Sovereign Under the Radar

[triumphguy2]

Sovereign Under the Radar

I came across this unreported opinion yesterday following a mention on Kevin Underhill’s ‘Lowering the Bar’ blog. I don’t know if California unreported decisions are available on the web but the Lexis cite is In re Marriage of Ross (June 7, 2007), 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4587, DCA 4, Div. 1. The sovereign appellant’s reply brief is at 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 48515; 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 605 (January 11, 2007). The opening brief is not available.

This case had some of everything:
1. Common law grant deeds supersede everything: “Appellants Common Law Grant Deed supersede mortgages and equity liens and forbids the presence of any Judge or Lawyer from participating or presiding or the practice of any equity law as stated in United States Supreme case Rich v. Braxton; 158 U.S. 375 specifically forbids judges from invoking equity jurisdiction to remove common law liens or similar "clouds on title."

2. Allodial title/patents are supreme.

3. Wife’s attorneys ('agents') are not licensed because they only had a ‘bar card’, not a license, and the California Bar Association does not exist: “The California State Bar Association does not officially exist in the State of California…The Respondents agents have no documentation in this court of record that the California Bar Association even exists…The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated a long time ago "The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State…Since the Respondents agents have failed to document they are licensed or have authority in the State of California, therefore said agents have no license or authority.”

4. Family Code is not law: “The Respondent has failed to respond regarding the fact that the California codes are not laws…Respondents agent says, "This argument does not deserve a response.” By the due process of law, no objection, rebuttal or proof that the California Codes are law they have agreed that the California Codes are not Law…The family codes were never made law by the statutes of California…As a fact of law, all twenty-nine (29) divisions of the California code are [invalid].”

5. Corporation sole: “The fact is the Court was in error because Appellant did not violate the code, because Appellant was exempt when doing business as normal under the code…Appellant was denied his right in establishing a sole corporation named "the BodyBest TM Unitarian Church" and titling his separate private patented land in Allodial title property rights into the sole corporation. The Appellant has clearly documented doing business as normal in asset protection against creditors and is 100% exempt under the law.” [Mr. Ross was the presiding elder of the BodyBest Unitatrian Church].

6. His chiropractic practice cannot be community property because his wife is not licensed to practice and California community property law applies only to real property: “If Respondent has a community property interest in the value, that would mean that Petitioner/Respondent has a "Community Interest" as a licensed Doctor of Chiropractic in the business…The fact is the statutes can only dictate the real property rights. "No unlicensed individual may own a chiropractic practice.”

7. The UCC reigns supreme: “Appellant has the superior perfected claim as filed and recorded with a filing of a UCC Financing Statement…The UCC's are the supreme codified law of the planet, and all other forms of law are encompassed by it and included in it pursuant to UCC 1-103. The courts of the land have acknowledge they do not have the authority or jurisdiction to amend, alter or nullify any of the Articles of the UCC, which are administrative legislated law.”

8. And so does the Northwest Ordinance and the common law: “…the Appellant and the Court have no jurisdiction due to the violation of the mandate for common law venue and jurisdiction pursuant to and including…Article Three Section Two of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787...Under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America [Note: small u]…Appellant is entitled to a common law trial by the jury…”

I have no idea what happened in subsequent proceedings in the trial court (San Diego North County) but I suspect Ms. Ross continued to have problems collecting from her ex.

[triumphguy2]

The only link I have is to the Lexis cite: https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve ... e382ab7be2

[Famspear]

1. Common law grant deeds supersede everything: “Appellants Common Law Grant Deed supersede mortgages and equity liens and forbids the presence of any Judge or Lawyer from participating or presiding or the practice of any equity law.

No. And that's not what the Supreme Court stated in Rich v. Braxton.

Allodial title/patents are supreme.

In context, this is meaningless gibberish. I hold a fee simple interest in the real estate that serves as my home. The title I hold can be described as "allodial," and not "tenurial." But there is nothing magical about my ownership of my property that will prevent me from losing that property if I default on a mortgage, or if the government takes my property through eminent domain powers by following due process of law, etc.

Wife’s attorneys ('agents') are not licensed because they only had a ‘bar card’, not a license, and the California Bar Association does not exist....

Wrong.

The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated a long time ago "The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State…

No, the United States Supreme Court has never stated that.

Family Code is not law...

Wrong.

.....regarding the fact that the California codes are not laws…

Wrong. The California codes are statutes. They're laws.

Corporation sole: “The fact is the Court was in error because Appellant did not violate the code, because Appellant was exempt when doing business as normal under the code…Appellant was denied his right in establishing a sole corporation named "the BodyBest TM Unitarian Church" and titling his separate private patented land in Allodial title property rights into the sole corporation. The Appellant has clearly documented doing business as normal in asset protection against creditors and is 100% exempt under the law.” [Mr. Ross was the presiding elder of the BodyBest Unitatrian Church].

Wrong. Bloviating gibberish.

His chiropractic practice cannot be community property because his wife is not licensed to practice and California community property law applies only to real property...

Wrong. Complete and utter nonsense. In Texas, for example, an unlicensed person, as a spouse of a licensed CPA, may own an interest in the CPA firm to the extent of his/her community property interest. Same for a law firm. I suspect the same is the law for California.

The UCC reigns supreme...

In context, no. The UCC does not "reign supreme."

The "UCC's" are the not the "supreme codified law of the planet", and all other forms of law are NOT "encompassed by it" or "included in it pursuant to UCC 1-103".

[the rest of the gibberish has been snipped]

The quoted material was not from any court decision.

[Gregg]

And so does the Northwest Ordinance

California was part of the Northwest territory? Who knew?

[fortinbras]

The decision is also in Westlaw as 2007 WL 1632365

additionally it is available for free on Google Scholar --- but with the case name screwed up because someone at Google couldn't bother parsing the caption:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2,21

also free at:
http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article10906.html

[triumphguy2]

I was not aware of the existence of Google Scholar. Thank you.