Message and Implications of Civil Action No. 1-14-Cv-02128-WBH

LEGAL NOTICES: The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice and Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark is not your legal counsel. The information provided is for informational purposes, but does not come with any form of warranty or other guarantee. The contents of this document are based upon the principles of American Jurisprudence only and may or may not apply to other law systems outside of the United States of America. Please use said materials in a manner consistent with applicable law(s). Do not alter or monetize materials in any way. Justice Has Come™ is a trademark of Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark, who retains exclusive ownership of this document and the intellectual property contained herein. All rights Reserved.

of 7 This item is not for sale. No purchase necessary.

A Brief Exposé on the “Why” and “How” of

Encroachment upon Americans’ Human Rights: The Implications and Message of Civil Action No. 1:14-‐cv-‐02128-‐WBH

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

PART I

-‐The Premises-‐

Civil Action Number 1:14-‐cv-‐02128-‐WBH was a federal lawsuit commenced in

July of 2014, for the purpose of asserting claims to human rights. Said action

was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Georgia (Atlanta Division), under presiding Senior Judge, Willis B. Hunt, Jr.

In the 38-‐page Complaint, under the ‘Statement of Claims’ section that begins

on page 5, the Plaintiffs detail numerous counts of individual instances of

human rights violations, in accordance with the dictates of the United Nations’

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in the U.S.

Federal Constitution.

Interestingly, in his Order directly preceding the final Judgment, dated March

31, 2015, Senior Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr. unintentionally reveals the following:

FOREWORD: No Intelligent adult would sit down to a game of poker, with a significant wager on the table, without first knowing the rules of the game. Ironically, otherwise intelligent adults sit down to the “game of life” everyday without knowing the rules that govern “the game”. The rules are called “American Jurisprudence” and not many Americans understand them. Needless to say, the wager on the metaphorical game table of life is much more hefty and significant than in a poker game. But, just HOW big of a wager are Americans risking? This Exposé sets out to answer that question and more. Reference Guide for Legal

Terminology

Action: A lawsuit or other legal proceeding that involves a legal case of one form or another. Complaint: The initial document/paperwork used to commence legal action, which delineates the Plaintiff’s accusations against the Defendant. Statement of Claims: The component of a given complaint in which all of the Plaintiff’s accusations against the Defendant are listed one-by-one. Said claims form the basis of the proceedings that will take place and determine what questions of law will come into play for the purpose of resolving the suit/action. Plaintiff: The person(s) claiming a right to redress of grievances against another, in a legal proceeding. Judgment: The decision of the court, as determined based upon presumably unbiased legal determinations and findings of the presiding judge.

Justice Has Come™ Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark

www.JusticeHasCome.com



“There is no cause of action in this Court under any document published by the United Nations.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a document published

by the United Nations. In its Preamble, it is explained that the UDHR is an

international proclamation that sets forth “a common standard of achievement

for all peoples and nations” for the safeguarding of “inherent dignity and of the

equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. Disturbingly,

however, per the very words of the Senior Judge, U.S. Courts do NOT observe

the UDHR.

The aforementioned Order then further states:

“Plaintiff’s only avenue of relief against state officials for her claims of constitutional violations is under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

The referenced code section, (42 U.S.C. § 1983), forms part of The Official

Code of the United States, and reads, in part, as follows:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress”

Reference Guide for Legal Terminology

Order: A document that contains the decision on a particular question and/or request that arises during—and sometimes before or after—legal proceedings. The Official Code of the United States: The official “law book” of the United States Federal Government. It is a compilation of federal statutory laws and is the source against which most legal questions are answered in U.S. Federal Courts. “U.S.C.” is the abbreviation used to reference said Code, which stands for: United States Code. The U.S.C is second only to the Organic Laws of the United States, which are The U.S. Founding Charters, and include: The Declaration of Independence—1776, Articles of Confederation—1777, Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government, and Constitution of the United States—1787.

CRITICAL THINKING (Questions:)

1) What is the first legal premise presented in Part I? 2) What is the second legal premise presented in Part I?

(Answers:) 1)“There is no cause of action in this Court under any document published by the United Nations.” 2)“Plaintiff’s only avenue of relief against state officials for her claims of constitutional violations is under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”



PART II

-‐The Analysis-‐

The prevailing, yet immensely incorrect perception is that unalienable rights

are derived from the Federal Constitution; and thus, many attempt to invoke

said Constitution for the assertion and protection of such rights. However, the

Founding Fathers, beyond a shadow of a doubt have declared that humans

are: “[…] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men […].” (Declaration of Independence—1776)

Thus, from the words of the Founding Fathers who themselves established the

Federal Constitution, human rights come from a Higher Power, not from

governments; nor are they given from one man to another through statutory

laws. That is, unalienable rights are not derived from a constitution; they exist

from the moment of birth, whereas “constitutional rights” come about as a

result of being a member of the society created by the respective constitution.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “constitutional rights” in a literal

sense; there are only constitutionally-‐protected rights and constitutionally-‐

granted rights. It is to be foremost understood that a constitution is a social

compact between men and women [or between states] who have come

together to form their resulting government. They do so to combine their

strengths for the protection of their individual inherent rights with which

they are born/created.


Unalienable Rights: Inherent rights bestowed upon every man and woman, by their Creator, from the moment they are born. The terms “unalienable rights” and “human rights” are oftentimes used interchangeably, being that all humans are born with unalienable rights. Statutory Law: A form of law based upon statutes. Statutes themselves are created through legislation, by the Legislative Branch of a given government, state or federal. “Constitutional Rights”: A fallacious misnomer often employed by those attempting to assert unalienable human rights under the U.S Federal Constitution. Social Compact: A species of legal agreement and/or contract that binds the members of society one to another. It need not bear the signature of every member of society for it to be legally enforceable; one need only identify with the society created thereby, which is prima facie evidence of his/her belonging to said society and thus it is proof of their having agreed to be bound by the dictates of the governing constitution for that society.



Therefore, constitutionally-‐protected rights of men and women are more

properly referred to as unalienable human rights; and constitutionally-‐granted

rights are more properly referred to as civil rights, which come about as a

result of being a member in a civil society.

As the foregoing quotation from the Declaration of Independence correctly

states: men (and women) erect governments among them in order to secure

their natural, unalienable, human rights. This means that all members of the

society created by and through a given constitution are implicitly party to said

constitution; it is immaterial whether or not each person has signed their

name to said social compact.

A constitution, itself, is a legal charter issuing from a union of individuals,

deriving its power from the inherent freedoms with which each composing

member is born/created; said liberty is also referred to as sovereignty. This is

why it is often said that the People are the source of sovereignty in the United

States of America: because American state governments were formed by each

of the original founders relinquishing a portion of their inherent rights with

which they were born, in order to jointly forge a social compact that resulted

in the erection of their respective state government.

Upon entrance into a civil society, a person relinquishes a portion of their

inherent freedoms—absolute sovereignty included—to become a citizen.


Civil Rights: Rights and privileges obtained as a result of being a member of a given civil society; civil rights are interrelated with citizenship. One is not born with civil rights, per say; such rights are acquired in connection with matters of citizenship. Civil Society: A group of individuals united by a social compact (e.g. constitution) as a People. Constitution: A legally binding and enforceable grant of authority to one party, by another, for the former to act on behalf of the latter in the instances, ways, and for the purposes specified in said charter. Charter: A (usually written) legal instrument emanating from a sovereign power containing a grant of authority. Sovereignty: Limitless freedom; absolute self-determination and self-sufficiency. The right and power to govern internal affairs without foreign/outside dictation; complete independence. Citizen: A member of a society possessing the rights/privileges thereby afforded under its constitution and subject to all corresponding duties.

CRITICAL THINKING (Questions:)

1) What is the source of unalienable rights? 2) What is the source of statutory rights?

(Answers:) 1)The Higher Power/Creator 2)Statutory law issuing from a Legislature



There is no such thing as a “sovereign citizen”; the term is oxymoronic. The

People of each state, as a whole, is the source of that particular state’s

sovereignty by and through the state constitution. This is what is truly meant

by the mantra “for the people, by the people”. However, the Federal

Constitution is not directly “for the people, by the people”. To be exact, it is “for

the states, by the states”.

Individual men and women are not party to the Federal Constitution; the

actual States of the Union are. When the various state delegates signed the U.S.

Constitution, they were not signing on their own behalf, they were signing on

behalf of the specific state that had commissioned them.

If one is not a party to a social compact—in this case, the Federal

Constitution—then there are no “constitutional rights” to be had pursuant to

said agreement.

PART III

-‐The Conclusion-‐

Senior Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr. makes it very clear that U.S. Courts

do not recognize/acknowledge any claims brought under any

document published by the United Nations. His exact words are: “There is no cause of action in this Court under any document published by the United Nations.”

The UDHR is a document published by the United Nations.


State Constitution: A social compact between individual American men and women that serves as a charter for a state government. A state constitution delineates the agreed upon inner workings of the resulting state government, but commences with the enumeration of a BILL OF RIGHTS that establishes the unalienable human rights upon which the state government may never encroach through legislation (statutory law) or otherwise. Federal Constitution: A social compact between the States of the Union that served as a charter for the Federal Government. The Federal Constitution delineates the agreed upon INNER WORKINGS of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) contained therein reaffirms unalienable rights of state citizens already secured by the respective state constitutions and prohibits the Federal Government from encroaching upon said rights through legislation or otherwise. Delegate: Someone commissioned to act in the stead of another.



Therefore: U.S. Courts do NOT recognize The Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Senior Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr. also makes it very clear that relief

sought for unconstitutional violations of personal rights can only

be had pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His exact words are:

“Plaintiff’s only avenue of relief against state officials for her claims of constitutional violations is under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Human rights are unalienable rights with which one is born, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—1776. Statutory rights are those derived from statutes that are created by Legislature, which is a function of government. If the only claims that can be brought for unconstitutional violations of rights is pursuant statutory law, then the only type of “rights” that U.S. Courts recognize are statutory rights. Therefore: U.S. Courts only recognize statutory rights.

IMPLICATION # 1

U.S. Courts do NOT recognize The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR).

IMPLICATION # 2

U.S. Courts only recognize statutory rights.

Overall Message

Human rights are those granted by The Creator—irrespective of who/what that might be—, statutory rights are those granted by government; these two species of rights are as different as night and day. The former belong to all humans, given to them by their Creator and cannot be arbitrarily taken away, whilst the latter belong to the U.S. Government and can be taken at will.



Civil Action No. 1:14-‐cv-‐02128-‐WBH was NOT filed as a civil rights case despite the lies that have been circulated throughout American media. It was filed as a HUMAN RIGHTS case. Throughout the proceedings of the case, Senior Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr. did everything in his power to prevent the assertion of Plaintiffs’ HUMAN RIGHTS. He did everything from altogether deny Plaintiffs access to the court, delete and remove Plaintiffs’ documentation and evidence from court records, continuously and intentionally misclassify the suit as a civil rights case pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, etc. The aforementioned situation and circumstances was the true cause of the “outburst” contained in the “Notice to F*ck This Court and Everything that it Stands For.” , in which the Senior Judge was called “a treacherous, lying, spineless, bastard son-‐of-‐a-‐b*tch” and a “traitor”—because he is knowingly and intentionally tricking Americans out of their human rights. One cannot stake claim to HUMAN RIGHTS in U.S. Courts; the Courts only recognize statutorily granted civil rights, which are the property of the Federal Government. All of this was proven during the court proceedings, but again, the Senior Judge removed every trace of it from court records, immediately after which, he promptly issued the final Judgment wherein the lawsuit was dismissed, claiming that Plaintiffs had not opposed the dismissal—which is an outright LIE. Senior Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr. has thus revealed that THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE HAD IN U.S. COURTS. When Americans walk into U.S. Courts, they are not being adjudged based upon the principles of unalienable human rights; they are being adjudged based upon the principles of U.S. civil rights—which are privileges that may be granted and revoked at the will of their creator, e.g. government. This leaves Americans at the complete mercy of the judge and the court over which he/she presides, and is hence, the source of the rampant injustice that undeniably takes place in U.S. Courts. Justice is being sold to the highest bidder at the expense of the American People.

WARNING: Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark has only presented information and is not advising any particular course of action for anyone’s legal proceedings or otherwise. To the contrary, Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark is only suggesting that Americans seek out an unbiased education concerning American history, civics, and Law based upon valid historical fact that will in turn empower them to assert the inalienability of their human rights on American soil, bequeathed unto them as such, by their Forefathers/mothers. All legal liability is hereby relinquished.

Message and Implications of Civil Action No. 1-14-Cv-02128-WBH

Documents

Transcript of Message and Implications of Civil Action No. 1-14-Cv-02128-WBH