M1S-55, Senator gives written notice that ‘Auto Registration’ and ‘Driver License’ is a contract that can be rescinded, 5$.

Wayne Stump, State Senator, sends notarized notice to Arizona Department of Public Safety, noticing them that they need to inform the policing agents of the contractual aspects of the Automobile Registration and State Drivers License, with attention of how some have formally rescinded such contracts.

This package contains the full letter, with a 14 minute audio from the man that was able to acquire a copy of the notarized notice.

I recommend that you send the same to your senator and ask for a similar disclosure response, with instructions of how one contracts, and how one rescinds such contracts with the state.

With your payment you will have perpetual access to these correspondences, and the success of the rescinding process.

Please send me a copy of the letter you sent in, and a copy of the responses that you got back if any, and I’ll post them for all to learn of how to successfully cancel these godless contracts. Feel free to black out persona; information.

Omaha, Nebraska, pastor going down.

This girl is a client of mine, we are prosecuting a case against this man, if you have info that can help contact the site email address.

uberXO.com/stop rape

 

Three words that seven people, that is seven out of twelve on a common law jury, yep those three little words that terrorize corrupt officials are –

“It ain’t right!”

That’s it, all US agents fear the common jury, the more independent they are from statism the more they fear them, they fear any court that they do not have the protection of a “state” judge covering for them, they do not ever want to be questioned as to “what written law did you rely upon to have authority to …………….”.

The common law jury is entirely different than a legislative governed jury, one is of the people, the other of the state, one is an independent tribunal, the other an advisory, administrative aiding, tribunal.

The People are the highest authority of the land under God,

the other merely participates with the state authorities, and only has authority where the People gave it, which is not much.

'I'm screwed.'

Stay off their land, stay away from all contact (contract) with the US, challenge the rule of full disclosure on all implied contracts (state drivers license, property registration, for example. Stay with the People and the protection of their/your court.

In US courts, liken to the above cartoon, the judge is of the US, the grand jury, prosecutor, and trial jurors, court reporter, even the major newspapers, are all of the US (statists),  you are greatly disadvantaged.

 

Click on – M1Sp48       (Pay the 5$ to stay abreast to the many common law cases that we will be running and to support the work of many keeping common law accessible to the People of America.)

Click on – Sueing Nebraska Governor

The “law of the land” is your land, and is what the jury says it is.

In the year of 1676 West New Jersey code of law for the ‘free inhabitant” was/is:

“…and that no Proprietor, freeholder or inhabitant in the said Province, shall be deprived or condemned of life, limb, ,liberty, estate, property or any ways hurt in his or their privileges, freedoms or franchises, upon any account whatsoever, without a due trial. and judgment passed by twelve good and lawful men of his neighborhood first hand.”

Now this is 100 years before the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

 

 

 

 

Sovereignty

Posted: September 16, 2016 by admin in Sovereignty

Sovereignty:

In A.D. 1793, the Supreme Court declared in Chisholm vs Georgia that the American people were “sovereigns without subjects”.

Calif Gov’t Code 54950
…The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them.

>>

How to Police Your Community

Posted: September 5, 2016 by admin in Sheriff

How to Police Your Community

Recently there has been a great upsurge of concern of police abuse, as well as expansion concerns.
Much of that abuse has been going on for years, the phone camera has brought much of it to your living-room.
The police are often times no longer a community member, they are more of a SWAT team that’s eager to swat whatever moves.
After twenty five (25) years of studying law there are few things so solidified with me then the fact that “police”, as we know them, are not “our” officers, but rather officers of the “CITY”.
POLICE are OFFICERS, “police = policy” / official = enforcer.
They owe their life to the COMPANY, and guess what you are not that company.
So what are the police in a nutshell, they are people, that have accepted employment, for a wage, to enforce policies, on a specific area of land, that land being owned by their employer, the CITY.
All authority of entities in America come through written permission. First the people have authority by grant of God, in America some of that authority is then delegated to what we call the UNITED STATES, which is an extension of the Confederacy between the States (not the People). The UNITED STATES then delegates authority to it’s agents (employees), to apply it’s written laws administratively upon that same land, which we call “state” jurisdictions, which are further divided into various county areas, and again into “chartered” cities. All the above are divided generally into two jurisdictions, the first being the people (common law), and all the rest being administration legislation ( proprietary governance). In America close to 24% is land governed by this US entity, and the remaining balance of land, 76% being under the said common law of the people.
So you ask how much land does this include, I’ll just use Omaha Nebraska for an example. Well the answer is close to no land, you see the CITY only owns a small percentage of land in what we “call” the city. To find out if the CITY owns a specific piece of the land just go to the COUNTY ASSESSORS of any given jurisdiction and they can quickly tell you the owner’s name and contact address.
Well doesn’t the CITY own all the streets? NO. They own close to none of the streets. One judge tried to convince me that the roads have been abandoned and the city has taken over the care of them. Good try MR, but I need more proof than that.
Think about it, your family has parked your car in front of your house, and used that land since roads were invented and they claim it is theirs, ya right, they may even think they own your house also.
Well if they do not own it then who does? Well the answer is simple, it is “he” who has proof of a deed, and the CITY is not one of those “he’s”.
Well if the CITY does not own it, and we, “the people”, own it, who then has “policy” enforcement on that land?
The answer is the owner, and that owner, in America has property rights, one of those property right is “open roads” to give value to your own property. Property that has limited, or no access, is close to worthless.
In America such land is under “Common Law”, which is simply the law of the community, now the law of the community is what the jury of twelve say it is when needed, and hopefully seven of the twelve are in-tune with God’s Law, to give a just order for all.
Yep, each community is self governed by revolving juries, not by police with revolvers.
Stand up, take a moment to learn the truth, it is not all that complicated, if a CITY officer tries to govern you force him to prove territorial jurisdiction, if he can not sue him for pretending to have official authority on land his employer does not own.
If cops act up in your community make a community arrest, get his name, summons him to a common law ‘court of record’, and let the chips fall where they may.
I started talking of this in Omaha Nebraska courts and soon after the CITY OF OMAHA police chief told every officer to get their house out of their name so that it can not be taken by a civil action, then I was told, by deputy sheriffs of the area, that the top two prosecutors resigned from their jobs (totaling 32 years). All this because I started summonsing them to court, I was told that I would be killed if I do not back off. See more at freeinhabitant.info, pauljjhansen.com.
Next time a cop treats you unjustly, or tries to extort money from you without cause just smile and ask if he has a nice house, and then say I like nice houses.
Local communities belong to the people, people in America are to be governed by common law.
This is what many believe is a biblical blueprint for such a community:
1. People who wish to unite an organized community jurisdictions that only include land owned by those same people who unite.
2. Those same people hire (elect) a sheriff.
3. The sheriff then aids the people in applying God’s written laws upon that same land.
4. When needed the sheriff can deputize able men from that same united community to aid in the said enforcement of God law.
5. The jury of twelve men, well equipped in biblical law, is then periodically convened, when needed, to determine the remedy for all damages done by individuals on that same land.

Acts on US land are subject to US courts.
Acts done on the People’s land, are subject to the People’s court’s (common law).
Any act, by any man, to take the authority of the People away from the People is tyranny.
Start stopping tyranny now in your community.

Paul John Hansen 9-3-2016

Governor of Nebraska, Pete Rickets, and Governess Susanne Ricketts, refuse to be summonsed to court, sheriff called in.

We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

The Governors of the state are conspiring to deny my right to travel the open roads in their jurisdiction, they are summonsed to appear in a common law ‘court of record’ court (the highest court of the people) and they refuse to comply.

To follow case and view all files of the case:

Click PAYPAL at top, then BUTTON M1Sp- 48.

Protected: Hansen v. Ricketts, ‘Common Law Court of Record’ claim, action, against NEBRASKA Governor for failure to instruct state employees of man’s “not for hire” travel right. To perpetually follow this case purchase M1S-48, 5$. Hansen opted to use small claims county court to convene his right to the highest courts of America, a common law court of record, trial by jury. Cost 26$.

((Focus on the red letters below. “American” is by right, “US citizen” is consent to subjection, governance, by congressional written law. Oral oath is the only way there. One can only be a US citizen by birth until the age of 18 “if” their parents were US citizens, then one must take the oath personally, the oath is contract law, not general law, “consent of the governed.))

USC 8 § 1421. Naturalization authority

(a) Authority in Attorney General

The sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States is conferred upon the Attorney General.

(b) Court authority to administer oaths

(1) Jurisdiction

Subject to section 1448(c) of this title

(A) General jurisdiction

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each applicant for naturalization may choose to have the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title administered by the Attorney General or by an eligible court described in paragraph (5). Each such eligible court shall have authority to administer such oath of allegiance to persons residing within the jurisdiction of the court.

(B) Exclusive authority

An eligible court described in paragraph (5) that wishes to have exclusive authority to administer the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title to persons residing within the jurisdiction of the court during the period described in paragraph (3)(A)(i) shall notify the Attorney General of such wish and, subject to this subsection, shall have such exclusive authority with respect to such persons during such period.

(2) Information

(A) General information

In the case of a court exercising authority under paragraph (1), in accordance with procedures established by the Attorney General-

(i) the applicant for naturalization shall notify the Attorney General of the intent to be naturalized before the court, and

(ii) the Attorney General-

(I) shall forward to the court (not later than 10 days after the date of approval of an application for naturalization in the case of a court which has provided notice under paragraph (1)(B)) such information as may be necessary to administer the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title, and

(II) shall promptly forward to the court a certificate of naturalization (prepared by the Attorney General).

(B) Assignment of individuals in the case of exclusive authority

If an eligible court has provided notice under paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General shall inform each person (residing within the jurisdiction of the court), at the time of the approval of the person’s application for naturalization, of-

(i) the court’s exclusive authority to administer the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title to such a person during the period specified in paragraph (3)(A)(i), and

(ii) the date or dates (if any) under paragraph (3)(B) on which the court has scheduled oath administration ceremonies.

If more than one eligible court in an area has provided notice under paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General shall permit the person, at the time of the approval, to choose the court to which the information will be forwarded for administration of the oath of allegiance under this section.

(3) Scope of exclusive authority

(A) Limited period and advance notice required

The exclusive authority of a court to administer the oath of allegiance under paragraph (1)(B) shall apply with respect to a person-

(i) only during the 45-day period beginning on the date on which the Attorney General certifies to the court that an applicant is eligible for naturalization, and

(ii) only if the court has notified the Attorney General, prior to the date of certification of eligibility, of the day or days (during such 45-day period) on which the court has scheduled oath administration ceremonies.

(B) Authority of Attorney General

Subject to subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall not administer the oath of allegiance to a person under subsection (a) during the period in which exclusive authority to administer the oath of allegiance may be exercised by an eligible court under this subsection with respect to that person.

(C) Waiver of exclusive authority

Notwithstanding the previous provisions of this paragraph, a court may waive exclusive authority to administer the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this title to a person under this subsection if the Attorney General has not provided the court with the certification described in subparagraph (A)(i) within a reasonable time before the date scheduled by the court for oath administration ceremonies. Upon notification of a court’s waiver of jurisdiction, the Attorney General shall promptly notify the applicant.

(4) Issuance of certificates

The Attorney General shall provide for the issuance of certificates of naturalization at the time of administration of the oath of allegiance.

(5) Eligible courts

For purposes of this section, the term “eligible court” means-

(A) a district court of the United States in any State, or

(B) any court of record in any State having a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions in law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited.

(c) Judicial review

A person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title, may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5. Such review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application.

(d) Sole procedure

A person may only be naturalized as a citizen of the United States in the manner and under the conditions prescribed in this subchapter and not otherwise.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §310,   §25, July 7, 1958,   §20(c), Mar. 18, 1959,   §17, Sept. 26, 1961,   §9(s), Oct. 24, 1988,   title IV, §401(a), Nov. 29, 1990,   title I, §102(a), title III, §305(a), Dec. 12, 1991,  1749 title II, §219(u), Oct. 25, 1994,  .)

Amendments

1994-Subsec. (b)(5)(A).  substituted “district court” for “District Court”.

1991-Subsec. (b).  §102(a), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “An applicant for naturalization may choose to have the oath of allegiance under section 1448(a) of this titleadministered by the Attorney General or by any district court of the United States for any State or by any court of record in any State having a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions in law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited. The jurisdiction of all courts in this subsection specified to administer the oath of allegiance shall extend only to persons resident within the respective jurisdiction of such courts.”

 §305(a), substituted “district court” for “District Court”.

1990– amended section generally, substituting provisions authorizing Attorney General to naturalize persons as citizens, for provisions granting certain courts exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize.

1988-Subsec. (e).  struck out subsec. (e) which read as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(a), any petition for naturalization filed on or after September 26, 1961, shall be heard and determined in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.”

1961-Subsec. (e).  added subsec. (e).

1959-Subsec. (a).  struck out provisions which conferred jurisdiction on District Court for Territory of Hawaii. See section 91 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and notes thereunder.

1958-Subsec. (a).  struck out provisions which conferred jurisdiction on District Court for Territory of Alaska. See section 81A of Title 28, which established a United States District Court for the State of Alaska.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by  effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990,  see section 219(dd) of  set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1991 Amendment

 title I, §102(c), Dec. 12, 1991,  , provided that: “The amendments made by this title [amending this section and sections 1448, 1450, and 1455 of this title] shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 12, 1991].”

Amendment by section 305(a) of  effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990,  see section 310(1) of  set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1990 Amendment; Savings Provision

 title IV, §408, Nov. 29, 1990,  , as amended by  title III, §305(n), Dec. 12, 1991,  , provided that:

“(a) 

“(1) .-No court shall have jurisdiction, under section 310(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1421(a)], to naturalize a person unless a petition for naturalization with respect to that person has been filed with the court before October 1, 1991.

“(2) 

“(A) .-Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any petition for naturalization which may be pending in a court on October 1, 1991, shall be heard and determined in accordance with the requirements of law in effect when the petition was filed.

“(B) .-In the case of any petition for naturalization which may be pending in any court on January 1, 1992, the petitioner may withdraw such petition and have the petitioner’s application for naturalization considered under the amendments made by this title [amending this section, sections 1101, 1423, 1424, 1426 to 1430, 1433, 1435 to 1440, 1441 to 1451, and 1455 of this title, and section 1429 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and repealing section 1459 of this title], but only if the petition is withdrawn not later than 3 months after the effective date.

“(3) .-Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by this title are effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1990].

“(b) .-The Attorney General shall prescribe regulations (on an interim, final basis or otherwise) to implement the amendments made by this title on a timely basis.

“(c) .-The amendments to section 339 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1450] (relating to functions and duties of clerks) shall not apply to functions and duties respecting petitions filed before October 1, 1991.

“(d) .-(1) Nothing contained in this title [amending this section, sections 1101, 1423, 1424, 1426 to 1430, 1433, 1435 to 1440, 1441 to 1451, and 1455 of this title, and section 1429 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, repealing section 1459 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 1440 of this title], unless otherwise specifically provided, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization, certification of citizenship, or other document or proceeding which is valid as of the effective date; or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings, civil or criminal, brought, or any status, condition, right in process of acquisition, act, thing, liability, obligation, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing, as of the effective date.

“(2) As to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, statutes, conditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters, the provisions of law repealed by this title are, unless otherwise specifically provided, hereby continued in force and effect.

“(e) .-The amendments made by section 404 [amending section 1426 of this title] (relating to treatment of service in armed forces of a foreign country) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1990] and shall apply to exemptions from training or service obtained before, on, or after such date.

“(f) .-Section 405 [enacting provisions formerly set out as a note under section 1440 of this title] (relating to naturalization of natives of the Philippines through active-duty service under United States command during World War II) shall become effective on May 1, 1991, without regard to whether regulations to implement such section have been issued by such date.”

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

Admission of Alaska and Hawaii to Statehood

Alaska was admitted into the Union on Jan. 3, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, and Hawaii was admitted into the Union on Aug. 21, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74. For Alaska Statehood Law, see  July 7, 1958,  , set out as a note preceding former section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. For Hawaii Statehood Law, see  Mar. 18, 1959,  , set out as a note preceding former section 491 of Title 48.

You can join this Facebook dialog for free.

The sole topic shall be how to convien, operate, and proceed in a common law court of record.

https://www.facebook.com/CLCRecord/

This court is the highest court of the American land.

Intentional divergence from this topic will not  be allowed.

I, Paul John Hansen, shall be the administrator, and I believe this to be one of the most important institutes to be brought back into our communities in full force.

Follow the Hansen v. Governor Ricketts (and Wife) case for only five dollars. Just click Paypal and then click on M1Sp-48, cost is only 5$ for perpetual access to the entire case. All common law, jury decides everything, the Gov. is not protected by US judges or US attorneys.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Land Ownership Record, Private Filing For Public Record. (Not a contract.)                    http://goo.gl/jpqeme

>>

1606 Corby, *City of Omaha, *Douglas, *Nebraska            > DEED
Owner Prior to 7/21/2016 Paul John Hansen, a man.
Conveyed by Deed on 7/21/2016 to Dominion Won, a church ministerial trust, office mailing location at 16910 – 59th Avenue NE, Suite 210 Arlington, Washington.
The subject land is described as: Millard & Caldwell’s, LOT 20, East 50 foot, West 100 foot, Lot size 50′ x 86.625′ as .0994 acer, as surveyed, filed for record in Douglas County Registry of Deeds, Nebraska, land not evidenced as being of the United States.

>>>

3704 HAWTHORNE AVE., *City of Omaha, *Douglas, *Nebraska            > DEED
Owner Prior to ?/??/2016 Paul John Hansen, a man.
Conveyed by Deed on ?/21/2016 to Dominion Won, a church ministerial trust, office mailing location at 16910 – 59th Avenue NE, Suite 210 Arlington, Washington.
The subject land is described as: RESERVOIR SUB DIV LOT 49 BLOCK A S 138 FT LT 48 & W 4 S 140 FT LT 49 4 X 140-50 X 138, or 140.5 x 138 = .4451 acer, as surveyed, filed for record in Douglas County Registry of Deeds, Nebraska, land not evidenced as being of the United States. (Mailing location as – 3704 HAWTHORNE AV. Omaha, Nebraska, without the United States.)