Hillary uses child actor to fake ‘body image’ question at town hall [video]

The Associated Press and New York Times fawned over the amazing body image question asked by a teenage girl at a Pennsylvania town hall yesterday. Hillary’s perfect answer was all the mainstream media could talk about – but it was all staged.

15 year old Brennan was supposedly chosen at random to ask Hillary Clinton a question:

“Hi Madam Secretary.  I’m Brennan and I’m 15 years old.  At my school, body image is a really big issue for girls my age.  I see with my own eyes the damage Donald Trump does when he talks about women and how they look.  As the first female president how would you undo some of that damage and help girls understand that they’re so much more than just what they look like?”

The question gave Hillary the perfect opening to admonish Trump and make her look like the hero of females everywhere – unless they get sexually assaulted by her husband:

“I’m so proud of you for asking that question. You are right — my opponent has just taken this concern to a new level of difficulty and meanness.  And, it’s shocking when women are called names and judged solely on the basis of physical attributes.

“My opponent insulted Miss Universe. I mean, how do you get more acclaimed than that?  But, it wasn’t good enough. So we can’t take any of this seriously any more. We need to laugh at it. We need to refute it. We need to ignore it. And we need to stand up to it.”

The moment seemed so perfect, too perfect and as YouTuber known as Spanglevision felt that things just seemed too good to be true:

You see, Brennan is actually Brennan Leach, a professional actor who is also the daughter of Senator Daylin Leach (D-PA.) Shocked? Shocked you say? She had no choice but to stage this cute little moment. She is being hammered for her evil dealings with her husband’s sexual assault victims. She has to be the hero of women to be able to fake her bona fides as a feminist.  It took a YouTuber less than a day to research this little gem, but the New York Times and Associated Press couldn’t be bothered with all that real journalism crap. They instead put this 100% piece of propaganda out:

It’s not necessary to point out the abysmally small crowd at the town hall, but I will  anyway.


Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Rich Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the editor-in-chief of Conservative Daily News and the president of Bald Eagle Media, LLC. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Bald Eagle Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

Related Articles


  1. Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

    Key Case Ruling by the United States Supreme Court: U.S.v. Constantine 296 U.S. 287 (1935) the IRS ruled unconstitutional

    1895 Income Tax ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court

    Wage for labor is an exchange and no income generated.

    Congress, by legislation, cannot altar the Constitution,’ from which it derives it’s Power to legislate.

    Below are the Key case rulings not found in your article:


    1. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.Co., 240 U. S, 1.11 (1916)
    2. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581,20 S.Ct. 448 (1900)
    3. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; U.S. v. Cathcart, 25 F. Case No. 14,756
    4. Stanton v. Baltic Minning Company 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1919)
    5. Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire 271 U.S. 170, 174,174 (1926); In re Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F.
    Case No. 18,273 (65 C.J. Section 2) — not known to be overturned.
    6. Peck v Lowe 247 U.S.165, 173 (1918)
    7. Doyle v Mitchell Bros. 247 U. S. 179,183 (1918)
    8. Eisner v Macomber 252 U. S. 179, 183 (1918)
    9. Evans v Gore 253 U.S. 245(1920)
    10. Flint v Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 144,151-152, 165,55 S L.ed. 107419 Sup CCL Rep
    342, Ann Cas. 1912B 1312(1911)
    11. Merchants Loan And Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509519 (1921)
    12. Helvering v Edison Brothers’ Stone, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)
    13. Southern Pacific v Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918): Art 1, Sec. 8, Cl17 And Art.IV, Sec. 3
    CL 2: Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 17: Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 15 USC 1681h: 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337: False
    Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7)
    14. UNITED STATES v MERKSKY 361 U.S. 431, 438(1960)
    15. CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v SCHULZ 419 U.S.21, 26 (1974)
    16. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORP v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380,384 (1947)
    17. Utah Power & Light Co v. United States, 391
    18. United States v. Stewart, 108 re Floyd Acceptance, 7: Wall 666; Article 1 Sec.2: Art. 1 Sec.9
    19. Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47(1900); 19 CFR 351, 102
    20. Butcher’s Union Co. v Cresent City Co. 111 U.S. 746, 756 (1884)
    21. TRUAX v CORRIGAN 257 U.S. 312,348 (1921)
    22. Sims v Abrens 167 Ark. 557271 S.W. 720, 773 (1925)
    23. Myer v STATE OF NEBRASKA 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
    24. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall 36
    25. Butchers’ Union Co. v Crescent City Co. 4 Sup Ct. 652
    26. Vick Wo v Hopkins 6 Sup Ct. 1064
    27. Minnesota v Barer 10 Sup Ct 862
    28. Allegeyer v Lousiana 17 Sup Ct. 427
    29. Lochner v New York 25 Sup Ct. 539, 3 Ann Cas 1133
    30. Twining v New Jersey 29 Sup Ct. 14
    31. Chicago B&O R.R. v. McGuire 31 Sup Ct. 259
    32. Truax v Raich 36 Sup Ct. 7, L.R.A.1916D, 545 Ann. Cas. 1917B 283.
    33. Adams v Tanner 37 Sup Ct. 662 L.R.A.1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D 973
    34. New York Life Ins. Co v Dodge 38 Sup Ct. 337, Ann Cas. 1918E,593

    35. Traux v Corrigan 42 Sup Ct. 124
    36. Adkins v Children’s Hospital 43 Sup Ct. 394,67 L. Ed (April 9, 1923)
    37. Wyeth v Cambridge Board Of Health 200 Mass 474,86 N. E. 925, 128 Am St. Rep. 43923
    L. R. A. (N.S.) 147
    38. MURDOCK v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 319 U.S. 105, 113; 63 Sup Ct.
    875; 87 L Ed 1298 (1943);
    39. Tyler et al Administrators v. United States, 281 US 497, 502 (1930
    40. Pollock v Farmers’ Loan And Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429, 442, 555, 556, 573, 582, 595 (1895)
    41. STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. V HOWBERT231 U.S. 399, 417 (1913)
    42. Main v Grand Trunk R. Co. 35 L. ed 994,3 Inters. Com.Rep. 807, 12 Sup Ct. Rep. , As
    interpreted in Galveston, H&S A.R. Co. v. Texas, 52 S.L. ed. 1031, 1037,28 Sup Ct. Rep. 638
    43. U. S. v WHITRIDGE 231 U. S. 231 U. s. 144, 147(1913)
    44. Taft v BOWERS 278 U.S. 470,481 (1929)
    45. COPPAGE v STATE OF KANSAS 236 U.S.l, 23-24(1915)
    46. U. S. v. Constantine 296 U.S. 287(1935?) IRS Ruled Unconstitutional As Prohibition Had
    Been Repealed. In 1965 The United States Supreme Court Traced The IRS Back To The Civil
    War And Found No Legislative Act Of Congress Lawfully Establishing The IRS As A
    Government Agency: Contractor: Sub-Contractor. Paul Andrews Mitchell (Federal Witness)
    Web Site supremelaw.org then Click On 31 Questions. Today The General Accounting Office In
    Affidavit Refuse To Produce The Lawful OMB Number For The IRS. None Of Their
    Publications Carry A OMB Number:Meaning they Are Not A U. S. Government Agency:
    Department: Contractor: Sub-Congractor. Today In Affidavit Congress Refuses To Produce The
    Organic Act Of Congress making The IRS A Government Agency:Department: Contractor:Sub-
    Contractor: Contact:: david-lee: family of buess ; Office of Corrections For The
    Great Turtle Island 419 694 5796 Or Write Us C/O 22014 Delaware Township Road 184
    Arlington Ohio [45814]
    47. The IRS Cannot Tax From The Source (Fraud By Trickery) Only From The Source Of The
    Kind In Question: Commissioner v Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1945) Deals With
    Corporate Profit Gained From Settlement In Anti-Trust Case Not Income.
    Recent Case Rulings Against U. S. AND IRS
    1 No Law Requires Payment Of An Income Tax: Federal District Court Western Division Of
    Tennessee (Memphis) Case No. 03-CR-20111 U. S. v. Kluglin (6/22-23/2005)
    2. U. S. v. Linda Wall U. S. District Court, Central District Of California, Western Div. (Los
    Angeles) Case No. 2:04 cv 05325DDP-MAN and 2:03 cv 08406DDP-MAN Dismissed Without
    Prejudice: IRS Found Guilty Of Stepping Outside Their Authority: Mail Fraud: Counterfeiting
    Documents: No Enforcement Section within/Of the IRS Code etc.
    3. U. S. v Lawrence USDC Peoria IL 06 cr 10019 (2005) IRS violated Paper Work Reductions
    Act: 44 U.S.C.3500-3520: 3512 I.R.S. Failed To Inform Lawrence He Was NOT required To Fill
    Out The Forms.
    4. U.S. v Lindsey Springer: 08-278,09 cr 043: Without Revenue Districts There Is No
    Delegation Of Authority: Revenue Officers or Revenue Agents Are Not The Secretary Of The
    Treasury Nor The Commissioner Of The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
    We Will Make Adjustments As Required To Help Benefit The General Population. I Have
    Already Advised Congress [CONGRESS] The IRS Code Is Void For Reason Of Fraud. This
    May Also Effect Probate Laws.
    United States Constitution: Amendment XIV Civil Rights Section 2. … excluding Indians not taxed; BAD MAN REMOVED.
    The People’s Voice
    Could ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) be a fictitious disorder, nothing more than a fraud intended to justify starting children on a life of drug addiction?
    Authentic Enlightenment
    16 hrs

    The CIA In The Social Media Age
    The CIA In The Social Media Age
    There is no denying that we live in a social media world. Every activity is tweeted or posted, photos are edited and shared, and private thoughts are broadcast for the world to see. Social media ha…

  2. Arrest is presumed to be false if …
    1. Arrest aka kidnap and held for ransom is presumed to be false; officer has the burden of proof
    “Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is presumptively invalid…the burden is upon the state” to justify it as authorized by statute, and as not violative of constitutional provisions. State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968).

    “As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer … must keep within the law at his peril.” Thiede v. Scandia, 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).

    “The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law.” McAleer v. Good, 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907); Mackie v. Ambassador, 11 P.2d 6 (1932).

    The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove if alleging false arrest, is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946).

    ”When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, “the law presumes it to be unlawful.” People v. McGrew, 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker, 133 P. 544(1926).

    2. Must show warrant upon request
    “A special deputy is bound to show his warrant if requested to do so, and if he omit, the party against whom the warrant issues may resist an arrest, and the warrant under such circumstances is no protection against an action for an assault, battery and false imprisonment.” Frost v. Thomas, 24 Wendell’s Rep. (N.Y.) 418, 419 (1840).

    “An accused person, if he demands it, is entitled to have the warrant for his arrest shown to him at the time of arrest.” 42 L.R.A. 682, 51 L.R.A. 211, Crosswhite v. Barnes, 124 S.E. 242, 245 (1924).

    “He must show it to the accused, if requested to do so.” Smith v. State, 208 S.2d 747 (Miss., 1968).

    “If demanded, he must produce the warrant and read it to the accused, that he may know by what authority and for what cause he is deprived of his liberty.” State v. Shaw, 89 S.E. 322 (1916).

    “It is doubtless the duty of an officer who executes a warrant of arrest to state the nature and substance of the process which gives him the authority he professes to exercise, and, if it is demanded, to exhibit his warrant, that the party arrested may have no excuse for resistance.” Shovlon v. Com., 106 Pa. 369, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 41 (1884).

    “It was the duty of an officer who attempts to make an arrest to exhibit the warrant if he has one.” Jones v. State, 114 Ga. 79, 39 S.E. 861 (1901).

    3.Warrant must be valid
    A constable justifying an imprisonment under a warrant must show that the warrant on its face is legal, and that the magistrate had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. 51 L.R.A. 197, Poulk v. Slocum, 3 Blackfords (Ind). 421. (Meaning, you should also demand a copy of the affidavit giving the judge probable cause to issue the warrant. All warrants must issue upon submission of an affidavit of probable cause.)

    “A warrant is regarded as insufficient and thus void if, on its face, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.” Wharton’s Crim. Proc., 12th Ed., vol. 1, p. 152 (1974).

    4. No rubber-stamp “signature”
    “The United States Supreme Court … stressed the need for ‘individualized review’ to avoid the issuance of ‘rubber stamp’ warrants.” State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 596 (1967).

    5. False arrest is assault and battery
    “An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person … where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessary to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm.” State v. Gum, 69 S.E. 464 (1910).

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 72 Atl.2d 262 (1950).

    “Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest … and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.” Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.E.2d 306 (1958).

    6. No handcuffs (sorry, OSHA)
    “But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216.

    “The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.” Osborn v. Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317.

    7. Go immediately to a magistrate (no photographs, no fingerprinting).
    “Any undue delay is unlawful and wrongful, and renders the officer himself and all persons aiding and abetting therein wrongdoers from the beginning.” Ulvestad v. Dolphin, 278 Pac. 684 (1929).

    “Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment…[and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.” People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926).

    “The one arresting has “a duty to immediately seek a magistrate,” and failure to do so “makes a case of false imprisonment.” Heath v. Boyd, 175 S.W.2d. 217 (1943); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871).

    “The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes.” Geldon v. Finnegan, 252 N.W. 372 (1934).

    “The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).

    “To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal.” Kominsky v. Durand, 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940).

    A warrant must be issued and be signed (no rubber stamp) by a judge who has jurisdiction;
    must state the facts showing jurisdiction;
    must be based upon probable cause;
    must name the offense committed;
    must contain an affidavit (under oath) by the accuser, stating FIRST HAND facts constituting a crime;
    must name the party to be arrested, or describe him sufficiently to identify him;
    must offer the warrant and the affidavit for inspection upon request;
    No handcuffs;
    must take me immediately before a magistrate, and hold me for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting);
    You are responsible for everything that happens to me even if you relinquish custody to an assign;
    Unlawful arrest is assault, battery & trespass;
    There is no immunity in a false arrest case;
    Good faith is not a defense to sustain false arrest.
    Lastly . . . If the warrant states as cause to issue, a mere civil/statutory infraction not rising to the level of a capital crime . . . the officer must produce title to your biological property/body, before said officer can make the arrest and take possession of the biological property. You do not by accommodation, accept the offer of arrest for any statutory infraction unless the statute defines a capital crime and probable cause exists.
    The arresting officer that this information has been presented to, has both a civil and legal duty to become informed with the material incorporated herein before an arrest is determined to have cause to be made.

  3. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for treason? Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
    Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

    Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. AMY In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

    None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances. JUDGE YOU HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

  4. Brief on jurisdiction
    “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. “the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
    And, you may find this interesting as well:
    “An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void.” Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. “Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract.” Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. “When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially”. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. “A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.” ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. “Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.” Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1. “The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute.” Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.

  5. Ground III. 11th Amendment Immunity
    1.) The 11th Amendment under the US Constitution reads as follows: “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.”

    2.) On December 9, 1945, International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. This law makes all public
    officials foreign citizens, barring them from judicial power. All public officials are administrative agents of the US Corporation. They have no judicial power whatsoever.

    3.) 22 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that oath is required to take office.

    4.) Title 8 USC 1481 states, once oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus the oath taker becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, even all political subdivisions; i.e., every single court is considered a separate foreign entity.

    5.) Title 22 USC, “Foreign Relations and Intercourse”, Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.

    6.) All “judicial power” of the “inferior courts” comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789, as did
    the Attorney General position. “Judicial power” comes from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment removed all “judicial power” in law, equity,
    treaties, contract law, and the right of the State to bring suit against the People. The positions of Attorney General and Prosecutor, of both the United States and the several
    states, come under the Judicial Branch not the Executive branch of the government. All attorneys come under the Judicial Branch and are judicial officers under the Supreme
    Court, not under the Secretary of State as licensed professionals, which means they can only represent the Court and not the People or the State.
    The Eleventh Amendment
    removed all “judicial power” from the “inferior courts” and the prosecutor’s office as well as from all court officers in law, equity, and so forth.

    7.) The Eleventh Amendment also makes a foreign state separation from the position of the Public Office positions to throw off the People. The People have Eleventh Amendment
    immunity, because there is no “JUDICIAL POWER” of the “inferior courts” and the People have Foreign Sovereign Immunity.

    8.) The defendant/affiant/petitioner holds the inherent right of the 11
    states in part: “The judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted by a Foreign State.”
    9.) Municipal, county, or state court lacks jurisdiction to hear any case under the foreign state definitions, coming from the 11th Amendment under the US Constitution. This
    jurisdiction lies with the United States District Court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) Statutes pursuant to 28 USC 1330.

    10.) The fact that public officials are not citizens, but rather, foreign citizens, all of the cases must be dismissed because the court lacked and lacks jurisdiction to enforce
    judicial power. This court is an administrative court and not a criminal court. In other words, no judicial power makes this court an administrative court. Also, this following act proves that this court is an administrative agency: The Administrative Procedures Act,
    Title 5 – Government Organization and Employees Administrative Procedures Act part I –
    the agencies generally chapter 5 subchapter ii – administrative procedure º551.
    Definitions. For the purpose of this subchapter – * (1) ”agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by
    another agency.
    Additionally, “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495
    F 2d 906, 910. And the court cannot ignore lack of jurisdiction. “There is no discretion to ignore
    lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
    A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a
    nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.]
    Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan.
    1093 (1993).
    “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.
    It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, Old Wayne
    Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
    “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on
    appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA
    “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v Thiboutot 100
    S. Ct. 250.
    “A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a
    nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v.
    Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
    “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to
    hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
    “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to
    act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P
    If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter,
    the case must be dismissed. (See Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser
    Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.)
    According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause,
    establishes, “The U.S. Constitution and treaties as the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
    every state shall be bound thereby.” Every judge and public official took an oath of office to
    uphold and defend the US and their state’s Constitutions, so every judge is indeed bound to
    uphold and defend the US Constitution.
    “Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution, shall remain forever ’colorable’ and is null and
    void.” (See Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176 (1803).
    According to Cohens vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), “No one can
    war with the Constitution.” To war with the constitution constitutes the overthrow of our
    constitutional form of government, which is treason in violation of Title 18 U.S.C, Section 2381.
    “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule – making or
    legislation, which would abrogate them.” (See Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125.)

Back to top button