MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORATE STATUS

Gemini Investments Research Group with Howard Griswold, Law Study Submitted on 2011/05/31 at 2:04 am I just got this and bottom line need to go after their bond violation of rights Title 42 I think this is an answer to prayer. must make all public servants accountable or strip them of all powers by going after their bond. I hope this helps Robert Fox.. need more info or hook up with people who rights are be violated you got my email. Frank MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORATE STATUS 1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P. 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5th Cir 😉 has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact”. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial. 2. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S. W.2d 464, 465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no Writ) “Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 83 … that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established. 3. Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429 Corporation existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial. 4. A presumption is a rule of Law, Statutory or judicial, by which the finding of a basic fact gives rise to the existence of presumed fact until presumption is rebutted. See Van Wart v. Cook, 557 P. 2d 1161. In the Commercial Law of all States, a presumption means that the trier (the Judge) of fact, must find the existence of the fact presumed per FRCP 52, unless and until the evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its non-existence. Arizona Revised Statutes: Title 47 Section 1201 (31) Presumption” or “presumed” means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence. Thus, the Affidavit of Non Corporate Status is for the purpose of rebutting any presumption that the Respondent is the Corporation named in the alleged complaint. 5. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence .” Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states;”….a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556(d) ] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption 6. When the complaint is lodged by the Government for a fine, fee or a tax, all of which are revenue, they are imposed only on Corporations. See Colonial Pipe Line Co. v. Triagle, 421 US 100 (1975). Thus, this instant complaint, for the collection of some form of tax, must have been lodged against a Corporation whose name is similar to my name. This Respondent must rebut the presumption that this Respondent is the Corporation named in the alleged complaint. 7. If Respondent is not a Corporation he cannot appear and plead. See West Union Tel. Co. v Eyser, 2 Colo. 141; Greenwood v. Railroad Co., 123 Mass. 32; Foster v. white Cloud, 32 Mo. 505; Hobich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1; Boyce v/ M.E. Church, 43 Md. 359; Folsom v. Star Union Etc. Fright Line, 54 Iowa 490. 8. When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a Corporation is admitted. See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson v. Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8 S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667. 9. Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that where the reprehensive of a railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in abatement in his own name, that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581; Callender v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10 W. Va. 507; Evarts v. Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W. 655; Stevenson v. Thorn, 13 Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that he may, by plea, deny that he/she sustains any such relation to the Corporation as authorizes the service of process on him/her. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581. In 1886 the Supreme Court did not grant, corporate-personhood, to any State of the Union or Federal Government and that this doctrine derives from a mistake interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes. See Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886). 10. No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have been passed since then. No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were “persons” instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886). In this case or any case, on the issue of corporate personhood. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for the opposing party that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does. This written statement, that corporation were “persons” rather than “artificial persons” with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of the court, but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice, recorded by the court recorder. See Vermont Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886 published in New York in 1886 by banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, Supreme Court’s Reporter. 11. Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that “in common usage, the term Sovereign, statutes employing the person and corporation are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947). 12. US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 US1, 12 Led 581: “…The government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and in trust to whom they please. … The sovereign in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinary construed to exclude it.” 13. Rebuttable presumptions are in effect inferences that, in the absence of any controverting evidence, the jury is required to make and, in civil cases, to accept as established facts. [89. People v Wong Sang Lung, 3 CA 221, 84 P 843.] 14. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (1990), p. 1267. Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a “disputable” presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo. App., 48 S.W. 2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28. 15. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (1990), p. 1185 Presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existing of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, Okl. App., 557 P2d 1161, 1163. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inference be drawn from the available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D. C. GA., 92 F.R. D. 100, 106. A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. I, ______________ Declare and Affirm that I am not nor have I ever been a Corporation, Fiction of Law, Fictitious Entity, Corporate Persona, Non-Entity, Legal Entity or as a Surety for any of the previously mentioned and that I further Declare and Affirm that I am a live man, American Sovereign as stated in the original Constitution for the united States of America, of which all public servants/public officials are sworn by their Oaths of Office to protect and defend, both State and National, in which is also enumerated the type and size of bonds required by both elected and appointed positions, in order to assure the Sovereign public that their trust and faith in those public servants/public officials are well founded and that their duties will be discharged in the most Honorable means until completion of their term of office. Signature_____________________________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s