It's a VIOLATION
of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL
POWER of the State.
The Judicial power
of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects
of any Foreign State.
US citizens (FEDERAL
CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the
FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Attorneys are considered
FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (FARA)
and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.
Government Is Foreclosed
from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court
of the United States 1795
"Inasmuch as every
government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature
of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial
persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance,
is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.
The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as
any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything
other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow
v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
Supreme Court of
the United States 1795 ----- (Let's not get all pissy over whether
this is an exact quote, read the rest of the cites below)
"An attorney for
the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either
an attorney or a witness".
(Trinsey v. Pagliaro
D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)
v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647: when you read it you will find that
it is THE case cited for FRCivP 12(b) (6).
Now, while what
it says at 12(b) (6) is good, notice how I have highlighted some
items from the actual decision, it goes MUCH further than 12(b)
(6) does and we should also. Keep in mind the two Maxims in Law
that are opposite sides of the same coin: Truth is Expressed in
the Form of an Affidavit, & An Unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth
in the Matter.
Now, while keeping
these in mind, think about when someone like an attorney for the
IRS comes forward and "testifies" about how you did such-and-such.
Are they a First-Hand-Witness, or simply a "Statement of Counsel
in Brief or Argument?" Shut them down! Hit them with Trinsey and
get the "Judge" to take official Judicial Notice of it. If the "Judge"
does not sustain your object, you need to immediately file an oral
"Affidavit of Prejudice" against the "Judge" as he has shown his
prejudice and then file the same Affidavit in writing into the record
with witnesses to the same. Once your Affidavits are filed, get
a record of what has been filed and show that you are the only one
who has actually introduced FACTS into the case and move for Summary
Judgment upon the Facts... while reminding the "Judge" that the
ONLY thing he is to consider is the FACTS of the case ON THE RECORD,
that the opposing "counsel" has only been "enlightening" to the
Court, but not sufficient to rise to the level of FACT.
This applies both
with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence.... there
must be a competent first hand witness (a body). There has to be
a real person making the complaint and bringing evidence before
the court. Corporations are paper and can't testify.
statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition
of [a] case." United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783,
97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,
"Under no possible
view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held
to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody
conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose
them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable,
there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate
facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether
or not the judgment was warranted." Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12)
224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.
was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they
were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements
of counsel", Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54
L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,
is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record
either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced
the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against
them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement
for a fair trial." Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709
¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.
"Care has been
taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man
whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by
any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that
in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their
command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near
and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now
rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these
witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of
all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity
un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory
or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed
out in this record." Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone
Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone
Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
Company, People's Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,
Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,.
(PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct.
counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment," Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa.
1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be
a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted
by the Court" – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local
Trinsey v Pagliaro,
D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or
in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient
for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment." Pro Per and pro
se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority
of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the
opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of
the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party
"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.
Frunzar v. Allied
Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880 Professional
statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and
attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance
of statement. [And, how many of those Ass-Holes have "first hand
Porter v. Porter,
(N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ń The practice of an attorney filing
an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that
client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit
become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness
thus compromising his role as advocate.
Deyo v. Detroit
Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 Statutes forbidding administering
of oath by attorney's in cases in which they may be engaged applies
to affidavits as well