My business partner is a retired federal judge. He feels there might be a possibility of the Justice system returning back to Common Law. In that instance, all of the above would apply. In Common Law only two core questions remain: Who is the injured party? What property has been damaged? Everyone will be able to easily defend themselves in any court case in the future. I pray all the time for all of us to be able to live the lives God always intended us to live. God bless you all!

Sean- can you please explain your situation better?

FEDERAL UCC THAT SAYS THE STATES MUST GIVE NON-COMMERCIAL DRIVERS AND VEHICLES DECALS AND IDs THAT SAY THEY ARE EXEMPT TO ALL TRAFFIC CODE. TRAVELERS ARE ONLY BOUND BY NO DAMAGED PARTY!

Eric- I am praying for you. It is heartbreaking to hear what you are going through! I left CA because of how fraudulent the courts are. My business partner is a retired federal judge and he is hearing rumors of the Admiralty/Maritime law courts possibly being returned back to Common Law. In that case only 2 questions would be relevant to your case. Who is the injured party? Or what damage to property occurred? Unfortunately, divorce is like a forced bankruptcy by the courts (liquidation of assets). When you sign a marriage certificate, you are married to the state and your children are property of the state.

Eric- Get copies of oaths taken for the judge. Compare that oath to the required language the oath should contain. NO oath? The position on the bench is vacant. The judge can't rule on your case. Force them to recuse themselves from the case. I cant remember the form number of the form they are supposed to submit regarding asset disclosure (form 500 or 700) many dont disclose properties etc.. grounds for recusal as well. Run a Dunn and Bradstreet report on the court your case is in. You will find it is owned by a private corporation. I used to live in Orange County CA and most of the courts in that area are owned by a retired judge. Courts don't administer justice but instead operate as banks. The judge is a banker and the court clerk is the teller. Get the CUSIP # tied to your case. Then look up the 3 bonds in the CRIS system. JP Morgan the investment bank securitizes. Ask the judge why you are being trafficked on the open market? BOOM!

Always show up to court by special appearance. Always start with the challenging jurisdiction first. The burden of proof is one them to prove jurisdiction. It that doesn't work, try to force the judge to recuse themselves over lack of oath, or a deficient oath. No oath the bench is vacant and so is their position, they cant hear the case. You could also request a copy of Judges in the United States are required to file a financial disclosure report using Form AO 10 or Form AO 10T when appointed, as mandated by Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, and further modified by the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act (CETA). sometimes they leave off the form real estate and ownership in companies they have an interest in. Sometimes, they leave off the form' real estate 'and' ownership in companies' where they have an interest

Jimmie- EVERYTHING is about jurisdiction. who has control over you? I am most familiar with California law. But I believe this may apply: Yes, jurisdiction can be challenged if an order to revoke probation is issued, particularly if the court lacks authority to act after the probation period has expired. In North Carolina, for example, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation if it attempts to do so after the probation term has ended, unless a prior order extending probation was properly made and provided notice to the defendant. If a court revokes probation after purporting to extend the probation period beyond its original end date without proper notice or a valid extension order, the defendant may raise a jurisdictional argument on appeal. The court must have retained jurisdiction under the law, and any revocation must follow the procedural requirements established by statute and rule. In federal law, the court may revoke probation and impose any sentence that could have been initially imposed if a violation is found, but this authority is subject to the court's jurisdiction and proper procedural safeguards. Therefore, a jurisdictional challenge is a valid legal argument when the court acts beyond its authority, such as revoking probation after the term has expired or without proper procedural foundation.

Eric- If ANY of your property is stolen from you. Contact ATF. The IRS has NO enforcement authority under Title 26. Instead they use unwitting 3rd parties like banks and HR folks at employers that don't have a background in tax code. The IRS was created by Congress and no enforcement authority was granted to the IRS. All they can do I try to scare you with their letter-writing campaigns. It is the ATF under Title 27 that is being used illegally. A NOTICE from any party is just a notice and subject to enforcement with being adjudicated by a judge. Child support garnishments, bank account levys and wage garnishments fall under: 26 IRC 6331. Levy and distraint. (a) Authority of Secretary. (Section (a) has been eliminated from the notice of levy sent from you). (Here in part) …Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or Elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) of such officer, employee, or elected official. The IRS may levy the wages of officers, employees or government officials because their wages are already in the possession of the government, therefore, seizure is perfected. The Notice of Seizure is therefore provided on the wages, which are already in possession, and the levy is perfected. This section (a) has been omitted from the backside of your copy of the Notice of Levy. This can be very misleading as addressed in two separate letters from two different United States Congressmen Dennis M. Hertel and E. Clay Shaw, Jr.; a copy of both letters are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as EXHIBIT D, which state to wit: “…Notice of Levy on Wages…Section 6331 IRC entitled “Levy and Distraint” And Section 6331(a) IRC entitled ‘Authority of Secretary’…does not provide Authority to levy wages of private citizens in the private sector. The Omission of this section from IRS form 668-W may be misleading to some employers…”

The IRS commits document fraud by eliminating subparagraph (a) which clearly states the levy or garnishment is only meant for a certain class of people. accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or Elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) of such officer, employee, or elected official.