The 53rd Amendment Proposal
Submitted by Morton IX
This amendment would address the issue of the federal government’s responsibility to secure our National Sovereignty. This amendment must be specific as to the scope and limits of this responsibility. At a minimum the 53rd amendment would insure that a solid rampart wall be erected on our Mexican border. We must stop the influx of illegal aliens flowing over an unprotected border like water. After that we can decide what to do with the illegal aliens currently inside our borders.
In addition, this amendment would support the need for standing armies in contradiction to our founding fathers belief that we could rely on the Militia alone in times of peace. I believe we do have a need today for a well regulated, well trained military presence in the world and we cannot rely on a Militia to do that.
This amendment might also address how state Sovereignty and individual Sovereignty relate to National Sovereignty in an attempt to clear up who is responsible for which Sovereignty and which one comes first and why. I believe the State Governors are responsible for their state’s sovereignty, but will rely completely on the new 36th Amendment language, (which repeals the 17th Amendment), in order to detail this right. State governors must be able to recall, (fire) Senators at the drop of a hat. The individual states' legislatures must be able to control their respective Senators.
In addition, every single American should be required to lawfully declare their Sovereignty, and be responsible for it. We have to make sure that all American Citizens are properly educated as to their individual responsibility to uphold their own freedom and sovereignty.
Well I follow some of what you are saying but then other not sure. Like when the box should be drawn in red or black but I liked the last part. Boxing up "'their" info to remove it from OUR documents.
I know when some of the people are taking in their papers to file for the common Law grand juries the clerks keep putting CASE NUMBERS on them. They are supposed to be filed in MISC without numbers. Now that you mention it we could BOX up their numbers. lololololololololl...........
Hey what about if we BOX up the judges signature on his order and send it back in. That means the judge didn't sign it..... TOO FUNNY!!!
Rosanna Miller ... "I know when some of the people are taking in their papers to file for the common Law grand juries the clerks keep putting CASE NUMBERS on them."
My object in litigation is to keep my Claim distinct from theirs. So, I want a separate case number. While merely indicating relevance to their case without allowing its specifics to contaminate mine, I reference their case Black Boxed as a remote, isolated document.
Altering their documents is both unlawful and illegal. My highest concern is to stay sincerely and meticulously ... Lawful.
interesting. Let's think about this. I do know anything in a BOXED OUTLINE is EXCEMPT from the document and NOT a part it and has NO attachment or confirmation to it. Anything boxed in gives NO validity or acceptance to the document.
I also know you are not supposed to use RED to sign your name if you are GIVING consent to the document like your own Affidavit. Do not use red. It is supposed to be blue (and I think purple is ok)
I liked your "ENCLOSURE" definition. The private jurisdiction of your signature stays in the box so it does not bleed over as part of the document. Therefore one is not signing to accepting the document. I believe this confirms the BOX theology.
Now to the RED part. Should the box be drawn in RED? OR/AND your signature in BLUE?
Are we signing our name in the BOX to keep it private for ourselves and exempt from part of the document? Or simply to show we are NOT giving our consent to the document?
HUMmmmmmmm back to the drawing board....
I do believe you should sign your name in the BOX so you do NOT consent to the document they want you to agree to.. I would say SCRIBBLE non-assumpsit, under duress/coercion/threat, 307, do not consent, etc etc all over the form OUTSIDE the box on the document. This makes those words "part of the document". and PLEASE use blue or black ink with those words. That covers it both ways.
RED INK??? Gonna have to check on that. Can you find any more info on the red box? The problem is we don't always have RED ink with us. I was threatened at the court house to sign a form or the baliff said he would have to take me to jail. I had two witnesses with me. I didn't have RED with me but I wrote the above terms all over the form. Blue or black is always around so I am guessing it isn't the red as important as keeping your signature separate of the page.
BTW if you do this around an officer, baliff, clerk, etc they are not going to question this. They won't know what you are doing. It will only be discovered and honored when it gets back to CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS.... that is when you will win.....
I should clarify this because this matters as to what they are presenting to you.
The box outline on the voter cancellation should NOT be signed in the box. You are NOT removing your registration that way. YOu need to sign your signature OUTSIDE the box if you really want to remove your voting registration. Or submit a affidavit of your own.
I hope that makes sense. I do know what I am trying to say.
Yup, you are correct!
You sign with blue ink, with a red thumb print of your right thumb. Do the box first, reserve your rights with UCC 1-308 (not 307), and and UCC 1-103.6, Without Prejudice, Non-Assumpsit. Google all of this, learn it well, or a judge may nail you to the wall if he asks you questions and you don't know what you are talking about. It just happened to me the last time I was in court. Then the judge CLAIMED to not know what I was talking about. How stupid does he think I am? He was lying!
The LAST thing you do is sign it, to prevent them from jerking it away from you before you reserve your rights.
Get a red ink pad. The red ink signifies blood. The logic is that there may be other Wayne Bachmanns, but there will only be one Wayne Bachmann with that right thumb print. This is the process that was used before Notary Publics came into being. Do the box first, signature last. Practice it to get it down. This is the old Common Law practice.
Carry a bottle of squirt orange hand cleaner and a towel/rag/TP with you. It is messy. I don't bother with the process very often any more, now that I am using Uniform Bonding Code process, but that is an individual choice.
If text is enclosed, that's a unique self-standing document. An endorsement within the enclosure then, is agreement to that content alone. What is without the enclosure is held apart from all context within.
I agree with what you just wrote. Did you think I meant differently????
without tone of voice it gets very hard to understand sometimes....
I was just clarifying.
I need to mention the "endorsement within the enclosure" could be to REFUTE the document because it is SEPARATE of the original document because it is in a box.
Like if you are issued a ticket and you refute it you box outline your signature because you do NOT consent and you don't want to sign the ticket.
Come to think about it if I agreed to a document I would just sign it and NOT box my signature. That wouldn't make sense to box it.
There is something I do need for the oral arguments I have on April 15 over my civil wrongful death suit for my Mom's case
1. I can't find any case opinions (NOT law) where they decided a case can be taken away from a plaintiff and given to someone else and made plaintiff. (7th amendment right)
2. Where the judge is allowed to dismiss a CWD w/o letting the jury decide after seeing the evidence if there is "probable cause" to convict.
3. How a applicant/plaintiff can be refused ALL subpoenas, public records, Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Laws, refused "in camera" while they reviewed documents to make these egregious decisions
I just can't find any cases where they can hang their hat on. Please let me know if you find anything. This is important.
my heart goes out to you Rosanne. My mother died February the 10th this year I was her care giver as well as eldest son then my younger brother stops her estate from being able to pay off her bills as he submitted an old Will to Amerititle stopping any moneys from her account,
and as executor I have to drag him into probate then a civil court of action as Her bills were considerable and im left to pay them. Greed, something some people in this nation have developed very well.