Child Custody Battles


 Law has always been my interest especially when you live at the court house over the years over false accusations and charges. 

   I work on child custody battles, animal cases, for free.    Y know book smart is NOT THE ONLY SOLUTIONS. STREET SMART IS.

So you combined the two and you can kick ass. Some one lies, throw 30 cases on there damn ass. You can whip there ass easily.

If ya wanna call me its 352 293 5866. To let ya know, I do not fill out paper work. I will tell you what to do and help you. I will not ask you for any money, I'm here in this world to help anyone that I can. But Judges are very corrupt too.  There all corrupt, so let me help you kick ass. even if you loose you WIN. I'll show you how. Its time to not show any bend in knee. I'll make a page to prove to you all just how corrupt they are visible to your eyes and easy to spot out. There's a place for them in PRISON.



To Children's protective agency nationwide and all the social workers that do not do their very best to protect the children and honor the family unit.

The destruction you have done and continue to do to not only the innocent children and their helpless parents but also to our society as a whole. Your unforgivable actions have left many souls broken shattered as you tear family after family apart. Not only do you not protect our babies you subject them to lives of horror filled with abuse torture fear and yes even death. You take a day like today supposed to be a happy one Father's day and for many it only magnifies a pain already unspeakable. A pain caused by you the United States children's protective agency. Just know this your time is short we are awake and aware and we will come for our children and each and everyone of you from the judges in family courts to the peon social workers you will pay for the crimes against humanity you have committed.

This we promise! 

Samantha Solmor


"IF YOU HAVE LOST YOUR CHILDREN.........863-874-4655...."""before you give up""" and i can give more if the need be..............a thing that needs to be noted is that {YOU --A NON CITIZEN} are not obligated to FOLLOW{STATUTE'S-CODE'S-ORDINANCE'S} in order to defend themselve's and win the case.....the government's whole dispute is "frivolous" and extortion right off the bat.......any form of the state NOT holding up its legal end of any court proceeding's is the state's fault and therefore goes into default they win by default or mistrial and the court recording company could be sued with a {COMMERCIAL LIEN} for damamge's that could cost these men their case and prison time for a {STATUTE-CODE-ORDINANCE} which are NOT LAWS..........these men are NOT guilty of ANY crime at all....

losing vital transcript's put the state at fault for {TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE} ...........your transcripts and files are property of you and called your "i.p"......these can not be from you and anyone trying to keep them from you for any reason is a {FELONY} which is called {OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE} because they are {INTERFERING WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION}...... be sure to give anyone my name and number and let them know if they dont give you / your transcripts and file a commercial lien on their bond and their bosses bond for {obstruction of justice}.....

NOTE: Suppression of evidence is a felony under Brady v Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

title 18 u.s c 1519 -needs to be researched or looked into for sure.....


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I, _________________________,

Case No. _____________________________________, hereby declare as follows:

On January _____, 2016, I went to the Office of the Clerk of Family Court to receive

complete records of my trial from its inception, including master tapes/ALL recordings of every hearing and of my depositions, pursuant to Rule 11, whereupon (check one):

_______ I was given my complete records

_______ I was told my records didn't exist

_______ I was not given my records (explanation below, optional:)

DATED this __________ day of January, 2016.


court clerk / refused* (circle one)

*If refused, the Court must file an Affidavit of Explanation within 10 days.

NOTE: Suppression of evidence is a felony under Brady v Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

title 18 u.s.c 1201., felonious restraint., right's violations.


273 U.S. 28 (47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520)

Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly

designated beneficiary.

18. American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:

16AmJur2d., Sec. 97:

"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the american, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which

were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the american in regard to person and property.

19. Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law...........

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803)

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,”

“Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.” If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes--ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);.....

u.c.c 1-308--formerly 1-207 title 18 us.c 241 and 242

CLAIM, v. To demand as one's own; to

assert a personal right to any property or

any right; to demand the possession or en·

joyment of something ri.ghtfully one's own,

and wrongfully withheld. Hill v. Henry, 60

N. J. Eq. 150, G7 Atl. G55.



Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.


The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -in any way, shape or manner - under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone .... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous defense. You must know what it means.


pursuant to UCC 1-308

When you see "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying:

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."

Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes - you have to accept the benefit. the government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government - federal, state and local.

If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 - the argument and recourse.

If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code , Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most importantly, it is written in plain English.


The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:

The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law .

This is the argument we use in court:

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

If the charge is a traffic, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt , you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to "buckle up."

However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him that last sentence of 1-103.6 which states:

The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

Tell the judge:

"Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code." I have a remedy, under the, UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question:

"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a judicial determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?"

Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes," then you say:

"I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial determination."

Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.





§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

i can show you how to sue these corrupt extortionist and their bosses if they are at fault in any way for right's violation's----and i see they are already............. The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's citizens. TO grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

7." the relevant cases demonstraight that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a "judicial" one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

8.some defendants urge that any acts "of a judicial nature" entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

9. Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

10. A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

11. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest , are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882

Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999

12. Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right's would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.

Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.

Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}............ "america is the country".....{THE UNITED STATE'S} IS A COMPANY....... we are NOT {united states-ians}.........we are american's """right's"""---NOT{PRIVILEGE'S}

AMERICAN CITIZEN, U.S. CITIZEN = Federal Nationality??

July 6, 2015 at 10:42pm

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

"The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government. Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia.

US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20:

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."

"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights. Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright.

"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 his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399

If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights. Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court. Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent. PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS.

IT then becomes obvious that the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.

The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.

"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government." State v. Manuel 20 NC 122 14 CJS section 4

Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

By claiming that you are a U.S. Citizen, you are placing yourself into submission to the Federal Government, and you do not have any Rights as a Subject. To be both a Citizen of the Fed and of the state at the same time is even worse.

But if you claim your Birth State as your Nationality, it removes all those barriers, and as long as you do not deprive someone else of their Rights, yours must be protected.

The US citizen

A US citizen does not have any rights.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."

Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

" might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;

"The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

“ 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) [emphasis added]

“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986

“[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430

and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773

“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the

statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”

Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]

“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares

only that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they

reside." Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,

which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."”

Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]

A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

“Yet, of the cases in this Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 per cent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 per cent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.”~DISSENT, Justice Hugo Black, Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 [1938]""

"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

And all that is exactly why your proclaimed "Right to Travel" and all that "Second Amendment" and all other stuff, is meaningless, until you CORRECT YOUR LEGAL STATUS. Or you can just stay right there and keep suffering and getting beaten and punished for claiming that your something that you were never meant to be....A SUBJECT.

Subject: Supreme Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law.

If you ever get attacked for practicing law without a license.

Reference Court Cases:

* Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

1. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)

2. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594). The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propria persona.

3. NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law."

4. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.

5. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases

6. Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest...

7. Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) "If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem."

8. Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.

9. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

10. Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign',"

11. Oklahoma is a "Right to Work" State! Bill SJR1! Its OK to practice God`s law with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first! "There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God" U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)

12. "The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same....



What sucks these children are scared for life. So if there scared for like, these evil people also should be locked up in prison. I hope this page helps you all. ill be adding more

What is utterly UNBELIEVABLE, and the most ASTONISHING thing that i have learned by far is,..A thief who steals a pack of chewing gum or a drug dealer slinging crack on a corner is legally entitled to evidentiary hearings and a jury trial. But a PARENT who is being accused of neglecting or abusing their OWN child by a "ANONYMOUS" reporter or a "CONFIDENTIAL" person is legally NOT entitled to a evidentiary hearing or a jury trial when CHILDREN SERVICES and FAMILY COURT are taking that child away FOREVER!.


Why are we not forcing a CHANGE?

Does FAMILY PRESERVATION not mean anything?

Do you KNOW!!!!!: That removing a child from their BONDED PARENT is more emotionally damaging and traumatizing to the child then if he/she we're being physically abused?

How come REMOVAL of the child is the only option for familys who live in poverty?

Why are these BONDED FAMILIES not being offered safety plans or home services to address and correct a few issues so that the child can stay with their parent?

And at what cost does OUR CHILDREN have to pay and the emotional trauma they have endore because a social worker says its in the childs best interest to be taken away from their BONDED PARENT?

If a criminal is entitled to DUE PROCESS, why isnt a parent?

These CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE! They DONT DESERVE the IRREVERSIBLE and the long term NEGATIVE EFFECT it will do to them when their life is turned upside down when their removed from THEIR home and THEIR parent?

Now let ALL OF THAT sink in, and ask this okay? Is this really in a child's best interest?

Krysta Jayy

Add comment


There are no comments yet.