Breach of The Contract

 

Breach of Trust 

 

BREACH OF THE CONTRACT — A BREACH OF TRUST

A breach of contract under the Public Trust constitutes a breach of a fiduciary responsibility and a “breach of trust” by the trustee.
Trustees shall [“are required to”] perform their fiduciary responsibility in consonance with the People’s “intangible right to honest services”. See 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
A breach of trust by a court “trustee” deprives a litigant of his “intangible right to honest services” and therefore DENIES his intangible right to “due process of law”.
A “trustee” in breach of The Contract appears before the court with “unclean hands”.
A trustee in breach of the trust appearing before the court with “unclean hands” forfeits any qualified immunity which may attach to his office.
A contract is the fundamental element of commerce, ergo, the administration of Law is the interpretation of the contract.
Mosaic Law establishes the foundation for Judeo-Christian legal principles dating back Centuries before the Magna Charta and from which the body of American law, the Contract, arose.
In commerce, truth is sovereign. Supra. The most understandable and brief definition of “truth” is:
“That which remains after all other possibilities have been eliminated.”
Truth is best expressed in the form of an affidavit. Supra.
An Affidavit of Defense must be admissible as evidence pursuant to U.S. Const., Amendment VI and Fed.R.C.P. Rule 56.
See also Pa.R.C.P. 1030. New Matter [includes Affidavit of Defense].
An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce and supports a summary judgment claim for “affiant”. F.R.C.P. 56.
An unrebutted affidavit overturns [defeats] any “presumption” of probable cause”.
Failure to rebutt an affidavit is to “admit” to the Truth of all averments; to “leave the battlefield”; to “lose by default“. F.R.C.P. 56, supra.
The Public Trust secures for the People those Inherent Rights of Mankind and inter alia such inalienable and indefeasible rights explicitly or implicitly enumerated in the U.S. Const., the Pa. Const., definitive statutes and interpretation of appellate courts thereto.
The Inherent Rights of Mankind as endowed upon We the People by our Creator forms the corpus assets for a testamentary trust to be administered under the laws of the state. i.e., by and through government agents who serve only as “trustees” for the Public Trust.
The Inherent Rights of Mankind do not extend to governments; federal, state or local. e.g., Government lacks standing to demand “due process of Law”.
A government, or government agency, is not a person and therefore is unable to be a beneficiary of those rights endowed upon the People through the Public Trust, leaving to the government the only role left for the administration of the Public Trust; that is, to serve We the People as “trustee”.
Citizens are the heirs and beneficiaries to the Public Trust and the Inherent Rights of Mankind, those inalienable and indefeasible rights as enumerated in the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; these rights cannot be waived.
Among those Inherent Rights of Mankind is the implied benefit that the government, via trustees, will serve the People in compliance with their “intangible right to honest services.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
A government formed or established under a constitution may act only within the limits of authority granted by that constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a “limiting” document that limits the power of the government.
Legislative enactments [statutes] may not modify or amend organic law, the Constitution.
The Inherent Rights of Mankind includes the unalienable “right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Declaration of Independence.
The pursuit of happiness includes the Right to earn one’s living by labor, the arts, a business, a profession, etc., including all “occupations of common right”.
The practice of law is determined to be an occupation of common right, a “property” interest. The Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) is an unconstitutional impingement on the Inherent Rights of Mankind.
The State legislature lacks any authority whatsoever to enact legislation that abridges, abrogates or diminishes the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness via an occupation of common right.
State courts lack “Jurisdiction” to hear or “try” any criminal action of UPL.
Agents [i.e., “trustees”] acting on behalf of and under the lawful authority of government are granted qualified immunity for actions in the lawful exercise of their duties.
Trustees serving in a judicial capacity have qualified immunity only so long as they act within the parameters of their authority. i.e., to afford defendants their Inherent Rights under the Public Trust.
Where a court lacks jurisdiction over the matter before it, the judge acts outside the parameters of his lawful authority when he acts in a judicial capacity.
SCOTUS and other courts have spoken to this subject:
“Generally, judges are immune from personal liability for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974).“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
“In a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.” Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349.

“A judge must act within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.”Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938).

“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).

“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).

When a trustee acts outside the lawful authority of his office, qualified immunity vanishes [is forfeited] and that individual [trustee] may be held personally liable for transgressions against the People or as against another individual. See Yick Wo, supra.
Qualified immunity from personal liability extends to all “trustees” only to the extent that they perform their duty within the limits of the authority of their office.
Prosecutorial misconduct is clearly outside the protected activities of a trustee, ergo, qualified immunity from personal liability becomes void; i.e., is forfeited. The state may not grant immunity to a “trustee” whose performance violates the law … Cite omitted …
A trustee who knowingly and intentionally breaches his fiduciary responsibility acts “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” to deny the victim of due process and equal protection of law.
Due process is the legal principle and a fundamental right that requires the government to respect, according to the law, all of the legal rights owed to a person under the Public Trust.
Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land and protects individuals, The People, from overly aggressive, tyrannical or oppressive actions by the state.
When a government agent [“trustee”] fails to follow the precise course of the law, that trustee violates due process of law which offends against the CONTRACT — Rule of Law.
An offense against the CONTRACT is a breach of Contract and a breach of Trust, a failure to perform the fiduciary responsibility [ legal duty ] of a trustee under the Public Trust.
Due process rights are those which are of such fundamental importance as to require compliance with due process standards of fairness and justice including but not limited to procedural and substantive rights of citizens against government actions that threaten or impose the denial of life, liberty, or property.
Violating the due process rights of a beneficiary to the Public Trust places that trustee “at war” with the Constitution he has sworn to protect and defend; qualified immunity is forfeited.
For the guarantees of procedural due process to apply, it must first be shown that a deprivation of a significant life, liberty, or property interest has occurred. This is necessary to bring the Due Process Clause into play.
An arrest or illegal arrest is a deprivation of a significant life, liberty or property interest.
Substantive due process is the doctrine requiring legislation to be fair and reasonable in content as well as application and that invokes the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution See Yick Wo, supra.
The U.S. Const., Amend. VI, establishes a constitutional right of an accused to confront and to test the credibility of the witnesses against him; i.e., accusers.
“In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.”
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970).
The essence of due process is protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the State.
Arbitrary actions include, but are not limited to acts done capriciously or at pleasure; without adequate determining principle; …; absolutely in power; capriciously; tyrannical; despotic; Corneil v. Swisher County, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1072, 1074 (19??). See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. , p. 104.
Ordinarily, “arbitrary” is synonymous with bad faith or failure to exercise honest judgment …,” Huey v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 556 S.W.2d 860, 865. Id, pp. 104-105.
Equal protection of Law as enacted under the 14th Amendment secures the right of due process for each individual from arbitrary actions by the State among which are: when its courts are open to them on the same conditions as others, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure, for the security of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, …; .
Government employees for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owe a fiduciary responsibility [legal duty] to the beneficiaries to the Public Trust when serving in their official capacity.
Governments act by and through public servants as “trustees”, not limited to judges, law enforcement officers and a vast assortment of positions necessary for efficient and effective administration of the Public Trust.
All Respondents as named herein are, or were during the period in question, employees of the state government or a political subdivision thereof; ergo, all Respondents named above are “public servants” [“trustees”] within the Commonwealth who owe a fiduciary duty to the People.
Trustees are required by Law to swear or affirm an Oath of Office that they will support and defend the afore-mentioned Constitutions. See Pa. Const. Art. VI, section 3.
Trustees shall [“are required to”] perform their fiduciary responsibility in compliance / consonance with the People’s “intangible right to honest services”.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
Trustees are required to be bonded to protect the People from oppressive and tyrannical conduct by government agents acting outside the scope of the authority afforded their office.
The Uniform Bonding Code, “UBC”, requires prosecutors and District Attorneys to produce on demand the name of the bonding company and the policy number. See UBC section 5.2 et al.
The UBC requires prosecutors and District Attorneys to consider, answer and affirm or deny categorically all affidavits [filed with the court] point-for-point in writing. See UBC section 5.0, section 7.
The government can never become a beneficiary of the Public Trust bequeathed [“given”] by the Creator to We the People, the de facto heirs of the Inherent Rights of Mankind.
This endowment of the Creator is codified in the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.
Government employees bearing the title of “judge” are public servants, a.k.a. “trustees”, with a fiduciary responsibility to secure those Inherent Rights for the exercise of We the People [i.e., protection of the beneficiaries against/from the tyranny and oppression of the government].
Trustees with the title of judge are subject to the UBC. See UBC, section 5.4 et al.
Among the fiduciary responsibilities of trustee / judge is to ensure that government agents act at all times within the limits of the authority delegated to their office.
The government owes a legal duty to the People to secure for them “due process of law” and to perform that duty including preserving the “intangible right to honest services”.
Due process of law is a nebulous term that includes all necessary protections for a beneficiary from the extravagances of overly aggressive, tyrannical or oppressive government agents.
Where the matter involves “criminal law”, government agents (operatives) must be held to the highest standard of performance to ensure that those trustees do not “breach their duty in trust”.
Due process of law requires as the most fundamental elements of law: a) that a moving party must establish jurisdiction in the appropriate court; b) that the responding party be served notice of the complaint and the basis for that jurisdiction; and c) that the accused be afforded a full and fair opportunity to face his accuser and to test the credibility of his adversary.
Affiant claims right of sovereignty under which the Inherent Rights of Mankind as endowed by our Creator are afforded the People pursuant to the U. S. Constitution, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and the Declaration of Independence as follows:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — …”
Each Respondent named herein is a de facto agent for the Government, an employee of the Commonwealth or a political subdivision thereto, ergo, a “trustee” with a fiduciary responsibility to preserve and protect the rights of sovereignty as bestowed upon Affiant and all citizens.
Failure of a trustee to perform the fiduciary responsibilities under the terms of the trust, such as any act contrary to those terms, or in excess of his authority, or the wrongful omission of any act required … to the detriment of the trust [and the beneficiary], whether willful and fraudulent, or done through negligence, … , constitutes a violation by the trustee of any duty which he owes to the beneficiary, a breach of trust, to which personal liability may and should attach.
The roll of executor or beneficiary can never be bestowed upon the government [Cmwlth.], i.e., courts, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, etc.
Courts comprise the forum where judicial trustees must discharge their fiduciary responsibility under the terms of the Public Trust.