This is for those Moors interested in prosecuting civil cases under private rights of action

www.facebook.com/pages/Private-Attorney-Generals-Office-LLC/167857046701198

Click HERE to View PAGO Book List & Order Form

48 Members
Join Us!

P.A.G.O. PRODUCTS

P.A.G.O. T-Shirt's Now Available

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

Do you think you really know money? Well, most of us would be more than likely to agree upon such an inquiry, and with all confidence and certainty. However, unbelievably, every nine out of ten people I have asked in the past to currently, have absolutely no clue how to differentiate real money (lawful currency) from the fiat form of currencies circulating presently throughout today’s seas of commerce. There are a few sayings that I’ve heard more than a few time in my past, which were.. “Money Talks....Walks” ”Money Rules the World... and “Whoever makes the rules may break the rules”, as well as “Money is the root of all evil” amongst others. Upon completion of this Diarium, you may feel you have become more educated and informed about money and the great maze of the monetary system, than before. Continue if you will, as I embark a remarkable journey through the veins of what I would like to introduce as “The Greatest Maze of an International Monetary System”. www.privateattorneygenerals.com

Click Here!

This workbook provides an example of how to vacate a Court Order and reinstate a complaint. Complaints traditionally are ordered dismissed (w/prejudice or w/o prejudice) for things such as lack of prosecution due to inactivity on a docket for a certain period of time, or failing to state a claim. The examples derive from SUCCESSFULLY applied materials. It is suggested that you learn all that you can about the common law definition vacating (a judgment), as well as the definition contained in the court rules, in relation to the State that you are litigating in, because those Court rules or Common Law can assist in further application.... Continued inside

CLICK HERE!

The Motion to Vacate is a powerful tool that should be in every P.A.G.’s toolkit. There are many Judges that are partial to the adverse party, and will dismiss your motions even when you are correct, instead of filing an Appeal, you should file a Motion to Vacate or Motion For Reconsideration first. The difference between the two is you use the Motion to Vacate to attack void Orders. A void order is one that is issued by means of Fraud upon the Court, mistakes, omissions of facts, and plain errors. We also have a Work book on Motions for Reconsideration; we suggest you order a copy of that work to learn further the distinct differences between the Motion to Vacate and Motion for Reconsideration ... continued inside 

MANIFEST GLORY ! In 1954, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the Tee-Hit-Ton case. The government argued that under international law Christian nations can acquire lands occupied by heathens and infidels. It was an argument made by the United States government on the basis of the Christian religion. In their argument, the United States government not only cited the nineteenth century case of Johnson v M’Intosh, but also the Papal bulls of the fifteenth century and the Old Testament from the Bible. Pope Callixtus III or Callistus III (31 December 1378 – 6 August 1458), born Alfons de Borja, was Pope from 8 April 1455 to his death in 1458. In 1456, he issued the papal bull Inter Caetera to Portugal (not to be confused with Inter Caetera of 1493). This bull reaffirmed the Portuguese right to reduce infidels and the Moors to servitude by the earlier bulls Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas, thus reaffirming the papal consent to the enslavement of Africans. This confirmation of Romanus Pontifex also gave the Portuguese the military Order of Christ under Prince Henry the Navigator See European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, ed. Frances Gardiner Davenport, (Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1917), 27.

CLICK HERE!


When it comes to recusals or disqualifications the most potent judicial weapons is the Due Process, Right of Access to the Courts, Fair and Equal Access to the Courts and the Equal Justice Clauses secured by the Federal and State Constitutions and if you can describe conduct that constitutes fraud upon the Court or Fraud on the Court, those are considered to be extra meant and potatoes and are sufficient to get the job done, when it comes to litigating with an unfair judge who is partial towards the opposing counsel succeeding by means of misrepresentations and omissions. The criteria for the disqualification and or recusal of the Judge is generally the same for the Federal and State Courts. However, the statutory and court rules are obviously different depending on the State and Court. Both the federal and State courts provide..... continued inside


When it comes to recusals or disqualifications the most potent judicial weapons is the Due Process, Right of Access to the Courts, Fair and Equal Access to the Courts and the Equal Justice Clauses secured by the Federal and State Constitutions and if you can describe conduct that constitutes fraud upon the Court or Fraud on the Court, those are considered to be extra meant and potatoes and are sufficient to get the job done, when it comes to litigating with an unfair judge who is partial towards the opposing counsel succeeding by means of misrepresentations and omissions. The criteria for the disqualification and or recusal of the Judge is generally the same for the Federal and State Courts. However, the statutory and court rules are obviously different depending on the State and Court. Both the federal and State courts provide Rules that must be applied in your motion and the Legislatures and Congress has provided statutory schemes that pertain to recusal and disqualification....continued inside
 


This workbook provides an example of how to request racial targeting, racial profiling, selective enforcement and selective prosecution materials. The examples derive from actually applied materials. It is suggested that you learn all that you can about the common law definition of a public record is broader than the definition contained in Statutes, Common Law Right to Access, Freedom of Information Act or the Open Public Records Act Laws in relation to the State that you are litigating in, because those Acts or Laws can assist with gaining materials needed, that you may not be able to obtain via discovery. Furthermore, they put more pressure on the opposing counsel, when they are subject to the Open Public Records Act or the Freedom of Information Act which ultimately derive from the Right to Know Laws of the Respective States. I refer to both types of Acts, which are essentially the same because the state you are litigating in may use 1 or the other aforementioned names to refer to...... continued inside

CLICK HERE TO ORDER!


This book is for those pro se litigants with little or no money. The informa pauperis, indigence forms or fee waiver court forms are really for those pro se litigants with real cases, not frivolous, or meritless cases. This practice workbook provides a few different templates. Much of the case law has been shepardized and consolidated. We provide a few examples of model templates successfully used in federal and state litigation by pro se litigant members. Each template by itself is sufficient. There are some cases that are fundamental and you will find them used in each template. Structures vary from venue. Check the Court rules in regards to the type of pleadings you are filing, if you are litigating in the federal venue, be sure to check the Local Rules as well as the Federal Rules of the Venue you are litigating in....continued inside

The Private Attorney Generals Office Manual is a book for P.A.G.’s to keep on their person, as it is a thorough quick reference book for P.A.G.’s to use when researching or litigating. This book includes legal information related to, but is not limited to Private Rights of Actions, Treaty Rights, Constitutional Rights, Motions, Writs, Court Rules, Statutes, Processes and Procedures. If you are a Private Attorney General or aspiring to be one, this is the book for you!

CLICK HERE TO ORDER !

TO VIEW THE PAGO BOOKS ORDER FORM CLICK HERE

You need to be a member of Murakush University to add comments!

Join Murakush University

Comments

  • STATING PROBABLE CAUSE

  • "The administrative child support process governed by Minn. Stat. 518.5511 (1996) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, 1." (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C7-97-926 C8-97-1132 C7-97-1512 C8-98-33, Filed June 12, 1998;http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctappub/9806/c797926.htm)

    The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the decision in January of this year.

    "The administrative child support process created by Minn. Stat. 518.5511 (1996) violates the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on the district court's original jurisdiction, by creating a tribunal which is not inferior to the district court, and by permitting child support officers to practice law. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional." (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C7-97-926 C8-97-1132 C9-98-33 C7-97-1512, Filed: January 28, 1999, Office of Appellate Courts;http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/supct/9901/c797926.htm
    blank.gif
    --Reported by Roger F. Gay

    http://www.fathermag.com/news/2764-child-support.shtml

  • Court -a judgement to dismiss because of some trumped up technicality giving
    excuse to dismiss a non-lawyer pro se litigant's complaint with merit in a
    lawyer dominated Court hearing. In support of Plaintiffs Motion to vacate
    Judgement, the following cases are offered; Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway,
    (151 F2d.240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The ruling of the court in this case held; "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se
    in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to
    construe the Plaintiff's pleading without regard to technicalities." In
    Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery 382 U.S. 172 (1965) it was held
    that in a "motion to dismiss", the material allegations of the complaint are
    taken as admitted."

  • Selective enforcement is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law.  On the federal level, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires equal treatment.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states.  The equal protection doctrine requires that persons receive similar treatment under the law. . . . The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons…..with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law. http://victimsoflaw.net/baumgartner_news.htm

     Selective enforcement is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law.  On the federal level, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires equal treatment.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states.  The equal protection doctrine requires that persons receive similar treatment under the law. . . . The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons…..with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law. http://victimsoflaw.net/baumgartner_news.htm

    (See, e.g., City of Canton v. Harris, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1203-06 (1989) (§ 1983 municipal liability may be imposed when the enforcement of a custom was the “moving force,” “direct causal link,” “closely related,” and “actually caused” the violation of federally protected rights); ); Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003)(municipal policy or practice must be the "direct cause" or "moving force" behind the constitutional violation).)

    Hence proof that the illegal conduct was repeated. (See, e.g., Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1156 (1st Cir.).

     Importantly, illegal acts by supervisors or managers who have been delegated final decision making authority may subject an entity to liability. For example, in Melton v. Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir. 1989), rev‟d on other grounds at 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1991).

    victimsoflaw.net
  • Selective enforcement is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law.  On the federal level, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires equal treatment.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states.  The equal protection doctrine requires that persons receive similar treatment under the law. . . . The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons…..with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law. http://victimsoflaw.net/baumgartner_news.htm

    victimsoflaw.net
  •   In Missouri, appellate courts have gone a step further in challenging MERS’s ownership claims vis-à-vis mortgages tracked on its database. In Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,51 MERS’s involvement in the loan effectively led to the stripping of a deed of trust lien from the land. Looking to the American Law Institute’s Third Restatement of Property Law, the court stated the following:
    Typically, the same person holds both the note and the deed of trust. In the event that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as a practical matter becomes unsecured. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan became ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.59
    Ultimately, the court held that “MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force.”60 The court effectively quieted title in favor of Bellistri, stripping off the lien.

This reply was deleted.