Everything throughout this page has been color-coordinated to hopefully help make it easier to learn. All text immediately relevant to the evidence has been highlighted in red. Blue text indicates relevant, unbiased case points of importance. Purple text contains direct reference. Green text contains a link to the source of the information contained within that text. All the references contained throughout this page will be listed along with their source links at the bottom of this page. Contact: Distance@WildWillpower.org
This webpage examines eleven pieces of evidence including firsthand testimony by Alexandra “Distance Everheart” Wilson regarding CASE NO. TR14-4352, and is to be submitted to the Nevada County Sheriff alongside an affidavit calling for the Citizen’s Arrest of Mr. G. Sean Metroka under California Penal Code section 837 which reads:
“A private person may arrest another:
For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.”
What is an Affidavit?
“A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath.”
According to 2012 Supreme Court ruling The State of Ohio v. Mbodji, in order for a ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ to be performed legally:
“A citizen ‘may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney.‘ A ‘reviewing official’ is a judge, a prosecuting attorney, or a magistrate.”
The evidence throughout this webpage may indicate to The Courts (Grand Jury) that Mr. Sean Metroka‘s actions are in part responsible for civil rights violations I suffered during both the hearing (6-25-14) and trial (7-23-14), and possibly even during those events themselves, as you will witness.
Throughout this website, statutes from the United States Code will be referenced and brought into context.
According to the official website of the Office of Law Revision Counsel (OLRC), the United States Code is:
“a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States“
“Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized; as opposed to special. Principal or central; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, asopposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole, or directed to the whole; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.
“Fixed, enduring, abiding, not subject to change. Generally opposed in law to “temporary.”
According to the “About the Code and Website“ section on the official website of OLRC:
“Under 1 U.S.C. 204, the matter set forth in a main edition of the Code (together with its current supplement) establishes the law prima facie, except that the text of titles enacted into positive law is legal evidence of the law.“
Black’s Law Legal Dictionary definition of Prima Facie: “At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure ; presumably. A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense.”
According to the “Importance of Positive Law Codification” section of OLCR’s website:
“The Code is useful for researching and proving the general and permanent laws of the United States. Positive law codification improves the usefulness of the Code in a number of significant ways”
The pre-trial hearing for CASE NO. TR14-4352 occurred on the day of Wednesday, June 25th, 2014, at around 10:30 a.m. in response to two separate citations submitted to Ms. Wilson during two separate events by two different Grass Valley, California police officers on both May 17th and May 21st, and was the first encounter that both Mr. G. Sean Metroka and Ms. Wilson had with one another.
Mr. Metroka has been sworn to uphold the position of “Court Executive Officer” of the Superior Courthouse of California County of Nevada.
I was facing two counts of “soliciting” under California State Vehicle Code 22520.5 and one count “unsafe panhandling” under Grass Valley Municipal Code 12.50.030. which are both listed below:
Both of the above codes are enforced with “Constitutional permission” to be so enforced under the rules of Admiralty Law:
“A state court hearing an admiralty or maritime case is required to apply the admiralty and maritime law, even if it conflicts with the law of the state, under a doctrine known as the “reverse-Erie doctrine.” The Erie doctrine, derived from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, directs that federal courts hearing state actions must apply state law. The “reverse-Erie doctrine” directs that state courts hearing admiralty cases must apply federal admiralty law.”
“Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333“
According to the following links on Dun & Bradstreet, the “SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA” and “Superior Court of California” are both registered as “corporations”, which means they operate under the Uniform Commercial Code.
“The Secretary of State’s office is the central filing office for certain financing statements and other lien documents provided for in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Filing with our office serves to perfect a security interest in named collateral and establish priority in case of debtor default or bankruptcy.“
According to Black’s Law legal Dictionary, a “Lien” is defined as:
“A qualified right of property which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or charge or for performance of some act. In every ease in which property, either real or personal, is charged with the payment of a debt or duty, every such charge may be denominated a lien on the property. Whitak. Liens, p. 1. A lien is a charge imposed upon specific property, by which it is made security for the performance of an act Code Civil Proc. Cal.”
According to the California Secretary of State’s “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” agreement for their UCC filing system entitled “UCC Connect“, sections 13, 14, and 20- of which alla must agree to use if choosing to file under the UCC with the Secretary of State:
“13. Indemnification. You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the California SOS, the State of California, its affiliates, and their respective, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, or proceedings, as well as any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of or related to (a) any material posted or otherwise provided by you that infringes any copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, or other intellectual property right of any person or defames any person or violates their rights of publicity or privacy; (b) any misrepresentation made by you in connection with your use of the Site; (c) any violation by you of this Agreement; and (d) any claims brought by other persons or entities arising from or related to your use of the Site, including information obtained through the Site. Indemnification by a federal, state, or local governmental unit is only to the extent allowed by law.
14. Disclaimer. Neither the Secretary of State’s Office nor any division, officer, or employee of the Secretary of State warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information on this web site, and shall not be liable for any losses resulting directly or indirectly from such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. Any person or entity who relies on any information obtained from the web site does so at his or her own risk.
20. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be treated as though it were executed and performed in Sacramento, Sacramento County, California and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California (without regard to conflict of law principles). The language in this Agreement shall be interpreted as to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either party. All legal proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought solely in Sacramento County, California. You expressly submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of said courts and consent to extra-territorial service of process. Should any part of this Agreement be held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed consistent with the applicable law and the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent that anything in or associated with the Site is in conflict or inconsistent with this Agreement, this Agreement shall take precedence…“
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (West, 2014) [page 363], “Conflict of laws” is defined:
“1. A difference between the laws of different states or countries in a case in which a transaction or occurrence central to the case has a connection to two or more jurisdictions. – Often shortened to conflict. Cf. Choice of law.
2. The body of jurisprudence that undertakes to reconcile such differences or to decide what law is to govern in these situations; the principles of choice of law. – Often shortened to conflicts. – Also termed (in international contexts) private international law; international private law.”
Therefore, according the California Secretary of State’s “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” contract agreement, it appears that there is direct intent through their office, under this contract agreement every agency must agree to when filing under the Uniform Commercial Code, to completely dis-acknowledge the United States Code and Laws of the United States should a “Defendant” legally “Reserve their Rights” under Common Law, and thus create a “Conflict of Laws”.
This is because- remember at section 20- the Secretary of State’s “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” contract agreement, reads:
“20. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be treated as though it were executed and performed in Sacramento, Sacramento County, California and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California (without regard to conflict of law principles).“
This could also be read as “without regard to United States Code, the Bill of Rights, or the rights of The People.”
It appears that someone within the agency known as the Superior Court of California County of Nevada, must have signed into contract agreement under California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE”, and therefore knowingly and willingly agreed that they were solely responsible for their choice to utilize the Uniform Commercial Code, and that The State is not to blame.
I suspect that Mr. Metroka is responsible- or knows who is responsible– for choosing to conform to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” contract agreement.
If the party who agreed to these “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” was forced to sign into this agreement due to some sort of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law that was used to threaten their safety, then I believe that an arrest of Mr. Metroka is due in order to find who is responsible for this, and if the agreement to these terms was done by that person’s own free will- without the knowledge of others throughout the County of Nevada Superior Court, then I believe that particular Court Official to be guilty of extortion- in violation of my- and of all peoples’ who pass through those courtroom doors- civil rights for knowingly and voluntarily waiving our civil rights under this “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” contract agreement connected to commercial interest involving contracts overseas- thus forcing everyone into Admiralty Jurisdiction unknowingly and likely unwillingly (had they been informed of their options).
“Any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly the exaction by an officer of money, by color of his office, either when none at all is due, ornot so much is due. or wyhen it Is not yet due. Preston v. Bacon, 4 Conn. 4S0.Extortion consists in any public officer unlawfully taking, by color of his office, fromany person any money or thing of value that is not due to him. or more than his due.”
The California Secretary of State’s Office utilizes the Uniform Commercial Code under agreement with The U.S. Small Business Association’s website:
“UCC is not a federal law, but a product of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute. Both of these organizations are private entities that recommend the adopting of UCC by state governments. State legislatures may either adopt UCC verbatim or may modify it to meet the state’s needs. Once a state’s legislature adopts and enacts UCC, it becomes a state law and is codified in the state’s statutes. All 50 states and territories have enacted some version of UCC.“
According to ‘Regulation of Financial Contracts’ section on the website of the U.S. Small Business Association:
“If you are conducting business transactions outside of your state, such as borrowing money, leasing equipment, establishing contracts and selling goods, you need to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). UCC consists of uniform rules coordinating and simplifying the sale of goods and other commercial transactions throughout the United States.
“Commercial”… “commerce”… hmm…
For small businesses, UCC comes into effect when borrowing money from an out of state lender or negotiating a lien. Here is what you need to know:
UCC comes into effect when negotiating a lien… hmmm…
Borrowing Money: UCC Filing Statements – The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC, as it relates to lending, is a way for each state to have a consistent method of recording the security of a loan. When banks or SBA lenders make secured loans, or loans with collateral, they file a UCC-1 form with the state where the loan agreement is executed. This filing essentially makes the loan security, or collateral, a matter of public record. Without this filing, a lender could run into difficulties, laying claim to the collateral in case of default. Talk to your lender about the process of filing a UCC-1 form.
Securing Liens and the UCC – If your business provides goods or services on credit, Article 9 [“SECURING TRANSACTIONS”] of the UCC provides a means for you to secure payment from your debtor. Visit your state’s website for information on filing a lien or finance statement to ensure payment of credit under these laws.“
More regarding all this soon- but for now- back to the trial:
I went to the Clerk of Court at the Superior Court of California County of Nevada courthouse and had both my pre-trial hearings consolidated so that I would be able to attend one hearing for all three charges rather than having to attend one hearing for each of the separate events. That was convenient and I’m grateful the lady (I’ll have to find a name!) at the desk let me know about this option!
What happened at my pre-trial hearing?
At the beginning of my hearing, Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven asked me which of the following three would be my plea to each of the three charges I was facing:
The options she gave me included:
“Guilty“,”Not guilty“, and
“No Contest“: This type of plea is like saying “all the evidence that was presented that led to these charges are true, however I am certainly not admitting to being guilty (likely because you believe that your perspective needs to be considered and weighed in on, & this is not an open-&-shut case)!”
I responded with something I had been learning to recite so that I would say it properly in court that day:
“Your Honour, before I enter a plea I would like to make The Court aware of the following: I am listed as a “Sovereign Citizen” on The Citizen’s Registry of The United States of America, and under Uniform Commercial Code 1-207, I reserve all my rights- without prejudice- under Common- or Constitutional- Law. That said- the Supreme Court ruled last year that it is legal to record Officers of the Court, and I recorded the events that occurred regarding this trial. I would also like to do an audio recording of today’s hearing for First Amendment reasons.”
What is U.C.C. 1-207, and why did I say all that rather than simply asking if I could record?
(I color-coordinated this section to help others know how to read this code in reference to how I intended it that day.)
[This section has moved to UCC 1-308. Text below is preserved for archival purposes.]
(1) A party who, with explicit “reservation of rights”, performs or promises performance or assents (indicates willful compliance) to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice (aka “pre-judge”) the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice”, “under protest” or the like are sufficient.”
Interpretation of U.C.C. 1-207:
All Superior Courts within the United States operate- by default- under Admiralty- or Maritime- Law, just as all international courts under United States jurisdiction operate under Admiralty Law. The following webpage from USmarshals.gov explains this very clearly, and further evidence is posted below:
“Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law (both substantive and procedural) governing navigation and shipping. Topics associated with this field in legal reference works may include: shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.
Admiralty Law comes into effect when “commerce” is involved… hmmm…. “commercial code”…
But states aren’t “corporations”; Superior Courts would not run on a “commercial code”!!
Actually, Dun & Bradford’s official website proves that the Superior Court of California is, indeed, a corporation:
“The courts and Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. American admiralty law formerly applied only to American tidal waters. It now extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. In such waters admiralty jurisdiction includes maritime matters not involving interstate commerce, including recreational boating.
Regulations are found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supplemental Admiralty Rules take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event of conflict between the two.”
In admiralty law, a maritime lien is a privileged claim upon sea-connected property, such as a ship, for services rendered to, or the injuries caused by that property. In common law, a lien is the right of the creditor to retain the properties of his debtor until the debt is paid.
‘The right of the creditor to retain the properties of his debtor‘; the ‘Admiralty Law‘ our Superior Courts (state & county) are operating under is connected to ‘overseas creditors’; because there is an ‘overseas contract involved’, these courts have ‘Constitutional permission’ to operate under Admiralty Law!”
What is Admiralty Law- and why would that be bad?
But is this truly legal, or has this “bottlenecking” of the Bill of Rights through the enforcement of “forcing the Defendant to call upon a commercial code that party likely has no awareness of existing” just simply a common practice that has never yet been challenged in court???
We’ll get back to that.
Two Elements Present Throughout All Civilized Legal Systems: ‘Remedy and Recourse’
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code each have remedy and recourse. Within the UCC, remedy and recourse can be found in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY: The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possessed, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (Uniform Commercial Code 1-207.7 which moved to 1-308)
It is important to remember when we go into a Court , that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into Court and say, I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, the judge will most likely say, You mention the Constitution again and I’ll find you in contempt of Court! Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: You cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French Gov. and say, I demand my Constitutional Rights? No. The proper answer is THE LAW DOESN’T APPLY TO ME — I’M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged – not under some other jurisdiction.
So in a Uniform Commercial Code Court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 (308). The Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right, and bars it’s assertion at a later date. (Uniform Commercial Code 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early. Further it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation — Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as without prejudice. (Uniform Commercial Code 1-207.4).
Whenever you sign any legal paper, that deals with the Federal Reserve Notes in any way, shape or manner — under your signature write: Without Prejudice Uniform Commercial Code 1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4 that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing without prejudice Uniform Commercial Code1-207 on his statement to the Court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone… The judge knew that the man had NO IDEA what it meant and he lost the case. You MUST know what it means.
When you use without prejudice Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 in connection with your signature, you are saying: I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY. And furthermore, I do not accept that liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes — you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and therefore obligated to obey every statue, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government – federal, state and local.
Unless, of course, a person (such as myself) were to charge the person responsible for committing extortion with
… because the person responsible for signing the “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE” agreement of UCC Connect of the California Secretary of State was committing extortion by knowingly and willfully agreeing to bottleneck peoples’ civil rights behind UCC 1-207, thus depriving them of their rights unless they were to openly call upon this code that they themselves were not even educated regarding the mere existence of within *public schools* even though these are *supposedly* “public laws”.
The Hearing Continued:
As you may recall, I had just performed a “Reservation of Rights” under UCC 1-207 (which of course redirects to 1-308 where it has been moved to), cited The Peoples’ ‘First Amendment Right” to record the court proceedings, and requested to perform an audio recording of the hearing.
Remember, The First Amendment Reads:
In case the above graphic is difficult to read, The First Amendment of The Constitution of United States of America (Section I) reads:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven, replied:
“Hmmmm. I’ve never had that request before- let me go do some research,” Judge Linda Sloven said (possibly not verbatim- but close to). She left the courtroom, and soon returned, saying, “The Executive Administrator of the Superior Court of Nevada County has informed me that it is against this court’s MEDIA POLICY. I’m sorry- but I’m going to have to deny your request.
Note: I never performed a “request”. I stated The Law of the Land and The First Amendment Right was referred to as a “request” using color of law.
Following her explanation, she against asked me how I plea, and I replied, “Your Honour- in all honesty- in order to be accurate- I am going to plea to these charges “Not Applicable” because I have Constitutional Immunity to each of these charges- HOWEVER- if I “MUST” choose only from the choices that you gave me- then “NOT GUILTY” would be the closest to being accurate- however “Not Applicable” is still more accurate.
Judge Linda Sloven informed me that I could “pick up a copy of the “MEDIA POLICY” at the information desk in the next room over after the hearing, so I almost immediately wrote up the following letter. I was quite nervous after having my First Amendment Right denied there in the court room after already dealing with the emotional trauma of having my civil rights violated by the officers prior to this. I accidentally wrote “June Fifth” on the following contract rather than “Twenty-Fifth”- which I am certain had to do with the personal injury against my civil rights which caused me nervous anxiety and affected my ability to focus. HOWEVER- I wrote up the following and went to the Clerk of Court in order to find a “Media Request Application” as Judge Linda Sloven said I could ask for during the hearing, and presented it to the Executive Administrator who brought it to me the policy personally, asking him to sign:
In case the above is difficult to read, here is what the above contract states:
“Alexandra Wilson, on June Fifth, 2014 requested during her hearing to audio record the hearing after reserving her rights- without prejudice- under U.C.C. 1-207- under Common (Constitutional) Law and citing that it was her ‘First Amendment Right’. The Magistrate asked the Executive Officer, and the request was denied ‘under media policy’.”
I left the bottom two lines blank, hoping Mr. Metroka would sign the contract so that I would have confirmation this event occurred. He refused, and told me that “Perhaps the judge will sign it. I was not there.” He also handed me a packet regarding the Courthouse’s official “MEDIA POLICY“, which is presented below.
I let him know that the Supreme Court ruled that we have an unconditional right to record all public officials, and that this policy appeared to be a violation of my civil rights. Mr. Metroka let me know that those rulings “don’t apply here”. I firmly disagreed, and took the “MEDIA POLICY” in order to review the contents.
Next, I went back into the courtroom and waited until all the hearings were over, and then approached Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven– let her know what happened- and asked if she would sign the contract I had written up.
She told me something very close to, “I will tell you what- I cannot sign it- but if you sign it- I will include it in the docket. I didn’t know what a “docket” was, but it sounded good to me if it could be considered proof for later!
After the hearing, I returned to the courthouse and purchased a copy of the docket- which included a copy of my signed letter (above) and also notes from Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven, below:
I also looked up past the past Supreme Court ruling I had referenced regarding filming in court, and found what I was looking for along with several other rulings thanks to this great website that Digital Media Law Project peaceably assembled!:
Notice that we have a “necessary, unconditional, assumed right to record all public officials in all public places”.
As you will notice below, if I were to sign the “MEDIA POLICY” that Mr. Metroka insisted that I needed to sign in order to be able to record, I would have been signing into an Equity Contract that would have given consent to The Court to be able to refuse me from filming or recording for any reason they see fit.
Instead of signing the “MEDIA POLICY” contract, I presented the above rulings within the “evidence page” to be presented during the trial because I had plans to record the event. I also included within the evidence webpage this same “MEDIA POLICY” that Mr. Metroka insisted was necessary for me to sign in order to be able to record the proceedings.
I presented the “MEDIA POLICY” with highlighted sections that seemed rather questionable to me, as well as red circles around sections which I did not choose to agree upon, and instead saw as a clear attempt upon Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. Here is the “MEDIA POLICY” I added into the “evidence webpage” I planned to present at the beginning of the trial before commencing to record:
All references used throughout the above are as follows:
Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) 1-207 and U.C.C. 1-308 can be found within the following two websites, & are each referenced & & written below in full, within context for public benefit: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ucc/ucc1.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308 The following two website links contain all text throughout The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
What does entering a plea of “No Contest” mean?:
Black’s Law on ‘Maritime Lein’:
USmarshals.gov on ‘Admiralty Law throughout the United States’:
The above USmarshals.gov link references this page, which explains the significance of the “gold-fringed flag’ that places people ‘underAdmiralty’:
Here’s the webpage that got me ‘tearing up the carpet’ in researching all this:
Digital Media Law Project on ‘Supreme Court rulings regarding filming public officials’:
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office on Uniform Commercial Code:
Black’s Law definition of Lien:
Article 9 “SECURING TRANSACTIONS” in UCC, as referenced on the U.S. Small Business Adminstration’s website:
“Regulation of Financial Contracts” on U.S. Small Business Adminstration’s website regarding UCC:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
United States Code Title 1 Section 204:
Black’s Law on “Extortion”: