Subject: PLEASE FORWARD TO CALIFORNIA'S CHIEF JUSTICE, ETC....FOR DENOVO WARRANT ENFORCEMENTS...
Your Honor;
I hope you will act, DENOVO, today. Thusly, enforcing these 2004-present warrants (if not 1988-present) and prevent further acts of "Civil and World War Production" upon the citizens of California. Its imperative that our judicial officials (and elected legislators) be, at least, educated, knowledgeable of the basics of inheritance and insurance law, without which they cannot fulfill their Scientific Minimum Civic Duties (as adults), much less their judicial duties (as Judges, Legislators, or Senators). To do otherwise is to negligently participate in the further criminal, unqualified, occupation of our government offices (in the 2020 elections) and the expanding of the Civil and World War this produces upon the people's of our State, Nation, and World.
As detailed afore (below), the country (and State) are in warring disarray regarding the "RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY" (A TAX/FRANKPENCE PAID BENEFIT/RIGHT, DETAILED IN AETICLE 18 OF THE 1776 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; AS WELL AS A12-1777-ARTICLES:&A3S2P3-&-A6'
-1787-U.S. CONSTITUTION)...
.......IT IS, PRIMARILY, VIA ARTICLE 6 OF THE 1787 U. S. CONSTITUTION, THAT I PRAY (LEGALLY DEMAND) THAT YOU WILL EXERCISE YOUR DENOVO, JUDICIAL REVISION, AUTHORITY AND ELIMINATE THIS DANGEROUS SOURCE OF CIVIL/WORLD WAR PRODUCTION FROM OUR STATE...Your oath to "support and defend the U. S. Constitution", being"bound thereby, no laws[precedential or legislative] to the contrary withstanding", in particular....
In California, as well as the rest of the States, [Article 1, Section 10 (A1S10) of the 1787 U. S. Constitution having prohibited "Stated making any laws impairing the obligations of contracts"], the organic acts requiring all States to "conform to the provisions of said 1787 U. S. Constitution", any legislation that is constructed/interpreted to do so, is null and void, an act of pretended authority (18USCS2381, etc.)....AND, RESULTANTLY, THE DUTY OF EVERY JUDGE TO REVISE, UPON KNOWLEDGE THEREOF (A6S1-3)...
As "contracts/agreements" are the fundamental basis of human interactions, where there are unresolved errors regarding ansuch contract, the fundamental stability of anything based thereupon, society itself, crumbles to the ground, preventably, a "heaping mess" of ever worsening pretenses and confusions (rackets, at best), fraudulently-claiming "contractual integrity", but, unable to compete with the accelerated accumulation rates of their theftful competitors. Allbeit true, that adherance to the physical precision of laws and contracts, builds "pyramids that survive their creators, severalfold", the "paper mache of burning man festivals" and theft via fraud is only intended to last until the "perpetrators have left the building" (with the entrance fees), at most.
Relatedly, while few, confronted with the evidence, are likely to conclude that "the denial of the benefit of trial by jury" shall ever be a lawful endeavor; nor that "trials by jury" are, in reprovable-fact, a benefit (like medical, car, or life insurance); IT REMAINS, THAT FEWER AND FEWER OF OUR CITIZENRY ARE EVER "CONFRONTED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE".
From the "proven to be fraudulent representations of the law" in the 1940s "Dart's Code of Louisiana", to the juryless proceedings that result, striking motions and petitions from the record "at will" (without the benefit of trial by jury to determine the error or accuracy thereof); it's the stability of accuracy, the truth, and the instability of error, fraud/criminalty, that makes the difference. Without this stability of accuracy, via educational, publishing, and every other mode of action or communication, it's impossible that anything but net-worse, criminal, conditions can result,; preventable debt, death, and war.
Where probate is concerned, being derived from the equal-rights-providing "California Civil Code of 1872" (primarily, providing, via provisions as "it's the duty of probate courts to determine the decedent's intentions and, abidingly, distribute any and all of their properties, accordingly"; that probates "EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE THE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT", MADE, IN PART, BY THE DECEDENT VIA A WILL/TESTAMENT, REQUIRING ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT'S CONCURRENCE/BINDING-THEMSELVES-THERETO, AGREEINGLY, AS WITH ANY OTHER CONTRACT, THEREAFTER, AND, UPON SUCH AN INTENDED-RECIPIENT'S AGREEMENT/BINDING/EFFECTIVE-SIGNATURE, TO BE ENFORCED AS ANY OTHER CONTRACT; and, generally, where there is/was no such will/testament, to equally divide the properties, upon equal concurrence/agreement/bindings/effective-signatures by the effectively-intended/intestate-recipients, and distribute the properties accordingly). California Acts 3/14/1885, 3/18/1885, etc., creating provisions upon which Sections 1080-82 are/were based, including provisions for NOTICE, APPEARANCE, DEFAULT, ETC., INCLUDING TRIAL BY JURY, CIVILLY, GOVERNED BY THE CODE OF CIVIL PRACTICE VIA SUBSECTION 1230-33, ETC. [FURTHER CONFIRMED BY CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE, SECTION 7000, 7001, 7250-C, ETC.] [[AS CA. PROBATE CODE, SECTION 7000, PROVIDES THAT "DECEDENT PROPERTIES TRANSFER AT DEATH, TO THEIR INTENDED RECIPENTS, TESTATE OR INTESTATE....CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY, IF NOT ENTIRELY BEYOND DOUBT, ALL MEAURES LEGALLY-CONSIDERED/TRIED-BY-JURY-UPON-ANY-OBJECTIONS-WHATSOEVER, THIS PROVISION MAKES ANY/ALL MATTERS LAWFULLY-ENTERED-INTO-OR-REMAINING-IN-PROBATE, TESTATE OR INTESTATE, BEYOND THE TIME LIMITS OF INTENDED-RECIPIENTS' LEGALLY-BINDING/AGRREEING TO THE PROVISIONS THEREOF, TESTATE OR INTESTATE, AS THE CASE MAY BE; TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN VIA FRAUD AND UNLAWFULLY POSSESSED VIA CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE....SECTION 7001'S PROVISIONS BEING LAWFULLY/CONSTITUTIONALLY CAPABLE OF ALLOWING NO SUCH PROBATE, BEYOND THESE LIMITS, WHERE ANYSUCH DECEDENT PROPERTIES ARE TESTATE OR INTESTATE, BUT, BEFORE INTENDED RECIPIENTS HAVE LAWFULLY-AGREED/BOUND-THEMSELVES TO ALL SUCH TESTATE OR INTESTATE PROVISIONS...AS, AFTER THEY HAVE THUSLY BOUND THEMSELVES/AGREED, A CONTRACT HAS BEEN CREATED AND PROPERTIES HELD INVOLUNTARILY TO SUCH CONTRACTUAL OWNERS' AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN STOLEN/ILLEGALLY-POSSESED...JURY TRIAL REQUIRING, UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL R.I.C.O. ACTS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL]]
THUSLY, THE EXPLICIT STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, BEFORE PROBATE (SECTION 371); AFTER PROBATE (SECTION 382); REGARDING CONTESTED CLAIMS (SECTION 928); REGARDING DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS (SECTION 1081); VIA THE APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL CIVIL PRACTICE PROCEEDURES (SECTION 1000); RESTORING INCOMPETENTS TO CAPACITY (SECTIONS 1452-1471); TERMINATING CONSERVATORSHIPS (SECTION 1755); REGARDING ESTATE ADMINISTRATION (SECTION 7200); UNDER TRUST LAW (SECTION 17006); AS WELL AS THE COURT'S ABILITY TO SUBMIT ANY ISSUE TO THE JURY "BY ITS OWN MOTION", WITHOUT FURTHER PLEADINGS (SECTION 631); AND THE .CA. PROBATE CODE'S PROVISIONS THAT "JURY TRIALS ARE WAIVED (JURYLESS ARBITRATIONS DEEMED VOLUNTARY), IF JURY TRIALS ARE NOT DEMANDED (SECTION 631) ....ARE ALL STATUTORY AND CODAL PROVISIONS MANDATING TRIAL BY JURY, CONCURRED WITH AND PASSED BY A MAJORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY AND SENATE FROM 1872 UNTIL 1988 (CA.SENATE JOURNAL, 1988, PAGES 7879 & 7880), AT LEAST, WHEREAFTER, THEY EFFECTIVELY NULLIFIED THIS MOST BASIC OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (THE TAX/FRANKPENCE-PAID BENEFIT OF TRIAL BY JURY), VIA THE MERE MAJORITY'S VOTE TO "REPEAL PROBATE CODE SECTIONS" 1081, 1280, SECTION 1452, 7200, AND 17006, ETC......AN ACT OF NULLIFICATION THAT CANNOT BE LEGALLY/CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCOMPLISHED UPON PREVIOUSLY-AWARDED-PROPERTIES (ESPECIALLY BELOW BANKRUPTCY PROPERTIES), WITHOUT A UNANIMOUS, BEYOND DOUBT, VERDICT THAT THE "TO BE REPEALLED STATUTE" WAS MADE/PASSED IN ERROR....UNLESS A DEFAULT HAD OCCURRED.... REQUIRING THAT ALL WITH KNOWN WHEREABOUTS BE INFORMED, IN WRITING, BEFOREHAND....AND, OTHERWISE, APPLYING ONLY TO THOSE WITH UNKNOWN WHEREABOUTS, INFORMED BY GENERAL NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION...A DEFAULT THAT MOST (INCLUDING THE MANWILLS) NEVER ENGAGED-IN....THEIR BEING, THEREFORE, STILL-DUE THE JURY TRIALS OF THESE "VALIDLY-UNREPEALED ACTS", AS ARE ALL CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE NOT, THUSLY, DEFAULTED, CONSTITUTIONALLY... (A1S7P1-3; F.R.Civ.P.#55, as amended by A1S7P1-3, etc.; Failing/Refusing to preponderably-answer/comply/pay in 10 days, sundays excepted, upon notification of dues, in writing)..
[In conclusion, as California Probate Code 7250-C provides "no probate code provisions (or ommission immunities) apply to properties that've been ENTERED INTO PROBATE FRAUDULENTLY", IT IS BEYOND DOUBT, REPROVABLE, THAT ALL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROBATED, SINCE THESE 1988-89 (OR 2004-PRESENT) WARRANTED UPGRADES/CORRECTIVES HAVE HAD THEIR PROPERTY ENTERED INTO PROBATE VIA THE FRAUDULENT OMISSION OF "INFORMING INTENDED RECIPIENTS, TESTATE OR INTESTATE, THAT THEY NEED ONLY BIND THEMSELVES TO THE WILL/APPLICABLE-INTESTATE-PROVISIONS", IN WRITING, TO TURN SUCH WILLS/INTESTATE-PROVISIONS INTO A CONTRACT, DUE FULL FLEDGE SECURITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COURT OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION, NEAREST THE REAL PROPERTY, NOT THE ARBITRARY, UNACCOUNTABLE, PROBATE COURT...FURTHER PROHIBITING THE USAGE OF ANY THUSLY "FRAUDULENTLY ENTERED INTO PROBATE PROPERTIES/ESTATES" TO PAY THE COURT, APPOINTEES, ETC., UNTIL/UNLESS "PROPERLY-RESOLVED"{VIA-TRIAL-BY-JURY}, ALL PLEADINGS BEING "BEFORE PROBATE", UNTIL SUCH A CLAIM OF "FRAUDULENT ADMISSION INTO PROBATE" OCCURS (THE REASON PROBATE CODE 850-857 PROHIBITS PROBATING PROPERTIES "TRIABLE IN ANY OTHER COURT/JURISDICTION", AS WELL AS "UNTIL AFTER CONCLUSION OF ANY CIVIL ACTIONS/JURY-TRIALS)]..NEVER ALLOWING "PRESIDING JUDGE AWARDED JURY TRIAL DATES" TO BE DISMISSED, JURYLESSLY, BY THE PROBATE COURT, ITSELF, AS OCCURRED IN THESE "MANWILL VS. MANWILL"/"INRE:ESTATE OF ESTELLE MANWILL" MATTERS..
RCCFM, Always (c);
Dr. Eric
www.USASPAN.blogpost.com
__________
__________
On Nov 15, 2019 1:17 PM, "usrecovery" wrote:
Your Honor;
I wanted to provide an example of the denial of full-fledged legal/Constitutional protections that the "1930s Changes" to "Probate Codification" over Constititional Court of Jurisdiction, nearest the real property, has produced, unlawfully/in-opposition-to-the-U.S.-Constitution.
In particular, where a condition or situation is created, especially by statute (or mere precedent/Common-Law), as the first entrances and applications of the Civil Code of 1872, then the Probate Code of 1931, continuing in this "tripling down into war pursuit", WHERE THE LAW (STATUTE OR PRECEDENT) CREATES ANY MEANS OR DEVICE WHEREBY FULL-FLEDGED GRAND JURY PRESENTED BENEFIT/SECURITY/OVERSIGHT IS IN ANY WAY LIMITED OR DIMINISHED...WHEREIN SUCH PROCEEDINGS', STATUTES OR PRECEDENTS, DO NOT INCLUDE THE FULL-FLEDGED-PROVISION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL (A3S2P3; A6; 5TH AMENDMENT; ETC.) BENEFITS/OVERSIGHTS/SECURITIES, WHENEVER ITS EVEN-CLAIMED THAT SUCH A "JURY TRIAL EXEMPTION" HAS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY ASSERTED OR WRONGLY APPLIED, IT HAS NEGLIGENTLY ENGAGED IN A THEFT OF THOSE REPROVABLY-DUE-BENEFITS/SECURITIES AND, THEREBY, PRODUCED A PRETENDED AJTHORITY ACT OF LEGISLATION AND/OR ADJUDICATION (18USCS2381, ETC.)....WHOSE PRECEDENTS AND SUBSEQUENTS ENGAGE IN CIVIL AND WORLD WAR PRODUCTION WITH THE SOCIETIES AFFECTED THEREBY...[NULL AND VOID UNTIL CORRECTED, CERTAINLY, UPON OBJECTION]..[INCLUDING "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT STATUTES' "DENIALS-OF-1ST-AMENDMENT-RIGHTS AND JURY TRIALS UPON AFFIRMATIONS OF FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS THEREOF]...
Perhaps, no more clearly seen than in Probate Matters.
While I'll limit my discussion, here, to the "Radon vs. Jewish National Case", the "triple down into war phenomena", from the 1540 Statute of Wills, remains undeniable and scientificly-reprovable.The exaggeration of error into the "untried code" (From Field's Code of NY), accompanied by Law Revisions, backward and forward, can be further seen at www.USASPAN.blogspot.com, if desired.
The problem associated with extrinsic evidence, allowances and prohibitions, as with Codes, themselves, are the exaggerations of error produced by reliance thereupon....as if they were "jury trial extrensic evidence applications". THEY ARE NOT. The same effect can, likewise, be seen in Courts (even grand and their bifurcated trial juries relying upon such codes as a "law substitute", THEY TOO ARE NOT).
This is also the problem, wherever there are two or more possible constructions, as "using codes" and "prohibiting codal usages", or whether a written document is "ambiguous" or "unambiguous", for example. By removing ANY/ALL MATTERS FROM THE GRAND/TRIAL JURIES' FULL-FLEDGED-TAX-PAID-BENEFIT/SECURITY/OVERSIGHT,SUCH ERRORS, THOUGH REPROVABLE, AS HEREIN, TAKE EVEN LONGER TO BE FOUND, PROVEN, AND CORRECTED, TRIPLING DOWN INTO WAR TO GREATER AND GREATER DEGREES.
Specificly, where any "decedent's written document" is kept from the grand/trial juries' scrutiny (5TH AMENDMENT), it's exact and recprovable nature may even be delayed for decades, if not centuries (1540?). For, while various varieties of "written decedents' documents" undeniably exist (self-written, witnesses, unwitnessed, etc.) and their impact on the limitations of such a written-document, are numerous and varied, it remains, that where there is such a "written document", provable to be the intentions of the property owner, regarding post-death-property-transfers, that document IS ONE-HALF OF A CONTRACT (AS ANY OTHER, RELATING TO PROPERTY OF EQUAL VALUE), AND,THEREFORE, UPON ANY (JUST ONE BEING REQUIRED, IF THERE ARE SEVERAL) WRITTEN-INTENDED-RECIPIENT'S LEGALLY AGREEING TO THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND LEGALLY-BINDING-THEMSELVES THERETO, A CONTRACT IS CREATED, THAT'S DUE THE FULL-FLEDGED-PROTECTION/SECURITY/BENEFIT OF THE LAW/TRIAL-BY-JURY...The major reason the U. S. Constitution PROHIBITED STATES FROM MAKING LAWS THAT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS. Any provisions, statutory, precedental, or codal, being, undeniably, thefts of such due-liberties/properties.
In the "Duke Case", as with the "Barnes Case", etc., focusing on the "issues of the day" (especially when they are, generally, arbitrary and capricious, unrelated and in opposition to the U. S. Constitution's reprovables of Equal Rights), changing regularly, creates the heightened levels of confusion (Substance P,exaggerated War Plague Levels), that are ripe for error.
For example, while every jury may not have "caught the fundamental mistake", the theft of the benefit of their scritiny, should've had them "on guard", at least. It appears that the Fundamental Legal Exam of the Founding Fathers (included in the 1787 U. S. Constitution for Representatives, Senators, and Presidents, the Real Monroe Doctrine) holds the lawful, Constitutional resolution to the case (s)....specificly, if the "I've considered all at law potential-beneficiaries, and disinherited them" provisions were made BEFORE OR AFTER THE "IF I DIE FIRST OR MY WIFE AND I DIE TOGETHER" provisions...amending them, if after, retaining them, if before....and, thusly, maintaining or preventing intestacy (at least).
RCCFM, Always (c);
Dr. Eric Durand (Williams-Durand)
Who's Who in America Physician and Law Professor
1982-USN: 1989-PRESENT-ROTC
[MOS: JAG & MEDICAL OFFICER]
USRecovery@Gmail.com
NOTE: THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE UPGRADES/CORRECTIVES OBTAINED VIA DEFAULT WARRANTS IN 1989 AND SEVERALLY, SINCE, HAVE KEPT THESE NEW EDUCATIONAL AND CODAL ("/LAW CODES/") FROM YOUR USAGE, SINCE THEN...AND UNTIL THESE WARRANTS ARE ENFORCED...BEWARE OF IMITATIONS/COUNTERFEITS, THEY'RE MORE COMMUNIST LOOTINGS...: Ca-SPAN..
