TITLES OF NOBILITY & JURISDICTION

TITLES OF NOBILITY

A "title" is a mark or designation, i.e., name by which anything is known.
In English law "nobility" is a division of the people.

In America, Titles of Nobility generally refer to government created designators such as citizen, driver, taxpayer and the like. While they may not appear to be "noble" they are created, never the less, to divide the populace

Contracts are enforceable.

When gold and silver was taken from the hands of the American people, by Executive Order in 1933, with complete disregard of the laws and limitations of the u. S. Constitution, it "became necessary" for the corporate United States to "create" a new system of law. They threw out common Law and Equity Law and switched it for Admiralty/Maritime Law (Negotiable Law) (now called Statutory Jurisdiction.)

Today, the courts we have are not courts of law; they are courts of Commercial Contract.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 10 gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable.

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven."

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, (1980) 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555

"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. 528 (1974)

Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4).
Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), affd, 691 F.2d 1 1 (1st Cir. 1982)

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time."
Basso v. Utah Power and Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974)

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."
Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Serv. Corp., 478 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)

"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

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

"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 judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."
Williamson v. Berry, 49 U.S. 8 How. 495 495 (1850)

"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

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. U.S., 474 F.2d 215

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

"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

Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is true concerning all federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.

"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..."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 57 F.3d 921, 839 F.Supp. 1226

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)

Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758: "The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
NY vs. re Merriam, 36N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073; 41 L.Ed. 287.

"There are two classes of citizens under our form of government, citizens of the United States and of the state; and one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter."
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual".
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)