REBUTTING THE 12 PRESUMPTIONS ON THE CASE RECORD

REBUTTING THE 12 PRESUMPTIONS ON THE CASE RECORD

https://www.amazon.com/Solution-Instruction-Manual-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/B089LYGZC2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+solution+paperback+ronald+farnham+instruction+manual&qid=1592937496&s=books&sr=1-1

https://form.jotform.com/72196346394162

This video and the information herein is probably the most important information and instructions that you will ever hear and learn about how to become free and sovereign on the record.

This video is about how to REBUT or CHALLENGE the 12 PRESUMPTIONS
presented by the FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION COURT and PRIVATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF the State in which you live.

But before we get started, we want to say thank you for helping to restore the Constitutional-Republic One County at a time.

For more information and specific documents to help with your case, Contact us at- form.jotform.com/72196346394162

Now let’s get down to business.

Why is it so important to rebut the 12 presumptions on the record and what are the 12 presumptions?

The 12 Presumptions are Presumptions that the STATE presumes about you or your status and condition. These are presumptions about you that the state is operating under when you enter a so-called court room. But as you know these are not real court rooms when you are in statutory court. These are administrations centers dressed up to look like Article three courts, which is why they fly a gold-fringed military flag because they are at war with you over the control of an adhesion-contract that they have suckered you into without your informed consent.

These fiat-courts do not operate according to any true rule-of-Law but rather by the following presumptions of the law. And these Presumptions directly reflect your status and standing in court.

The presumptions are:

1. Public Record
2. Public Service
3. Public Oath
4. Immunity
5. Summons
6. Custody
7. Court of Guardians
8. Court of Trustees
9. Government as Executor/Beneficiary
10. Executor De Son Tort
11. Incompetence
12. Guilt

The defense against this is for one to file a rebuttal into the record of any case in which one is involved with the STATE as a party to the cause. The rebuttal goes on the record via filing it with the clerk of courts who time-stamps it and records it into one’s particular case. After 30 days, the document stands as facts that may be addressed during the contract-negotiation or so-called hearing or trial. Or the judge might just immediately dismiss the case to prevent liability for his racketeering operation.

If you wish to get a template from us for filing the rebuttal to the 12 Presumptions then contact us here: form.jotform.com/72196346394162
The link is also in the description of this video.

Anyone may exercise their rights under law for the proper action of the Court from the fraudulent actions on the part of the alleged Plaintiff in question, which is usually the STATE. The rebuttal asks the court to look to take judicial notice pursuant to Section 32 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73) which specifies that “courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects, or want of form.” The rebuttal also asks the court to take judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence of the enunciation of principles stated in King v. Knoll (No. 04-04149-JAR), Whitney v. State of New Mexico (113 F.3d 1170), and Haines v. Kerner (404 U.S. 519), wherein the courts directed that those who are unschooled in law making complaints/pleadings shall have the court look to the substance of the complaint/pleadings rather than the form and thereby makes the notices WITHOUT waiver of any defenses.

Be aware that one is rebutting the 12 presumptions presented by a FOR - PROFIT CORPORATION COURT AND PRIVATE BAR ASSOCIATION of that STATE in the instant case No NUMBER that is created by the Local Clerk of Courts. And this information goes into the document.

The first portion of the rebuttal document proclaims a very important Statement-of-Facts, which is that the American B.A.R. Association is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party that is operating in your COUNTY COURT. So you lay those facts right out on the table for them and the public to see.

Then the document proclaims the fact that their COUNTY COURT is a for-profit corporation evidenced by a D-U-N-S number that is inserted into the document and also inserted is the case’s CUSIP-number for the case the Clerk opened, which is really a Trust. Then the document proclaims that their COUNTY COURT does not operate according to any true rule-of-Law but by presumptions-of-the-Law.

The document further proclaims that, all civilian American Courts are simply corporate administrative offices designed to resemble Courts, and the judges of these courts are simply executive administrators designed to resemble Judges.

It also proclaims that the American B.A.R. Association is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party. The American B.A.R. Association is a ‘Foreign Union’ and its members are all working in collusion with Israel; the British Empire; the Vatican; the Rothschild and Rockefeller Banking Empires; Congress and the Elite to undermine America. All attorneys are ‘Agents of a Foreign Power’ who swear allegiance to that Foreign Power [i.e.] The Queen and/or King of England.
All of that information goes into the rebuttal and this puts them on notice that the one accused knows what is going on.

Then the rebuttal lists the ten commands:

THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME;
THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE;
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN;
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY;
HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER;
THOU SHALT NOT KILL;
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY;
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL;
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR;
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS;

After the 10 Commandments the Rebuttal goes on to admonish lawyers for their woeful and corrupt racketeering. It proclaims in bold letters, “Woe to you Lawyers” as an admonition from Jesus against self-appointed experts of his word. And about that, here is what goes into the rebuttal:

“In Luke 11:45-52, Jesus rebuked the lawyers of his day for poor leadership and for harming the people of God. These lawyers were the scribes, thought to be experts in the law. This rebuke came in the form of three woes that he pronounced on them in the passage (11:46; 11:47; 11:52). In the Scriptures, such woes by the prophets of God demonstrated God’s judgment on certain individuals or groups of people.

Now the Old Testament had some good lawyers, scribes of the Law. We are reminded of Ezra to whom it is written, “Ezra … was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6). What was truly remarkable about this lawyer of God’s word is found just four verses later. Here it is said that “Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to teach his statues and ordinances in Israel” (7:10). A true scribe of the word of God teaches God’s people what God has taught him in his studies. He also models what God has taught him in his daily life. This is much different than what Jesus found in his day and what we often find in churches today.

Jesus rebuked these lawyers for being self-appointed experts in law, having no divine commission to promote themselves as the caretakers of truth that they supposed themselves to be. In Luke 11:46 Jesus pronounced the first woe and charged them with interpreting the law with their own bent for the purpose of having people bow to their whims. Jesus says, ‘Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.’

These men persuade others as to what is truth, yet they were not prophets called by God. They were self-appointed.” UNQUOTE.

Next in the rebuttal is listed the 12 Presumptions after this following statement: “This court does not operate according to any true rule of law but by the following presumptions of the law.”

One - Public Record,
Two - Public Service,
Three - Public Oath,
Four - Immunity,
Five - Summons,
Six - Custody,
Seven - Court of Guardians,
Eight - Court of Trustees,
Nine - Government as Executor/Beneficiary,
Ten - Executor De Son Tort,
Eleven - Incompetence,
Twelve - Guilt

Next in the rebuttal is the Definitions of the 12 Presumptions and the rebuttal to each Presumption, both of which are as follows:

1) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a for-profit CORPORATION COURT is presumed by the members of the American B.A.R. Association; a branch of the, National Lawyers Guild Communist Party that the matter is a private National Lawyers Guild Communist Party business matter.

This presumption is rebutted. This matter is recorded in a Public Record, as indicated by a court case request in the office of the clerk and other case files and court records can be found in the public records at the Brevard county clerk’s office.

2) The Presumption of Law and Public Service is that all the members of the Private The American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own National Lawyers Guild and

The possibility of this matter being a private matter is rebutted. All persons engaged in the matter at hand, are deemed to be in public service, as public servants.

(3) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartially and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath.

The presumption that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild Oath is hereby openly challenged and rebutted by the petitioner, Authorized Representative, ronald-russell: farnham for LEGAL FICTION RONALD RUSSELL FARNHAM.

4) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private The American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability and.

This is absolutely rebutted. Any person acting as an agent for a nameless, faceless corporation is wholly personally responsible for their actions on behalf of the corporation. All actions incurring any degree of injury will incur Notice of Injury, including severe financial penalty.

5) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands; and

This presumption is absolutely rebutted, on this occasion, on past occasions, and on all future occasions. However, at no time are we absent, nor silent with regard to the matters at hand.

6) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom, a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and

This presumption is absolutely rebutted. I am alive and well, I am not a thing, I am not in custody by Custodians or Guardians. I am not a ‘thing.’ I am not the property of the Roman Court or the Roman Empire. Under no circumstances may I be detained in any way whatsoever, nor at any time, past, present or future.

7) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians." Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);

This presumption is absolutely rebutted. I am at all times the General Executor and General Guardian of all our matters including those currently under discussion, and are the result of a system of debtism, employed by a private banking system and upheld by a private American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party.

8) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private The American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and

This presumption is absolutely rebutted. Absolutely no jurisdiction, at any time, may be claimed by the Private American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party over us. The office of trustee is rejected. The role of public servant and government employee is rejected. However, the need for each of us to contribute to the wellbeing of community is acknowledged and graciously embraced.

9) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private American B.A.R. Association is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party to appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter and

This presumption is rebutted. We are General Executor, General Guardian and Beneficiary with regard to all matters pertaining to the LEGAL FICTION RONALD RUSSELL FARNHAM and for Authorized Agent : ronald-russell : farnham as well as the flesh and blood person.

10) The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort is the presumption that if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation; and

This is rebutted. Under no circumstances may the Judge attempt to assume the role of Executor and before any personal appearance before a court is undertaken to discuss matters at hand, the Judge will need to put in writing that this is clearly understood and acknowledged.

11) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation; and

This is rebutted. The Roman Law is under scrutiny for its contribution to the current state of the planet, the distribution of rights and resources and the obstruction of Divine Law. In discussion regarding such matters, no privilege of deeming us and/or me and/or I incompetent is permitted.

(12) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of The American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private The American B.A.R. Association which is a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you; and

This is rebutted. Under no circumstances is a presumption of Guilt allowed. Under no circumstances may we be detained. Under no circumstances may any financial transaction occur, in the favor of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party as the claims of the private bank are investigated.
Unquote.

That concludes the presumptions and their rebuttals; but wait, there is more that is proclaimed in the document for these criminal racketeers to read about what the accused affiant knows about the Fraudulent judiciary, Action at Law, U.S. Judicial Power, Oaths of Judges Office, limited jurisdiction, due process, treason, and void judgements.

So the document continues with the proclamation of all that follows:
Quote:

“Furthermore: The Entire Federal Judiciary is a Fraud
All federal judges, magistrates and judicial officers are guilty of treason against the Constitution, bar none. Congress is responsible; aggravated treason. All federal decisions made since March 1, 1991 are void. All actors participating and involved in executing orders are personally liable for damages.

The Lufkin Action at Law
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin division civil action number 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin action at law” to foreclose on federal tax liens against petitioner’s ranch in Tyler County Texas; judge rules against petitioner March 3, 2016.

On September 15, 2000, demands for the provision of the Constitution that gives plaintiff United States of America the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and degrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt in the geographic area occupied by the body of Tyler County, Texas (where petitioner’s real property is located and petitioner is a resident), counsel for plaintiff United States of America go silent (see post of October 28, 2015 infra) and remain the duration of the case, March 3, 2016, 5 ½ months thereafter.

“The judicial power of the United States”
That certain Constitution ordained and established September 17 of 1787, and implemented March 4, 1789, Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the “Constitution”, at Article 3 section 1.

The Constitution and article 6 clause 3 provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or abuse of “the judicial power of United States,” id., by way of requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution; to wit:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by the oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

Justices and Judges Oath of Office
USC 8. And it be further enacted, that the justices of the Supreme Court and other district courts, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit;

“I, Judge’s Name, Do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and to the poor and the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as District Judge, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, so help me God.”

Congress Materially Alters the Oath of Office
Congress on December 1, 1990, however, in Public law 101-6 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124 – effective 90 days later,, March 1, 1991 (104 stat -5124 at §407) - alter materially by way of amendment, the oath at 28 USC §453 62 Stat, 907, so as to relieve all justices and judges of the United States of any duty of fidelity in the Constitution, to wit:

“Section 404 amendment to the oath of office of justices and judges. “Section 453 of title 28, United States code, is amended by striking out “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to …and inserting “under,” pub 1,104-650, 104 stat 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990.

Upon amendment, 28 USC §453 oath of Justices and Judges of United States, 104 stat 5124; provides:

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, Judge’s Name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as BLANK under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Let’s Compare that oath to this oath:
I, _ Judge’s Name, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as District Judge; according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
End of Oath.

But, the only duties incumbent upon justices and judges of United States to discharge or perform are provided in the statutes of Congress, i.e., the laws of the United States, the Constitution provides none.

The 1990 oath, 104 stat 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: as of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices “agreeably to the Constitution” (62 stat 907), and the former judicial-branch officers are now legislative branch officers under the close of control of Congress.

Plus peccat auctor quam actor
“The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetuates it” (John Bouvier’s, Bouvier’s law dictionary, 3rd revision (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), page 215).

And the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by municipal judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.

Limited Jurisdiction
“As We Have Repeatedly Said: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. They Possess Only That Power Authorized by Constitution and Statute” “Raul v Bush 540 US 466, 489, (2004) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 US, 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted))

The above is why the petitioner is so persistent: justices and judges ensconced (settled securely or snugly) in federal courts of limited jurisdiction are usurping exercise of the territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of the general jurisdiction) and entering judgment against, directing the disposition of, and committing theft under color of authority of the petitioners property in One’s County, and Florida - geographic area in which the STATE possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over property located there; to wit:

“The several states of the Union are not, it is true in every respect independent many of the right [sic] and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except and restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of Independent states, and the principles of public law to which we have referred our applicable to them. One of these principles is that every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over the persons and property within its territory. “Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US, 714, 722, (1878).”

“Those who framed the Constitution [sic] intended to establish a government complete for its own purposes, supreme within its sphere, and capable of acting by its own proper powers. They intended it consists of three coordinate branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the construction of such a government, it is an obvious maxim, “that the judicial power should be competent to give efficacy to the constitutional laws of the legislature. “Cohens v Virginia, 6 wheat, rep, 414]. The judicial authority, therefore, must be coextensive with the legislative power. [The Federalist, number 80, Cohens v Virginia, 6 Wheat. rep 384] Osborne v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., 738, 808 (1824).

Because Congress enjoyed only limited legislative power (subject matter legislative power only) Throughout the Union, the federal courts and the Department of Justice are authorized to exercise only limited jurisdiction (subject matter jurisdiction only) throughout the Union; to wit:

“As we repeatedly said: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute…) “Raul v Bush 540 US 466, 489, (2004) Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 US, 375, 377 (1994) Justices And Judges ensconced in in federal courts of limited jurisdiction are usurping exercise of territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) and entering judgment against, directing the deposition of, and committing theft under color of authority of, Petitioners property in Brevard County Florida-- geographic area in which Florida possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over property located there; to wit:

The several states of the Union are not, the true, in every respect independent, many of the right [sic] and powers which originally belong to them being now invested in the government created by the Constitution. But except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of Independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred our applicable to them. One of these principles is that every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within the territory. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US, 714, 722, (1878).”

Notwithstanding that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “Raul v Bush 540 US 466, 489, (2004), they are populated by municipal judges of the so-called “United States” 28 USC §3002 (15)10 , “a federal Corporation,” ID., by the name of district of Columbia municipal corporations, where usurping exercise of general jurisdiction in Montgomery and Tyler County, Texas and elsewhere throughout the Union.

Treason
“The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner used with the effect the Constitution ordained. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as. ”Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 353 (1935).

United States is a Federal Corporation, 28 USC §3002 (15)10 and, United States of America (a sovereign Republic, Constitution)

10Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15 (A) (B) (C) states that THE UNITED STATES is a FEDERAL CORPORATION and not a Government (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic), including the Judiciary Procedural Section.

Notwithstanding that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction Raul supra, they are populated by municipal judges of the so-called “United States” 28 USC §3002 (15)10, “a Federal Corporation,” id. By the name of District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, who are usurping exercise of general jurisdiction in Brevard County, Florida and elsewhere throughout the Union.

Justices and judges of the United States had used their position of trust to betray their creators, the American people, by overwriting there will has declared an article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution, that all judicial officers of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and thereby legislating the Constitution out of the legal process, to wit:

“The Congress is instrumentality of sovereignty is in doubt with powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. “Perry v United States, 294 US 330, 353 (1935)

18 US code section 2381- Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them a and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Due Process of Law and Void Judgments
The essence of due process of law is constitutional authority; to wit:
“The process of law is process according to the law of the land… “… Due process of law in the latter [the fifth article of amendment of the Constitution] refers to the law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of United States, exercised within the limits therein described and interpreted according to the principles of the common law…” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).

Any justice or judge of the United States enters a decision or judgment in a federal case without the authority to exercise “the judicial power of United States,” Constitution, article 3 section 1- and this includes every Supreme Court decision and United States District Court judgment since March 1, 1991 - does so without the authority of the Constitution thereby denies the litigants due process of law and manufactures a void judgment.

Void Judgments
A void judgment is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who was concerned with the execution of a valid judgment is considered in law as a trespasser; to wit:

“A void judgment which includes judgment entered by the court which lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment. Can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally.” Long v Sureshank Development Corporation 180 3d 548 (C.A.111 1999)

“Where the court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the course, and whether this decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and for no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments are considered in law as trespassers.” Elliott v Petrsol, 26 US (1 Pet.) 328, 329 (1828).

“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Margolis v Johns, 660 F 291 (7th Cir. on 1981).

The courts are not the government and have no authority over you. Why? Because they are For-Profit Corporations and must have a corporate charter that must comply with the Constitution. see: http://noauthoritycourts.com “
UNQUOTE.

And at that point the document is complete and must be signed in front of a notary and then filed into the case. After it cures in 30-days there is a strong probability that the case will be heard for a motion to dismiss so that they can get rid of the case and remove any interest from the facts that this document presents with standing in the public. Do you think the courts, judges, attorneys, police, administrations centers, and bail bondsmen want this information being spread widely? Probably not.
So there you have the Rebuttal to the 12 Presumptions. Please contact us at our jot form link and thank you for helping to restore the Constitutional-Republic one county at a time by filing your rebuttal to the 12 presumptions.
Please subscribe to this channel and share this very important video as far and wide as possible.
For more information and specific documents to help with your case, Contact us at- form.jotform.com/72196346394162