1.

JohnHenryHill · May 29, 2016 - 4:19 PM · Reply→

Dear Andrew-William, 5/29/2016

You may have noticed that I have not posted any essays for a long time. As stated
in “About Me…” page on this LAW BLOG, I began my adult careers first as a
doctor and professor; then medical researcher; and finally medical programmer.
American history for me was always a hobby which I began at about age 10. It
was not until many years ago that I even considered doing serious research on
American history, primarily the U.S. Civil War since some major battlefields
were only a 15- 45 minute drive from my Virginia home. A patient of mine (a
professor of American history at a university in Virginia) urged me to earn a
Ph.D., as we often discussed (or argued) about Civil War battles, the causes of the
war, etc.) But I so too busy with my career and family. But I took his advice in
one area: as I traveled throughout Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and
Pennsylvania to go white-water canoeing and camping, I would stop at almost
every house to ask if they had any old diaries that I could photocopy.
Surprisingly, most of the people that still possessed these old diaries gave me
permission to photocopy them; but to keep them anonymous.

I later moved to the Boston area to do medical research in hospital and in private
health research companies – which I had also had done for some companies in the
Washington, DC area. Then personal computers were invented. However, the
hospital and various companies’ programmers never produce what I had asked
them to program for my research – so I decided to take courses in software
programming in my “spare time” and was soon writing programs for own
research. Soon after, other medical researchers began requesting software
programs for THEIR research projects. By pure luck, I had created a new career
for myself. (And make NO mistake about it: any successful person who is telling
the TRUTH from his heart and soul will tell you that their success was 90% pure
luck – and only 10% or less education, studying and hard work!)

HOWEVER, I am NOT a lawyer. I despise lawyers (bar-certified attorneys) even

though I still get requests from many lawyers for assistance. But under U.S. law, I
can NOT give legal advice to non-lawyers. Even though I retired early and have
lived outside the U.S. (in Ukraine and Crimea) for almost 10 years, the U.S. has a
“long reach” – even into Europe, from which they have extradicted people
(usually computer “hackers”), bringing them to the U.S.. for trial. And if you have
real my essay about the “Donuts and U.S. Customs & Immigration Service”
(CIS). you will note that I have been on some type of DHS “list” for years. DHS
agents and FBI agents used to “visit” me at my office and even my home to ask
questions – but I always refused to even speak with them! (I would call the town
police (very small town far west of Boston, Mass) and request some police
officers come to my home to remove some trespassers. Being a very small town, I
knew all of the police officers and the chief of police – so, to the great dismay of
these federal agents, the police always came and told these agents to “get the Hell
out of here or you will be arrested.) Consequently, I want NO future contacts with
any DHS agents or other U.S. government personnel. And for all I know YOU
might actually be a federal agent (DHS, FBI, etc.) trying to “entrap” me (as has
happened before in-person here in Europe and over the Internet – but I trace the
Internet contact via their IP addresses, etc. to get their names, home and work
addresses, occupations, employers and all other data about them).

The only INFORMATION I will give you is:

(1) Watch the video on http://www.YouTube.com called, “Dont Talk to
Police”, a discussion between a Virginia law professor and a police officer (senior
detective, who was at the time the video was made was also a 3rd-year law
student and probably a lawyer by now.) Go online to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc to watch this video.

(2) Other than that, I suggest that you read my “Accepted for Value” (A4V)
article several times more, as well as other articles on my Law Blog (and other
web sites about the REAL law) which may be more applicable to your case,
especially the ones about JURISDICTION and the few about “International
Commercial Liens” (by which you can “freeze” ALL the assets of ANYONE who
has “damaged” you – and even a police officer abusing your rights is considered
“damage” or “harm” under the law – by a few hours of paperwork and
WITHOUT the need for a lawyer. Indeed, you should NOT use a lawyer for 2
reasons: (1) your lawyer will NOT know what you are talking about, since this is
not taught in American law schools = so he will tell you that it is “not a good
idea” or some other bullshit; and (2) You would need a lawyer specializing in
International Commercial Law and Trusts – and these dudes charge thousands of
dollars per hour! But you can do it yourself in a few hours, then pay only for
certified mailings to each person, ads/announcements about the lien in the local
newspapers of that person(s) every day for about 3 weeks, also sending a copy of
that newspaper with your ad/announcement – and you write on the front page of
EACH copy mailed to that person “See announcement on Page XX circled in red
ink”, presuming that you have circled that ad/announcement in red ink – the color
is not important. (These ads/announcements are under law you providing
information to the public; so if ANYONE tells you it is “harassment” or whatever
OR that if you do not stop, you will get go to jail, that is COMPLETE
NONSENSE and totally false. Plus you can then add THAT interfering person to
the lien! You will need to go to COURT only ONCE to file the original sworn,
notarized “Affidavit of Truth” – and if the Clerk of the Court refuses to accept it,
You need simply write on the Affidavit of Truth, “FILE ON DEMAND” and the
Clerk under law MUST accept and file it. If the clerk still refuses, you simply add
the clerk’s name and what occurred on the back of the affidavit which then adds
them to the lien for the same amount of money (usually $50 Million). And if
ANYONE else tries to interfere with you (for example, a lawyer, judge, the police
or ANYONE, you simply repeat the process you did for the clerk), which then
add those people to the lien! (In fact, most lawyers and lower-court judges know
NOTHING about “International Commercial Liens”, so you will probably WIN
BY DEFAULT if they do not respond in the time you give them (usually 7
working days). And under law, no response from them within 7 days means
(under law) that they have agreed with everything you wrote in your notarized
affidavit. And NO court in the world can intervene or dismiss your lien on them (I
suggest $50 Million per person) for the simple reason that, since they “agreed”,
there is NO controversy. And if there is no controversy, no court can intervene!!!

OF GREAT IMPORTANCE: The one sentence that MUST in your “Affidavit of

Truth” is: “I assume full and unlimited commercial liability for any statements or
claims in this affidavit that are proved to be false.” (You must use these words
exactly as written here.)
WHY?
A Maxim of Law states: “Claims made without accountability are void.”
(The claimant/plainfiff – YOU – must put himself at financial risk by assuming
full and unlimited commercial liability for any claims proved to be false. The
accused SHOULD do the same in his REBUTTAL as his “Affidavit of Truth”; if
NOT, he loses ALL credibility under law. It was presumed that the person who
put all his money at risk would be the one telling the truth.)

Such liens are valid for 99 years – or forever if you put them into a legal TRUST.
Further, should you wish to REALLY punish them severely (I went this far only
once, all other liens settled by negotiations instead), you can register the lien with
the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – which automatically
converts that lien into a “negotiable instrument” (that is, like MONEY) – and you
can sell that lien to any investor, large bank, investment company, etc. – but they
usually will pay you between 1-3% of the nominal value of the lien. However, for
every person for which you create a lien, 1-3 percent of $50 Million is $500,000
to $1,500,000 – rather good pay for about 8-10 hours total of work (including
writing your “Affidavit of Truth” (only 1-2 pages long), travel to post offices, fees
for ads/announcements, etc.) And if there are originally 3 people who have
“harmed” you, you will need a separate notarized “Affidavit of Truth” for each of
the original people. That makes it $50 million x 3 people = $150 Million; then
when sold for 1-3%, you get between $4.5 Million to $13.5 Million in CASH
(Tax Free, since it is for “damages”; similar to an insurance company paying
you). And ANYONE who attempted to interfere (lawyers, judges, etc) who is
added to each lien multiples that amount!

My best “International Commercial Lien” was originally against 6 CIS agents

who, because upon returning from Europe I made a JOKE at “Passport Control”
at Logan Airport in Boston (there is an essay on my LAW BLOG about it), six
armed, uniformed CIS agents (pistols drawn and pointed at me at the baggage
claim area) took me to an interrogation room and questioned me for more than 6
hours; refused to allow me to contact my lawyer; made all kinds of threats and
insult; tore my baggage apart – even the linings and steel handles for pulling a bag
with wheels; took my mobile phone and laptop computer apart, etc. Except for my
request to call my lawyer, I refused to talk with them. I said absolutely
NOTHING after that, until they released me 6 hours later, when I said to them
“Thank you, gentlemen.” None responded with their own “Affidavit of Truth”
within the 7 days I gave them, so they had lost by default. I then converted it into
a commercial lien, which “froze” all of their current and future assets for 99 years.
All their bank accounts, pay checks, etc. were “frozen”; plus if they tried to sell a
car (to buy a new one), their house or anything else, they could NOT do so – since
ALL these assets were “frozen” also. Six (6) different lawyers tried to intervene,
then 2 judges and 4 other CIS agents. The 6 original liens for $50 Million per
person) became liens against 18 people for $50 Million each: total of $900
Million. I did register these with the SEC and could have sold them for between
$9 Million to $27 Million CASH (Tax Free) to any large investment company
(and I informed all of them that I might sell them), but after about 2 years they
gave up, apologized to me in-person and by letter, and paid for all of my expenses
for the process I went through. I was never again harassed at ANY U.S. airport
after that! I then dismissed my lien against all these folks.

The information about the “International Commercial Lien” Process (CAP) – very
ancient (used for trade disputes around the Mediterranean Sea even before the
Roman Empire existed) but still in effect today – was called the “Poor Man’s
Road to Justice”. And do NOT worry about any lawyers or lower-court judges.
The “International Commercial Lien” Process (CAP) is extra-judicial or non-
judicial, meaning it is NOT part of any legal system. And if they DO reply to your
original “Affidavit(s) of Truth” with their own sworn, notarized “Affidavit(s) of
Truth” with the 7 days you stated, you will NOT go to a regular court. You will
settle it in a Common Law court, in which YOU act like the judge, no lawyers can
represent anyone (the people “present” themselves; a lawyer “re presents” you in
a normal court (meaning you are considered mentally incapable under law to
speak for yourselves, so your lawyer presents you again to the court as your
“guardian”. And, unless the people request a jury of 12 people randomly selected,
under the Common Law YOU are also the ONLY one who can make any
decisions or rulings because it is YOUR court.

As already stated, since YOU are the CLAIMANT (Plaintiff), the defendants
(opponents) MAY request a jury to act as the TRIBUNAL (decider of facts and
law – who issue a verdict and decides any penalties as money). NO lawyers are
allowed in a Common Law court, unless they are also one of the defendants (in
which case they may testify ONLY about themself) Thus, either YOU act as the
tribunal in your court OR a jury acts as the TRIBUNAL in your court – the
“judge” merely acts like a clerk and can issue NO rulings and can make NO
decisions. Finally, the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal operating under
Common Law is absolutely final (where either the plaintiff (YOU) by your initial
claim (if they file a case against you) by counter-claim (as a sworn, notarized
Affidavit of Truth”) OR a JURY acts as the tribunal. (NOTE: YOU MUST BE
THE CLAIMANT or Plaintiff in a Common Law court if you absolutely want to
win.) Best of all, the decision by the TRIBUNAL (either YOU or the JURY) can
NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or any other court in the
world. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior authority of a true
“Court of Record”, meaning a Common Law court. Whether it be an appellate or
supreme court – including the U.S. Supreme Court! – NO court can overturn the
judgment of a “Court of Record” (Common Law court) tribunal.

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law
only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the
world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as
conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts
an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v.
BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Note the YEAR of this U.S. Supreme Court ruling is 1973, so do NOT let anyone
tell you any bullshit, such as Common Law courts no longer exists or are no
longer applicable.

Again, do NOT worry about any lawyers or lower-court judges. If a lawyer

speaks on another person behalf in a Common Law court, tell him to “Shut up!”,
then have him removed from the room. They will have NO idea what you are
doing or talking about! The judge will try to threaten or bluff you. But eventually
he may consult with a judge on a U.S. Court of Appeals, who actually know this
stuff (as do the justice on the U.S. Supreme Court).

HOW can I tell you all this, without violating the law against “practicing law
without a license”???? Because the Common Law and the International
Commercial Lien Process are OUTSIDE of the statutory legal system, so that
prohibition does NOT apply here.

Some final words (copied and pasted):

The topic of JURISDICTION has filled numerous volumes and is too complex to
discuss here. Suffice it to say that there are two relevant ancient maxims in law,
“If you fail to object, you have consented.” and “A presumption NOT rebutted
becomes a fact in law.” for that particular case currently before any court. It is a
matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a “court of record”, which by
definition means that the court must proceed according to the Common Law
(NOT statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the
prior agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed
according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is
to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but hidden)
purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the administrative-
statutory court offers the “Defendant” three choices for pleading (guilty, not
guilty, nolo contendre). But each of these three choices leads to the same
jurisdiction, namely statutory jurisdiction, NOT Common Law jurisdiction. That
is to say, in an administrative-statutory jurisdiction, the question to be decided is
whether or not the statute was violated; NOT whether another man suffered injury
and the Common Law violated. In a true “Court of Record” (a Common Law
court – a true judicial court), the man brought before the tribunal is called the
“Accused”. And he may plead using the term “Innocent”, since under Common
Law, the accused is “innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a
jury of his peers.” Further, by filing a counter-claim challenging the jurisdiction
of the court, the “accused” (called the “defendant” by the administrative-statutory
court), the accused can become the “plaintiff” with the judge and court personnel
becoming the “defendants”. And under Common Law the plaintiff, the man as a
sovereign can preside over his own court it becomes YOUR court in which YOU
(or if the judge against whom you issued our counter-claim requests, a jury of 12
people) act as the Tribunal (decider of facts and law, thus BOTH judge and jury).
The judge becomes merely an administrator in YOUR court and is NOT allowed
to make any rulings or impose sanctions (such as fines or detention). If the judge
decides to issue rulings or sanctions, YOU as the tribunal can simply written
judicial orders (called “writs”) to invalidate the judge’s actions. The new
defendant’s – the judge and other court personnel – sole option is to request a jury
to act as the tribunal (decider of facts and law). Thus, either you act as the tribunal
in your court or a jury acts as the tribunal in your court. Finally, the judgment of a
“Court of Record” tribunal operating under Common Law is absolutely final
(where either the plaintiff by counter-claim or a jury acts as the tribunal) and can
NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or constitutional in the land.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior authority of a true “Court
of Record”. Whether it be an appellate or supreme court – including the U.S.
Supreme Court! – NO court can overturn the judgment of a “Court of Record”
tribunal.

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law
only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the
world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as
conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts
an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v.
BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

“We [the Supreme Court and all inferior courts] have no more right to decline the
exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The
one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” (Cohen vs. Virginia, 6
Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); also see: U.S. vs Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d
392, at pg. 406).

AND
AFFIDAVITS and OATHS: QUOTES

(mostly from my essay: “DONUTS, CUSTOMS-IMMIGRATION SERVICE

CIS) and COMMERCIAL LIENS 2/1/2015”)

Under the ancient Maxim of Law, “Claims made without accountability are void.”
(In order to have any credibility, the claimant must put himself at risk by
assuming full and unlimited commercial liability for any claims proved to be
false. In fact, in the Common Law and Commercial Law (as opposed to statutory
law as legislated acts), the more one places himself at risk in any claim, the
greater the presumption that his claim is truthful.) In other words, should these 6
men be able to refute my claims by their sworn affidavits, backed up by affidavits
from other witnesses and such evidence as airport audio and/or video tapes, I
would be financially “screwed” for life.

Applicable MAXIMS of Law are: (a Maxim of Law is automatically accepted as

fact and the truth in ALL courts and can NOT be questioned or challenged)

A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.
A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

(This is the reason that under the Common Law in America and guaranteed by the
4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, NO arrest or search warrant can be
issued unless a signed affidavit sworn as the truth under oath (a contract), along
with some objective evidence of a crime (“probable cause”) is submitted to a
court, after which a judge, also acting under oath, may issue the warrant with his
signature. As agents of the government, both the police officer and the judge are
protected from civil suits by “limited commercial immunity” granted by statutes
and thereby relieved of “full and unlimited commercial liability” by the
commercial bonds purchased on their behalf by the government. However, this
limited immunity is valid only as long as they did not exceed the powers of office
lawfully granted to them.)

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”

An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.

An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.
“He, who does not object, consents.”
“Truth stands supreme.”
“In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established
by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation.”
“There is no stronger bond between men than an oath.”
“They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of
those who receive it.”
“An oath is a contract in law.”
“An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”
While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses
by default. (The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.)
and most importantly
”All are equal under the Law.” (judges, police, etc. as MEN have NO extra rights)

Best wishes and good luck!

JHH