High Treason, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, RICO, and eleven other charges.

October 21, 2013 - Press Release 10-21-13.pdf
Released by
New York is “ground zero” - A major grassroots’ movement that started in New York with the constituting of its first Common Law Grand Jury on July 18, 2013 has taken America by storm, spreading to 48 States in just a few months. New York has constituted Grand Juries in the Bronx, New York, Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster, Dutchess, Columbia, Greene, Schenectady, Monroe and Niagara counties in just three months, by people keen on setting the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.

On the other hand, our hired servants prefer the status quo, thereby they're not too keen to receive the People back in control of the Peoples judicial and political processes. Lysander Spooner, author of Trial by Jury (1852) said: “any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for, the people, what its own powers are over the people, is an absolute government, of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other, or at least, no more accurate definition of despotism than this”. Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence said: “That to secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It is the People (Grand Jury) that consent to government. To dismiss the Common Law Grand Jury is to dismiss the Bill of Rights and reject our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

The Common Law Grand Jury is an unalienable right, protected under the Law by the Fifth Amendment. Common Law is synonymous with Natural Law which can never be codified or supplanted, for Common Law is our American Heritage, born of the Declaration of Independence. But four New York Supreme Court Judges would have us believe that Common Law can be superseded by four progressive judges in the (1961) case Wood v Hughes. To the contrary, in a stunning six to three (1992) Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said: “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. “It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”... “Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby, created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”… “The common law of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury”… “It is in effect a fourth branch of government governed and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights”. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to the court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding.

Furthermore, on "Constitutional Issues" the United States Supreme Court rulings are the "Law of the Land" (unless repugnant to the same) and therefore over rules all State Supreme Court rulings.

Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman have taken it upon themselves to prevent the 18 New York constituted Common Law Grand Juries from taking their inherited seats as consentors. These judges have filed false reports with the FBI on at least three different occasions and have threatened We the People, claiming there would be “Regrettable legal consequences” should We the People continue in pursuit of our unalienable right to consent, established under the Declaration of Independence and protected under the Fifth Amendment.

On October 15, 2013  the Unified (18) Common Law Grand Juries answered Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman with a final letter, citing acts of treason and giving them until Friday, October 18th to obey the People and step aside or face the consequences of indictment by presentment of a True Bill. 10-15-13 Letter to Judges.pdf

On Thursday, October 17th 2013, at 3:22 PM Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman replied … “your correspondence is based on an erroneous reading of the law, and is hereby rejected”. Therefore said True Bill was filed with the court Monday October 21, 2013, by certified mail. Presentment 10-21-13-1.pdf

Please support our endeavor, help keep NLA on the web,
Donate $5.00 or more a month, and become a Premier Member, Thank you.


Dingy's picture

We The People , can only succeed if We band together with the Law on Our side. We must vote out all the enemies of We The People and put in Office We The People. First step VOTE for a new Governor. Make sure that person is one of We The People. Next step VOTE out all State Representatives that are not We The People. The We The People Governor can then stop the Tyranny and bring Tyrants to justices. We The People can accomplish Our goal by putting US in Office.

Bobby Ingram's picture

It seems to me after years of debating the state of our enslavement, steps to reducing our chains locked tight by those people we elected !
It has become 'normal' for our elected officials to accept bribes, so normal that without bribery the usual candidate to state office or above cannot be elected. Bribery by Lobbyist is the main financial instrument used to finance 95% of the candidate's in America.
Bribery is stronger than reason and common sense combined, and until we make bribery a felony, our elected officials will never put the needs of the people above the request of corporations.

hoagie1's picture

This was given to me by a friend. Check it out. It may be useful. Make sure any and all credit goes to Eric Williams. The Radical in the Twilight Zone.

Hi Group,

Here below is a generic version of a Notice and Demand that can be filed in regard to any manner of charges brought against you by any level of government. The one and only primary first issue in every case is jurisdiction, either political or civil. This has nothing to do with the charges, this is more fundamental!

Political jurisdiction is restricted to citizenship. No matter what you might have claimed, it makes no difference. The burden is on the charging party to prove it gained jurisdiction in conformance to the 13th Amendment.

Civil jurisdiction has to do with your presentation of your birth certificate to be issued a driver license. Again, it makes no difference what you might have done, the state, charging party must present proof that it did not violate the 13th Amendment in gaining jurisdiction over you. This is totally impossible!

DO NOT make any changes to this N&D other than the obvious name, state case number and such. DO NOT add any manner of Paytri-Idiocy or it will not work, and you do NOT go to court.

You serve this on the prosecutor's office and file a copy with the court clerk as soon as possible after you are issued a citation or other manner of charging document.

Be sure to serve and file a Certificate of Service with the N&D you serve on the prosecutor and the copy you file with the court clerk.

Take an extra copy of all documents with you for the court clerk to file stamp for your records.

It makes no difference that the prosecutor in your state does not come to traffic court - serve him anyway!!! No matter, it is the state that is charging you, the Executive Branch, NOT the court!!!.

Any response from the court is invalid! Read the 23 appellate court cases. They establish that once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved on the record. The court has no standing to do anything whatsoever, once jurisdiction is challenged, not until jurisdiction is established by the charging party, not claimed by the court. Or claimed by the charging pasrty.

The Executive branch must explain how it got jurisdiction over you without the state violating the Federal 13th Amendment. This is NOT possible, because the state would have to present proof that you were fully informed and then gave up you freedom, intentionally. When did you do that?

Be sure to number all the pages at the bottom center. Be sure to center all headings. Most important, YOU DO NOT GO TO COURT!!! If you do, you will lose.

The judge is an expert at tripping you up. STAY HOME. This N&D covers your not going to court. DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING in this other than what I mentioned herein above, and also indicated in two places in the document.

This is under Common Law Copyright, no other changes allowed. This is very similar to the IRS letters that I have posted here.

Be sure to copy down and include the 23 appellate court cases I have posted here, and include as exhibit "A" to this N&D.


I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

District Court of ______ County



vs. Case # __________

Abraham Lincoln Wrongly Accused

NOTICE (In Lieu of Motion)









The issues

1. This is a challenge to the Political and or civil contractual Jurisdiction of the Charging party, such being the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity, and NOT to this Honorable Court (more on this below).

2. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity, to present its proof, from its existing files, that it has in some manner, in conformance to the restriction set forth and established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, that the State of Insanity has gained my voluntary agreement to be subservient to the Political or civil contractual Jurisdiction of the State of Insanity.

3. As State of Insanity has no ability to establish that State of Insanity has political or civil contractual jurisdiction over me, as is required of State of Insanity, under the prohibition of involuntary servitude mandate, established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, this Honorable Court has no standing to proceed, and this Honorable Court has no standing to inquire of me as to my political or civil contractual status, for this Honorable Court to do so would indicate this court to be biased against me, in favor of the charging party. Such action would constitute a violation of the Separation Of Powers Doctrine, and disqualify the judge of this Honorable Court from any further participation in this matter.

4. Please find attached hereto and incorporated herein in full by this reference, as Exhibit "A" hereto, a list of twenty-three (23) appellate court case citations that establish that when jurisdiction (of any manner), is challenged, it must be proved, on the record, by the moving party, the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity, not by the judge of this Honorable Court.

5. It is clearly self evident that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution causes the admonitions in these 23 appellate court cases to apply reasonably, in this instant case, to the charging party, the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity, and NOT to directly to this Honorable Court. However, as a subdivision of the State of Insanity, this Honorable Court has no standing to proceed against me, unless and until the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity presents its proof, from its files existing at the time and on the date I was wrongly charged, that such State then had and now has properly gained Political and or civil contractual Jurisdiction over me. And that the State of Insanity has gained such jurisdiction in full compliance with and not in violation of the restrictions established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

6. The State of Insanity(through either its Administrative/Judicial Branch or its Executive Branch), does not have standing to interrogate me in order to establish that it had Political or civil contractual jurisdiction over me at the time and date I was wrongly charged by the issuing officer of the State of Insanity Police, and certainly do not have standing to attempt to establish such jurisdiction to be effective at this late date.

7. The State of Insanity must present its proof from its existing files, and if the State of Insanity claims to have such proof, such must be presented to me in writing, and I must be accorded a reasonable opportunity to subpoena witnesses and gather evidence in opposition.

8. As it is a foregone conclusion that the Executive Branch of the Government of State of Insanity will not be able to present any acceptable proof, because any proof that it might present would have been obtained through fraudulent inducement, not through any honorable and forthright means.

9. In consideration of the foregoing, this Honorable Court has no option, other than to dismiss all charges lodged against me by the Executive Branch of the Government of the State of Insanity.

[SEE possible paragraph 10 below. If inappropriate to your case, then renumber following paragraphs. Enter hash marks /// as appropriate on blank libnes at bottom of page to push new heading to next page if there would be at least two lines of next paragraph beneath heading. Center all headings].


11. The issue of this Notice and Demand is limited to examining the issue of whether or not the State of Insanity can present proof that it has political or civil contractual jurisdiction over me.

12. The relationship of my standing to the State of Insanity is a political issue based on the State of Insanities compliance with the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, it is not a judicial issue. This court does not have standing to determine my political status any more than would this court have standing to determine the political status of the Queen of England.

13. This is true because the political status of everyone can only be determined by the voluntary act of each individual, based on their own individual choice, as is clearly established in the prohibition of involuntary servitude, set forth and established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

14. The burden of proof in on the charging party, to present its proof from its existing files, that it gained political or civil jurisdiction over me without violating the prohibition of involuntary servitude recognized and incorporated into the Federal Constitution, in the Thirteenth Amendment thereto.

I, Abraham Lincoln, Wrongly Accused, respectfully Demand that the charges lodged against me be dismissed due to the fact that State of Insanity has no legitimate claim of Political or Civil contractual Jurisdiction over me. This wording should be removed if no such funds were paid. That the judge of this Honorable Court order the Clerk of this Honorable Court, to issue a check payable to Abraham Lincoln, refunding to Abraham Lincoln the money I was required to pay to secure my release from the unlawful arrest I was subjected to by this Honorable Court], and that I be accorded any and all additional relief to which I might be entitled.



Due to the fact that it will not be possible for the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity to present proof, in conformance with the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, that the State of Insanity has properly gained either Political or Civil Contractual Jurisdiction over me, I Abraham Lincoln, will not present myself to this Honorable Court unless and until the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity presents to me its proof that it has such dominion over me, which I am not able to refute.

Let this Honorable Court and the State of Insanity be hereby advised, should the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity present such proof to me, in writing, that I cannot refute, I will then conform to any order of this Honorable Court.



A certified copy of this Notice and Demand, duly file stamped by the Clerk of this Honorable Court, when presented to any State of Insanity Law Enforcement Officer, shall serve as Official Notice to such officer, that the State of Insanity has no dominion over Abraham Lincoln, and such officer shall not further interfere with the travels of Abraham Lincoln upon the highways of the State of Insanity.

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion


Abraham Lincoln

c/o P.O. Box xx, AnyTown, AnyState 12345

January 8, 2015


See note above in regard to the below:

10. Let this Honorable Court be informed, the not-guilty plea that it purported to enter on my behalf was well after I had informed this Honorable Court that I was challenging the jurisdiction of the State of Insanity. this court was well advised and therefore had no standing to enter such plea, and such plea, in any event in now totally void and of no effect, and will remain so unless and until the Executive Branch of the State of Insanity presents to me, its written proof that it has properly obtained any manner or form of jurisdiction over me, as is required under the Federal Thirteenth Amendment and the 23 appellate court case citations attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

trefarmerh's picture

What 13th Amendment are you referring to? The original or the B.S. one of neither slavery....?

hoagie1's picture

Here are the 23 case citations

1. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.

2. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.

3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972)

4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

5. "Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

6. "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

7. "The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

8. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

9. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.

10. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

11. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.

12. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.

13. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

14. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

15. "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).

16. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. "Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.

17. "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

18. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

19. "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.

20. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785.

21. Challenge to court's jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.

22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings, Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599

23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction, Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.

givemelibertyoursorgivemedeathyours's picture

#12 and #16 are exactly the same reference quotes.

NevadaRob's picture

@hoagie1: Thanks for reaching out to your sheriff. I see some positive comments from him that can perhaps be a basis for further dialogue. Communication is key. Good job!

hoagie1's picture

I emailed my Sheriff and sent a copy of Duty of the Sheriff, and this is what he sent me. Interesting.

Dec 27 at 5:43 PM
Hello Sheriff,
I am fairly new to Pahrump, but I want to say, I love it here. I am a disabled Vietnam Vet. I got on the website and was reading the history of the Sheriff. Be Honest with you, I was a little disappointed with that write up. The Sheriff holds a much higher status than what was expressed there. I wonder if the Sheriff and the deputies really know how much power they hold. I am sending you an attachment that will tell you how the public needs to view the Sheriff. Maybe you can incorporate it into your website. The Sheriff is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Sheriff acting along with the Common Law Grand Jury can arrest the Governor, the Attorney General, and even the President.

Thank you for your service.

Rob McElwain

Dear Rob

The duties of the Sheriff posted is from the National Sheriff's Association, that being said the duties of a Sheriff vary from state to state and can from Jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending upon whether it is a home rule state or Dillon's rule state . Sheriff's fall into 3 categories restricted, limited, and full authority

For instance in New York City the sheriff there is appointed to cover the 5 borough's or counties, and can only do civil service, evictions, repo's etc., not patrol, or jail duties.

In other jurisdictions only either jail, or only civil, or only court, this is restricted Sheriff's, limited maybe only civil and jail, this is limited, and full patrol, civil, and jail, full authority Sheriff's.

In Connecticut there are no Sheriff's they were eliminated in the 1990's I believe. In Delaware restricted authority.

There are Sheriff Departments, and Sheriff Office and distinct difference in that. Every state by their laws places the authority and restrictions on Sheriff's even elected ones.

Contrary to belief a Sheriff is not the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution is the supreme law, and we do not have the ability to arrest the President, our constitution and law establish a process to deal with a President who violates law.

We can only arrest those who commit an actual crime and only if that crime occurs within our jurisdiction unless the person has a warrant for arrest and the warrant gives us the ability within jurisdiction. We have many living here with open warrants from other jurisdictions but have limited extinction ability, I.e. Clark county only.

Grand juries can only hear cases of crimes in the jurisdiction they are empowered in.

First a policing agency is empowered by the people they serve, as is all in government. In short a government by the people's for the people.

There are those that advocate wrongly that we hold the authority they state, fail to understand that there are limits. We are a government of checks and balances.

I am also a Vietnam Vet and have been in law enforcement for over 40 years, and while I have stood against illegal acts not only by criminals also by the federal who wanted to commit illegal seizures of cattle, etc., and local government the Town Board when they tried to pass unconstitutional law. Only because they were violating the law, and/or Constitution.

I appreciate the information, truly. We do not have unlimited authority and are not the most powerful. The people we serve are, by the documents that created our form of government, remember "We the People."

Have a safe and Happy New Year. Welcome to Nye County.


sofasurferlinux's picture

I listened to the 1st weekly interview with Pete Santilli on 12-17. Waiting for the next one. When is it scheduled for. I'm watching the "radio & TV interviews" tab."

BIG AMERICA's picture

I was there and saw it myself. The Raymond Senate building, Washington DC December 10, 2014. More than 200 sheriffs, from all over the country, arrived to notify congress they will not enforce any illegal laws in their state, that includes amnesty for illegal aliens. I was there, along with about 100 other people to show the sheriffs they have the support of the people, and any politician who will retaliate against the sheriff will be thrown out of office. I met these Sheriffs. They stiood tall, proud, honorable, and looking like protectors of the constitution. All the sheriffs now know their authority is supreme to the federal government. This fact was specifically shown in 1994 when Sherriff Richard Mack, of AZ, won a lawsuit against the Clinton administration for trying to impose a gun ban bill on the sate. It is time to expose the police as mere code enforcement officers, and the Sherriff as the only true law enforcement officer in the country. Sheriffs all over the country are recognizing they have the legal and moral obligation to arrest code enforcement officers, politicians, judges, legislators, governors, even other sheriffs for failure to uphold their oath of office, which is to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I recommend having, as a saved phone number, the name and number of your local sheriff. Take a chance to meet in person. Notify the sheriff of their sworn duty and that the sheriff has your full support. Local sheriffs have a fear of political retribution, so they don’t act against the frauds upon the people. If the sheriff will protect you from them, you have to do your part to protect the sheriff from them with your voice and your vote.

Charles Breitweiser/Old Bridge

NevadaRob's picture

I'll agree to disagree with you. Your comments bring in to question what it is you are doing on this web site or being involved with the NLA in the first place, as you seem to have no issue with the corrupt status quo...

douglas's picture

No Sir. I do not accept the status quo. My local code enforcement board hates me with a passion. I'm just trying to understand what NLA bring to us that is different that what the laws give us. I was told that the gj can't bring presentments or do independent investigations. Yet when I do the research I find that the laws DO allow the gj to do independent investigations and make presentments. Why is asking questions about this so upsetting to people?

I guess if we can't discuss the topic all we have left is to agree to disagree.

NevadaRob's picture

I hope that these positive changes can be made in our lifetimes. Whether we will be successful or not I do not know. But I do know that We the People have no chance left at all unless we continue working towards succeeding in these goals. They are well worth fighting for. The BLM situation you mentioned is something I am not aware of but I appreciate the information and I will look into it. Thanks!

NevadaRob's picture

How do I know? I worked for 11 years at a major metropolitan DA's Office and prior to that I appeared before GJ's on felony cases as a witness, while a deputy sheriff. So I am intimately familiar with the process firsthand, how about you? The statute you cite looks great on paper but in my experience - which is the only thing I can testify to and it was not in NY - is not being followed where I worked. And due to the state our country is in, I highly doubt that GJ's are not also being manipulated elsewhere, too. Despite what the laws say, the process is still being manipulated. Otherwise, how do you explain what happened in the Eric Garner case?

Beware taking at face value what the government claims. The proof is not in their claimed procedures but in how they actually operate and the action (or inaction) they take.

When a grand juror attempts to act outside of what a prosecutor wants, what happens is the situation with Terry Trussell in Florida and his being charged with numerous felonies...

douglas's picture

"When a grand juror attempts to act outside of what a prosecutor wants, what happens is the situation with Terry Trussell in Florida and his being charged with numerous felonies..."

No Sir, Terry acted outside the laws of the State of Florida. I was there.

"Despite what the laws say, the process is still being manipulated. Otherwise, how do you explain what happened in the Eric Garner case?"

Garner resisted arrest and died of a coronary, not a chock hold.

The link I provided was to the gj handbook. The PEOPLE are given the information about the power to investigate that they have, why do you maintain they are not?

As to Nevada grand juries to investigate state affairs and state officers:

NRS 6.135  Impaneling of grand juries to investigate state affairs; payment of expenses.
1.  Upon request of the Governor, or of the Legislature by concurrent resolution, the district judge of any county shall cause a grand jury to be impaneled in the same manner as other grand juries are impaneled, except that the sole duty of a grand jury impaneled under the provisions of this section shall limit its investigations to state affairs, and to the conduct of state officers and employees. The report of such grand jury shall be transmitted to the Governor and the Legislature.

Sounds like the DA is not even involved.

NevadaRob's picture

The banning of her husband that member Loveym mentions here, and that some other members have responded to over the past few days, has been resolved. I would like to thank Loveym here for bringing this to our attention here in Nevada.

Thank you.

hoagie1's picture

Correct me if I am wrong.
The people who sit on the Grand Jury that they use today, like the one that did not indict the code enforcement officer in the Eric Garner case, don't know what power they hold. Any member of any Grand Jury has the power to initiate an investigation into any government official and serve a true Quo Warranto to those individuals, at any time. Why can't we use their Grand Juries against them.

NevadaRob's picture

Dear hoagie1: The GJ's under the present system cannot be used against "them" (government officials and others with enough political influence) because they (DA's, prosecutors) completely control what evidence the GJ sees and the laws that the GJ can vote on whether to indict or not. This is why the code enforcement officer in the Eric Garner case was not indicted. And it is why cases of such clear wrongdoing continue to have the guilty almost never held criminally accountable. So a GJ under the existing system is not given the means to do anything other than what a prosecutor wants. Period. And that prosecutor serves a corrupt system.

On the other hand, CLGJ's belong to We the People and operate independently. Not under the influence of a corrupted system. And this is what we are working toward establishing. So much of what is negative and hurtful in our country can finally be fixed when the corrupt and the criminal elements (in government and elsewhere) can finally be held accountable to the law as it should have been all along.

This is the way I see things. Hope this helps.

hoagie1's picture

Thank you NevadaRob for that. I guess what you are saying is, it can probably be done, but not in my lifetime, or it should be done like that, but not right now. I do agree this CLGJ is the way to approach this, here and now.
I have a question. I heard on the Pete Santilli Show today, that there is going to be something big starting in Nevada real soon. Having to do with the BLM trying to take 3 million acres of land. John Darash is going to be on his show on Wed. 12/17/2014 to talk about it. Can you elaborate on that at all and maybe prepare us for what is coming.
Thank you

douglas's picture


I don't know why you claim the grand jury has no control and that the "DAs completely control what evidence the GJ sees and the laws that the GJ can vote on... This is why the code enforcement officer in the Eric Garner case was not indicted. "

This is from the State of New York's grand jury handbook:

"§ 190.50 Grand jury; who may call witnesses; defendant as
1. Except as provided in this section, no person has a right to call a
witness or appear as a witness in a grand jury proceeding.
2. The people may call as a witness in a grand jury proceeding any
person believed by the district attorney to possess relevant
information or knowledge.
3. The grand jury may cause to be called as a witness any person
believed by it to possess relevant information or knowledge. If the
grand jury desires to hear any such witness who was not called by
the people, it may direct the district attorney to issue and serve a
subpoena upon such witness, and the district attorney must comply
with such direction. At any time after such a direction, however, or
at any time after the service of a subpoena pursuant to such a
direction and before the return date thereof, the people may apply
to the court which impaneled the grand jury for an order vacating
or modifying such direction or subpoena on the ground that such
is in the public interest. Upon such application, the court may in its
discretion vacate the direction or subpoena, attach reasonable
conditions thereto, or make other appropriate qualification thereof."

On what is your claim based? How do you know what evidence the grand jury heard?

Dan Hunt's picture

Dear NevadaRob

CLGJ's are to operate independently of the magistrate. However the process to create the so called Presentment against Officer Pantaleo was not done in accordance with Common Law Procedure. The steps for the Common Law process are as follows:

1. A person files a complaint by filling out an Affidavit.
2. Four Administrators are to investigate the allegations in the Affidavit.
3. The Administrators are to attempt seeking a remedy with the accused parties if the allegations in the Affidavit are true.
4. The Administrators are to convene a Grand Jury by selecting 25 People(the maximum allowed for a CLGJ), who agree to be on the jury, from a pool of jurists.
5. An Administrator is to lay before the CLGJ all evidence produced, including witnesses, from the investigation.
6. The CLGJ is to deliberate(discuss) the evidence. They can call for more information, including additional witnesses if the jurists require.
7. The Jury then votes.

Steps one through five were not followed by the group of People who voted for the so called Presentment because there are not any Administrators since we do not yet have access to the Courts. This severely limited the amount of evidence that could have been and should have been considered. More information has come to light since the vote. The group should have, at the very least, been giving the same amount of information as provided to the Statute Grand Jury. The number of People who voted was 250, exceeding the maximum of 25 allowed per the Common Law by ten times that amount. The group was not allowed to deliberate. Deliberation is a common procedure for any jury. Instead the group was limited to the comments of three people, two of which expounded their points of view for an hour and a third for a few minutes, along with watching videos and then being forced to vote. The group was not allowed to consider all matters of law and fact. The two individuals who spoke for an hour told the group what evidence they could consider. There was no consideration by the group concerning what law or laws should apply. Only those who wrote the so called Presentment considered the applicable law. The applicable law was not given until the document was made public. The group who voted was not acting independently. Their decision was based on the input primarily from two individuals as occurs in Nisi Prius Courts by the Magistrate and the Prosecuting Attorney.

By any measure the group that voted was not a CLGJ and the document written was not a Presentment given the fact Common Law procedures were not followed. Several months ago my State group relieved an individual from her duties as County Organizer for refusing to comply with the Common Law Process. We deemed that person's actions unacceptable.

douglas's picture

Here in Florida the grand jury instructions inform the gj members of exactly what powers they have.

ov.architects's picture

1) the forums on NLA are difficult to follow, get information. Too many forums and subforums to post a topic...often times the right topic does not exist. Most people never find important info. because it is on some hidden forum...

2) "Spread the word" as John advices is not going to happen w/o a media savvy person. For example, NLA does not appear on Twitter:

(Hashtag analytics for #NATIONAL are presented below for the past 24 hours using Twitter's streaming API for a 1% sample of all tweets. Upgrade your account to view more detailed information. Definition of #NATIONAL Add a definition for #NATIONAL. #NATIONAL 24-Hour Trend Graph)

Twitter is on fire this week with all the demonstrations, yet, the recent news of Fifty Common Law Grand Juries filed Presentments indicting Code Enforcement Officer Pantaleo for the murder of Eric Garner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of NY is for the most part private news. What is going on with NLA media campaign? Do anybody know? I have posted this information several times on the various NLA forums this past response. Is NLA serious about getting organized re. "spreading the word?"

ov.architects's picture

Analytics for #NATIONAL

Hashtag analytics for #NATIONAL are presented below for the past 24 hours using Twitter's streaming API for a 1% sample of all tweets. Upgrade your account to view more detailed information.
Definition of #NATIONAL
Add a definition for #NATIONAL.
#NATIONAL 24-Hour Trend Graph

ov.architects's picture

Analytics for #NATIONAL

Hashtag analytics for #NATIONAL are presented below for the past 24 hours using Twitter's streaming API for a 1% sample of all tweets. Upgrade your account to view more detailed information.
Definition of #NATIONAL
Add a definition for #NATIONAL.
#NATIONAL 24-Hour Trend Graph

loveym's picture

I want to know who banned my husband Robin McElwain. You talk about tolerance, but you were not very tolerant when you banned the biggest Patriot you have ever known. My husband is a disabled Vietnam Vet, and a true Patriot. not like some who have never served this country, or ever fought to save our freedoms. We have a 20 foot by 16 foot flag that goes on our roof every veterans day.
All my husband did was mention Eric Williams and try to find out if you were proceeding properly by stating your "standing" before the courts, and without explanation, he was blocked. If you continue to block people who question you, all you will have is a bunch of mindless sheep. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe some people don't want to be led to the slaughter.
I think you owe Robin McElwain an apology.
He has a group on called ALL PATRIOTS FOR AMERICA where he directs people to NLA because he still thinks you might have something. Even after you blocked him. How is that for tolerance. is a new sight based in Iceland where the government can't do like they are doing on Facebook.
I hope this is the right place to post this so John will see it.

we-can-do's picture

Hi Loveym
I am sorry to hear about your problem with NLA and I to believe open dialogue is paramount in transparent communication. I also am under the impression that Iceland has been successful based on the ability to control the banking cartel. Am I mistaken? Is that what did happen in order to gain control of that government? We are loosing ground in this country and are prime for being the catalyst in total world war. I am seriously considering not sending payment to the banks from which I have credit obligation to. Banks need something else to think about besides finance of the military complex world wide. I do not want interest I pay to finance war. Perhaps this is not the place to post this but again I am sorry about your problems with NLA and thank your husband for his service to me and my family. I think that now is the time for the money changers to pay for using us for their own gain.
May God be with you and yours this holiday season.

mkphillips's picture

I agree with lovem, who banned Robin? Who in the hell is has the right to do this? This is just wrong on so many levels, talk about hypocrisy, a sense of Honor, a sense of Mercy, and a sense of Grace? LOL! I don't know who Robin or Eric Williams are but they are one of the people of we the people. We should all have the right to ask questions and have them properly addressed instead of being banned because YOU don't agree. YOU should be ashamed!

Tell Robin I AM SORRY he was treated this way.

loveym's picture

Thank you for that mkphillips you are a gentleman and a scholar, now if John and others would see the injustice in this, we can get back to more important issues.

ov.architects's picture


ov.architects's picture

I am posting from the comments on Quo Warranto video on youtube because I think it is accurate:

tjmtrip1 week ago

While I am sympathetic to the overall cause, there is so much disastrously wrong in this video that it's hard to detail all of it.

However, in the most broad terms, the BAR association are not any sort of foreign registry, and lawyers ("Esquires") are not titles of nobility, nor are they any sort of foreign agent. Even the ABA does not recognize the title Esquire, or "Esq" as indicative of the ability to practice law, and would not prosecuty anyone for using it. The problem is not the Bar associations, nor the lawyers themselves, but rather the fact that our judicial system is based so heavily on precedent, and has strayed so far from Constitution and laws that these foundations no longer have any reasonable application to the rulings.

There is also a gross misundeerstanding of what the "common law" is on the National Liberty Alliance site overall. The Common Law is not something sacrosanct in this country, and is NOT at all synonymous with our own understanding of Natural Law unalienable rights. That common law is nothing more than the cumulative decisions of courts, along with general procedural practice, that we inherited from the British.

In fact that British common law is founded on Feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them. In fact British common law actually uses the term "natural law", in representing this "natural" feudal obligation to those above oneself in society, as discussed at length in Lord Coke's decision in Calvin's Case, 1608. This is entirely antithetical to our own natural law understanding of rights being innate to the individual, unalienable, and coming from "Nature's God", certainly not allowed us by others in a caste society.

Under British common law, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. The King is viewed as the both head of the Anglican church and state as well, Thereby anyone in disagreement to the state is viewed as a hostile, with Jews being recognized as hostiles with no real standing in Court, and having little assurance as to property rights.

It should be clear that the 'common law' as a whole has nothing to do with protection of individual rights, much less being any sort of founding principle of this country, and that the author of this video and the NLA site has no idea what they're talking about. When judges reference "common law" in their decision, it is generally as sort of catch-all category for processes we simply inherited from the British legal system, and not some guiding principle of this country.

Fortunately, as recognized by Justice Antonin Scalia in his speech before the Federalist Society in 2009, "The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now." On June 19, 1788, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention for the Constitution, George Mason "father of the Bill of Rights" indicated, "The common law of England is not the common law of these states." In fact we fought at least two major wars, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, to specifically reject the tenets of British feudalistic common law.

Given this, it should be clear how extremely inaccurate and misinformed the arguments of the NLA site actually are.
Read more (44 lines)
Reply ·

tjmtrip1 week ago

Writs of Quo Warranto serve two valid purposes, 1) to challenge by what authority a person has or claims a particular office, or 2) to challenge a particular authority exercised by an office or person.

Yet this quo warranto does neither of these two things, instead issuing a general quo warranto to various judges that nowhere indicates any specific illegitimacy to office or action. But worse, it not only demands an adherence to a "common law" that is in no way now, or ever, the law or principle of this land, and is not at all synonymous with our natural law foundations, as discussed previously. It then lists a series of transgressions which have questionable accuracy, but beyond that, which those judges specifically served may not have any involvement with at all, nor any authority over.

Those served are then expected to answer a series of questions accurately, under threat of "perjury". However the first point of perjury is it must be regarding a material matter in relation to a particular concern, and then must be made under oath to a lawful authority in response to specific substantive questions. Yet none of these things are at all true here. There is no particular concern, there is no lawful authority, there is no material involvement indicated for any of these judges, there is no oath given for these statements, and most particularly there is no lawful authority to whom these statements are to be provided.

But the level of ignorance does not stop there. This quo warranto goes on to demand these judges provide a surety bond, to indicate their good-faith commitment to their statements, with this ostensibly being forfeit upon non-compliance to those vague and broad expectations. This demand broaches the question, "by what authority" does this body itself act to make any one these demands of these judges?

The answer to that is they believe they have some sort of people's "common law" authority, which they believe puts them above every statute and recognized legal institution, when no such common law authority has ever existed in this country, nor should it, as it necessarily involves gross violation of every fundamental principle ensuring the objectivity of the legal processes. There is no authority whatsoever. Furthermore, contrary to representation, there is no such statute that demands recognition of common law grand jury presentments, nor should there be any recognition of such a body under these terms. The elaborate name of "Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury", even when accompanied by officious seal, has no hope of providing this body with any real legitimacy.

But do not take my own word for it. In 2009 Attorney Leo Donofrio, noted for his two early court cases challenging Obama's legitimacy in office, wrote a scathing indictment of the illegitimate and grossly illegal actions of one such grand jury in Georgia, with is recognitions being applicable here as well:

Not only is this "common law grand jury" acting with no legitimate authority, but it would claim a legitimacy despite seeking to both "accuse" through its "true bill presentment", and also its intent to "indict" and pronounce guilt, issuing threats to exact penalties, thereby violating every legal integrity! This writ of quo warranto demonstrates this unlawful body acting as not only accuser, but also intent for the same body to act as judge and jury as well, in the grandest tradition possible of a corrupt Kangaroo Court.

While I understand and sympathize with what these people are trying to accomplish, this is entirely the wrong way to go about doing it.

ov.architects's picture


mkphillips's picture

What would be your suggestion to remedy the fraud and corruption ovarchitects? I honestly don't see how this mess gets cleaned up.

Allen's picture

I can appreciate anyone's perspective on this issue . . . I appreciate that everyone will see things slightly differently . . . at the end, this person suggests that the NLA approach is the wrong way to go about facilitating change . . . well, what then would be the right way to do it? . . . I think this/NLA approach is the most valid or well researched approach I've ever become familiar with . . . peace <3

kaletek's picture

I would like to see a response to this from our leaders please.

douglas's picture

Research what the OP claims and make up your own mind. Knowledge is power. Learn for yourself and gain the power of knowledge.

ov.architects's picture


ov.architects's picture