Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Hawaii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term "persons" in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181.

Foreign government. Foreign governments other wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are "persons" entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.

Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are "persons" within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.

Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries representing interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).

Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are "persons" within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are "persons" for purposes of Section 1983 in those cases in which a local government would be sue able in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.

Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made Uniform, Probate Code § 5-101(3).

U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign American people, filing fees and/or their free access to the courts.

The courts must realize the sovereign people, are not bound to pay filling fees as the sovereign people are not a person, or persons. The use of the word person is the reason the sovereign American people have been tricked into paying for filing fees. It is the use of the word person in law, and the confusion, the word person creates for the average sovereign people, when used in law.

A person is a corporation, so that’s why the courts are not supposed to be falsely charging the sovereign American people to pay filing fees. When the courts state that Title 28 U.S.C. sec 1914 requires a person or persons to pay fees, that does not apply to sovereign American people. The CODE only applies to a person or persons, which are corporations. The sovereign American people require their lawful right to free access, without fees as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Take Mandatory Judicial Notice and Cognizance under (Federal Rules of Evidence 201 (d) that “plaintiff” i.e. Libellant, has a lawful right to proceed without cost, based upon the following case law:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to relief is “entitled to free access to the natural peoples judicial tribunals and public offices in every State of the Union” (2 Black 620)

Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35]. “Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful and Constitutional Right to petition this court in this matter in which he/she is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” (Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43, NAACP v Button, 371 US 415); United Mineworkers v Gibbs, 383 US 715; and Johnson v Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747 (1969).

“Petitioner (libellant) cannot be charged a fee as no charge can be placed upon a citizen as a condition precedent to exercise his/her Constitutional Rights, his/her rights secured by the Constitution. A fee is a charge fixed by law for services fixed by public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government.” Fort Smith Gas Co. v Wisemen” 189 Ark.675 74 SW.2d 789,790, from Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a natural person entitled to relief is “entitled to free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State of the Union” (2 Black 620, see also Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35].
“Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful and Constitutional Right to petition this court in this matter in which he/she is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43

NOTICE AND CONCLUSION

So in closing it is clear that the sovereign American people, petitioners/plaintiffs/libellants must have their funds, refunded if they have paid under Title 28 U.S.C. 1914 – (District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court) or not be charged at all, as the sovereign people are entitled to free access of the courts.

Plaintiffs believe this is proper, in any form, as the people’s tax dollars fund these courts. If the people are not to have free access, then the tax dollars should stop flowing, for this purpose, because it would mean the courts, are receiving enumeration twice. Once by taxes then paid, again by the people paying for a use of the courts, when, their tax dollars already paid.

Petitioner/libellant also respectfully demands the Magistrate take judicial notice of all herein under RULE 201 (d) which are adjudicated facts.

Petitioner/libellant also gives notice to the Magistrate, that the Magistrate is bound by US Supreme Court rulings please see the following. Howlett V. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases. (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1) (1958)--States are bound by United States Supreme Court Case decisions.

i declare, swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information herein is true, correct, and complete and pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

*******

THIS SECTION IS ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT NOT LEFT

___________________________________________________
on this fifth day of the tenth month, Two Thousand, Fifteen A.D.
:john-henry: doe
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Edward Johnston
Edward Johnston this is why it has to be done in Admiralty law: In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002),

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 773 Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 773] 5 U.S.C. §552a(2) Records maintained on individuals TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a § 552a. Records maintained on individuals (a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section — (2) the term ''individual'' means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701 § 7701. Definitions (b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien (1) In general For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B) — (B) Nonresident alien An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)). 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c) 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons. (c ) Definitions (3) Individual. (i) Alien individual. The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c). (ii) Nonresident alien individual. The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder. - Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990): At common law, a "corporation" was an "artificial perso[n] endowed with the legal capacity of perpetual succession" consisting either of a single individual (termed a "corporation sole") or of a collection of several individuals (a "corporation aggregate"). 3 H. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England 166, 168 (1st Am. ed. 1845). The sovereign was considered a corporation. See id., at 170; see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *467. Under the definitions supplied by contemporary law dictionaries, Territories would have been classified as "corporations" (and hence as "persons") at the time that 1983 was enacted and the Dictionary Act recodified. See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) ("All corporations were originally modeled upon a state or nation"); 1 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America 318-319 (11th ed. 1866) ("In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation"); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154 (1886) ("`The United States is a . . . great corporation . . . ordained and established by the American people'") (quoting United [495 U.S. 182, 202] States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1216 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.)); Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851) (United States is "a corporation"). See generally Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 561-562 (1819) (explaining history of term "corporation"). [Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)] - Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824) “All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [private] individuals.” [Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)] - Great IRS Hoax, Section 3.9.1.10 This term individual is used in sections 26 U.S.C. §1 and 26 U.S.C. §6012(a). It is never defined anywhere in the I.R.C. The reason it is not defined is that it would give away the IRS' ruse. Therefore, we have to look in the legal dictionary for the definition: Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 773] Note that this definition above does not necessarily imply a natural (biological) person. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code cannot be said to necessarily apply to natural persons. Here is the proper definition of "individual" in the context of the IRS form 1040 and within the meaning of the code, as we understand it: Individual An artificial federally-chartered entity, meaning a federal (but not state) chartered corporation or partnership or trust. Such an entity is a citizen of the “United States” because it must have a physical presence in the District of Columbia to be subject to the exclusive legislative or territorial jurisdiction of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This “individual” is NOT a natural person with income from outside the district (federal) United States who is living and working for a private employer in the 50 united States of America because of the restrictions on direct taxes imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution..>[1] We will now examine the definition of “individual” found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c )(3): 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons. (c ) Definitions (3) Individual. (i) Alien individual. The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c). (ii) Nonresident alien individual. The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder. The above definition ought to raise some BIG red flags! First of all, if you live in the [federal] United States** as a natural person, you aren’t an “individual” because the definition of “individual” doesn’t include citizens or residents of the United States**! This is the ONLY definition of the term “individual” found ANYWHERE in either the Internal Revenue Code or the 26 C.F.R. Regulations. Therefore, the tax code can’t apply to you even if you claim to be a U.S.** citizen or a U.S.** resident! This is also consistent with our findings earlier. It also explains why a U.S. citizen is defined as someone who lives in the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa, as follows: 26 C.F.R. 31.3121(e) State, United States, and citizen. (b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. The definition for “individual” that the government wants you to incorrectly assume, however, is that found below: 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2): (2) the term ''individual'' means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; But this definition of “individual” is superseded by the only definition of “individual” found in the Regulations for taxes in 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 above. You therefore can’t be a “individual” who can be the “person” against whom the income tax is imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 unless you either reside OUTSIDE the “United States**” under 26 C.F.R. § 1.1441-1(c )(3) or you reside INSIDE the United States** and are not a U.S.** citizen. That’s why they created a definition of “U.S. citizen” that means you are living outside the United States (in the Virgin Islands) so they can “pretend” that you are taxable! That way, even when you tell them you live in the “United States” by giving them an address in the 50 states on your tax return, they can still claim that you live in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands because of your status as a “U.S. citizen”! This whole scheme can be confirmed by ordering a copy of your Individual Master File (IMF) from the IRS and looking at the transaction codes on the IMF. If you look at your IMF and you have been filing 1040 forms for a while, chances are your record reflects that you reside in the Virgin Islands, even if you really live in one of the 50 states outside the federal zone! That’s why the IRS made the Publication 6209, which is used for decoding the IMF file, “For Official Use Only”, which is short for “Don’t let Citizens get their hands on this at all costs!”. They know they are committing fraud and they don’t want you, the Citizen, to know the horrible truth and expose that fraud, because then they lose their ability to claim “plausible deniability”. I bet this all sounds pretty crazy to you, right, but I swear to God it’s the truth! These are the kinds of sneaky tricks that IRS lawyers make their living dreaming up in order to make the illegal fraud and extortion called the income tax look more “civilized” and believable and well hidden from public view. If they wanted it in public view, they would have put the definitions of "U.S. citizen" and “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code right? But they instead buried it deep inside regulations that few Citizens ever view and only the agency itself usually looks at because they wanted to hide it! The above definitions of “Alien individual” and “Nonresident alien individual” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441(c )(3) can also seem a little confusing initially. You will find out that we suggest to people later in this book (in section 5.6.9 to be exact) that they should renounce their “U.S.** citizenship” and become “U.S.*** nationals”. However, looking at 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) above leads one to believe that they cannot be a nonresident alien if they are a "U.S. national". However, "nonresident aliens" are defined below: TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A "citizen of the United States" is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political'[ rights]' which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political '[rights]' of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870)

as most know i have been researching with many others regarding the public and private status. it is my hope that eyes will open to these facts and that we will see that the judiciary paraded so heavily in the states/nation is a sham. PLEASE read and educate yourself on why the de facto must be recognized as the 'business" it really is. As a man/woman, living and breathing, the de facto business has no jurisdiction over life, it only has jurisdiction over death and that is the Citizen of the United States, the all caps name.

Citizens(Federal) and Persons vs. People

CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.---U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542---

If one is established as a “people”, individually or collectively, then one is 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.

A people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he does not trespass.

Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative..........2. Citizens - United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship. Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G. S.C.C. 5-20-1927