We need to assemble, meetings on Zoom, Write the Minutes of the meetings, Write a Social Compact Take it to the County Commissioner. Then the BAR (that has been running our Counties, States, and Country) will know the rightful Owners are taking Our Nation back, ACTION Speaks louder than words to a Criminal Oligarchy. If everyone that has commented here would take Action, there would be no reason to complain, WE JUST HAVE TO RUN OUR COUNTRY AND MOVE THEM OUT !! I Declare a Grow Some Cojones Day for the State of New Mexico I can be reached here jessenes@tutanota.comhttps://jesseneblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/david-straight/ LISTEN to this Man!

https://jesseneblog.wordpress.com/rico-san-juan-county-eleventh-judicial-district-and-magistrate-courts-by-winfred-p-adams-usaf-major-retired-and-jessene-roe-beecroft-trustee/i-stand-on-the-record-proper/

Number of Alleged: case M-147-TR-2017-00956, COMPLAINT TO VOID JUDGMENTS,

AND FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO This should be enough to remove the Impersonating Acting so called Governor Murder of Babies

COMES NOW Plaintiff Jessene Roe Beecroft on the State of New Mexico under authority of Title 18 Section 242 Under Color of Law, Section 44-3-4 NMSA 1978 since there are no public officers required by said law who would or could grant permission to Beecroft , and under authority of Rule 1-060B(4) claiming the judgments and decisions involving her, during times relevant, from the year 1994 to the present issued by any and all the Courts within the jurisdiction of the Defendant Eleventh Judicial District and Magistrate Court, “hereinafter, Defendant District Magistrate Courts” have severely injured her by denying her constitutional rights under Sections 1, and 3, and all inherent God given entitlements laws giving the said constitutional powers effect. In addition, said decisions and judgments have damaged her personal character without recourse, since there are no persons who have acquired title to positions as judges in any State of New Mexico courts of law, and since there are no courts of law to which she could appeal the non-competent judgments rendered. See Orosco v. Cox, 75 N.M. 431, 405 P.2d 668 (1965) for definition of competent court. Said judgments and decisions have all been null, void, and without legal effect at their inception as repugnant to both constitutions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 178, 180; to wit, respectively:

So, if the law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must decide that the case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [At 178.]

and,

Thus, the phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law, repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. [At 180.]

I. COMPLAINT

a. Whereas, not one of the persons holding positions as judges within the jurisdiction of the courts of law within the Defendant District Court, during times relevant, have personally given, filed, and recorded a fiduciary bond or recognizance to lawfully acquire title to the public offices held, (Section 10-2-9 NMSA 1978), since 1963, and which bound them to the promises in the oath of office contained in Article XX, Section 1, Constitution of the State of New Mexico and as mandated by Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of the State of New Mexico as confirmed under provisions of Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, Constitution for the United States of America; to wit, respectively:

This Constitution, and the Laws of The United States of America which shall be made in

Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of The

United States of America, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every

State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Clause 2, Article VI, Constitution for The United States of America.]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several

State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of The United States of

America and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under The United States of America. [Clause 3, Article VI, Constitution for The

United States of America.]

Whereas, the New Mexico Legislature has no power or authority to unilaterally and without constitutional processes enact laws amending either the Constitution for the United States of America or the Constitution of the State of New Mexico without a referendum vote of the electorate for state amendments as it did when, contrary to Marbury, it enacted Section 34-6-22 (Personnel; oaths and bonds, (1968)) NMSA 1978 altering, revising, or amending Article XXII Section 19 Constitution of the State of New Mexico and Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, Constitution for The United States of America; to wit said § 34-6-22:

Before entering upon their duties, all district court personnel who receive or disburse money or have custody of property shall take the oath prescribed by the constitution for state officers and file with the secretary of state a corporate fiduciary bond in an amount fixed by the director of the administrative office of the courts. Each bond shall be approved in writing on its face by the director of the administrative office of the courts and conditions upon faithful performance of duties and payment of all money received to the person entitled to receive it. In lieu of individual bond coverage, the director of the administrative office of the courts may prescribe schedule or blanket bond coverage in any judicial district. Bond premiums shall be paid from funds appropriated to the district courts.

History: 1953 Comp., § 16-3-9, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 69, § 23.

Whereas, the several constitutional powers, each and every one of them, cited in the preceding paragraph are given effect in Sections 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 NMSA 1978.

Whereas, those persons, during times relevant, who previously held and those who currently hold positions as judges within the jurisdiction of the Defendant District Court from Year 1963 and thereafter either did so, or now do so under false pretenses as indicated below:

(1) Whereas, any signed and notarized Declaration of Candidacy submitted for the record and filed among the Records in the Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State or the Clerks, San Juan and McKinley Counties, by any of those persons referenced above as lawfully holding positions as judges from Year 1963 to the present filed a falsified Declaration of Candidacy for retention or election in that while holding a position as a judge they, each and every one of them, did so unlawfully and thereby perjured the oath taken while only posing as an active judge by failing to support the above cited provisions of both constitutions which became a fourth degree felony at its inception and intentional when thereafter filed. See Section 1-8-40 NMSA 1978. Had there been a fiduciary bond for those unlawfully holding public office, it could have been called by any American National or citizen and the office immediately vacated; a constitutional power reserved to the New Mexico American National or citizen.

Section 23, Article 2, Constitution of the State of New Mexico.

(2) Whereas, no judicial action to hear and determine this matter is authorized for the instant complaint until at least one district judge acquires a valid fiduciary bond from a State authorized bonding agency or recognizance for an amount equal to an amount approved by the proper authority which is thereafter approved by a judge of a superior court competent to act, Orosco v. Cox, 75 N.M. 431, 435; Lopez v. LeMaster, 133 N.M. 59, 66; Johnson v. Cox, 72 N.M. 55, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 855 (1963)), and which is filed for the record, prior to entry to office and acquiring title to the office sought, and recorded among the Records in the New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State in accord with 10-2-9 NMSA 1978.

e. Now Therefore, neither the Defendant District Court nor a surrogate acting therefor possesses jurisdiction and thus competence to act for hearing and determining the instant case.

II. JURISDICTION

Constitutional claims. – Without question, the district court has the authority to consider constitutional claims in the first instance. Maso v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2004-NMCA-025, 135 N.M. 152, 85 P.3d 276, aff’d 2004-NMSC-028, 136 N.M. 161, 96 P.3d 286.

Jurisdiction is acquired in criminal case by filing of information. State v. Vaughn, 74 N.M. 365, 393 P.2d 711 (1964).

Jurisdiction over state officers, boards, and commissions. — Under this section and N.M. Const., art. VI, § 3, supreme and district courts each have original jurisdiction in quo warranto and mandamus against all state officers, boards and commissions in all cases, whether the proceeding was instituted by the attorney general ex officio, in behalf of the state for some prerogative purpose, or brought by some private person for the assertion of some private right; the supreme court will decline jurisdiction in absence of some controlling necessity therefor, and will do so in all cases brought at instance of a private suitor. State ex rel. Owen v. Van Stone, 17 N.M. 41, 121 P. 611 (1912).

Section 44-3-4 NMSA 978, to wit:

44-3-4. [Who may bring action; private relators; when action lies.] (1919)

An action may be brought by the attorney general or district attorney in the name of the state, upon his information or upon the complaint of any private person, against the parties offending in the following cases:

when any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this state, or any office or offices in a corporation created by authority of this state; or,

when any public officer, civil or military, shall have done or suffered an act which, by the provisions of law, shall work a forfeiture of his office; or,

when any association or number of persons shall act, within this state, as a corporation without being duly incorporated, or in case of a foreign corporation, without being duly authorized, to do business within this state.

The district attorneys in their respective judicial districts shall exercise the same power and right given by this section to the attorney general in cases which may be limited in their operation to the said district.

When the attorney general or district attorney refuses to act, or when the office usurped pertains to a county, incorporated village, town or city, or school district, such action may be brought in the name of the state by a private person on his own complaint.

`History: Laws 1919, ch. 28, § 4; C.S. 1929, § 115-104; 1941 Comp., § 26-204; 1953 Comp., § 22-15-4.

Those persons holding public office as judges within the Defendant District Court have engaged in a course of liable and unfaithful conduct, at all times relevant, in the clear absence of competent jurisdiction, Sections, (10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9, and said Art. XXII, Sec. 19), without judicial immunity, absolute or otherwise. Bradley v.

Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351, cited in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 which is cited in Ysais v NM Judicial Standards Com’n, 516 F. Supp 2d 1176 (D.N.M. 2009); and see State ex rel Evans v. Field, Com’r of Public Lands, et al., 27 N.M. 384, 390 for class of Plaintiff’s complaint; to wit:

The other class is where a suit is brought against defendants who, claiming to act as officers of the state, and under the color of an unconstitutional statute, commit acts of wrong and injury to the rights and property of the plaintiff acquired under a contract with the state. Such suit, whether brought to recover money or property in the hands of such defendants, unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the state, or for compensation in damages, or, in a proper case where the remedy at law is inadequate, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury, or for a mandamus, in a like case, to enforce upon the defendant the performance of a plain, legal duty, purely ministerial

— is not, within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, an action against the state. [Citing cases.]

Exercising jurisdiction where it is not given is a very serious matter. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Cohens v.

Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), that a court:

“must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as a legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would-be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” At 404 (emphasis added).

III. PARTIES

a. Plaintiff Jessene Roe Beecroft is a free Woman, American National exercising power provided her by Article II, Section 23, Constitution of the State of New Mexico in conjunction with Section 44-3-4 NMSA 1978.

b. Defendant is the Eleventh Judicial District Magistrate Court, in and for the Counties of San Juan and McKinley.

IV. RELIEF DEMANDED UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1980, USC 1581 AND 1994 and

Title 18 sec 242 Under Color of Law

All Defendant Court judgments and decisions rendered since 1963 are to be voided:

Against Jessene Roe Beecroft, by the Defendant Magistrate Court and all subordinate courts of law. list of cases. M-147-TR-2017-00956,

Against pro se and Sui Juris litigants who are forbidden to practice law under state law while opposed by a party who is authorized to practice law; a practice with special privileges which denies and deprives a litigant a substantive right to acquire legal prowess; such judgments could not guarantee a fair and objective determination of the matter before the Defendant District Magistrate Court because the practicing attorney gains legal prowess through practice under special privileges contrary to Article IV, Section 26, Constitution of the State of New Mexico and Section 38–1–1 NMSA 1978, a special and substantive privilege unavailable to pro se and Sui Juris litigants.

The Court award the sum of five hundred thousand dollars in gold bars in and at time of a final judgment for each judgment and decision rendered against Jessene Roe Beecroft, in

cases since year 1963.

That persons holding office as judge in courts of law within the jurisdiction of the Defendant District Magistrate Court who have not acquired lawful title to the office held show what cause, if any, they may have, under what authority they qualify, hold, and possess title to the office, (§10-2-9), without previously and personally giving, filing, and recording a Fiduciary bond binding them to the promises contained in their contract oath of office as mandated by Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, Constitution for The United States of America and Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of the State of New Mexico.

Jessene Roe Beecroft, Sui Juris ( I will edit it for Her )

Constitutions, Laws, Statutes and Hope

Bonding laws required by the NM &
US constitutions and New Mexico Statutes.
Penal bonds vs insurance.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE – PEONISM

THE CONCEPT OF PEONISM PRACTICED IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

What action is necessary to prevent:

The New Mexico State Government from ‘subjugating’ citizens against their free wills to a system of involuntary servitude – peonism – without recourse to a lawful court of law, either state or federal, while denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment, and while defying the authority of the federal laws giving that specific power effect;

‘Holding’ such citizens under a system of such servitude by legal coercion; and,

‘Returning’ them to such servitude by unlawful court action?

CRITERIA FOR A VIABLE SOLUTION:

The solution must involve the Government of the United States first, then the United States of America.

The system of involuntary servitude imposed on New Mexicans, absent conviction of a crime in a court of law, is criminal and must be eliminated.

All persons who once served as a public official within the State of New Mexico and subsequently the United States from Year 1963 to the present must be denied positions as public officials with public appropriations in any American Government.

All constitutional powers, statutory authorities giving those powers effect, and court citations cited herein shall be included in an appendix attached hereto and combined to be an integral part of this document.

The solution to the problem statement cannot require any action which furthers the current criminal activities and any other felonious conduct in furtherance of criminal activity.

Constitutions of the United States of America, and the State of New Mexico, and the applicable state and federal statutes shall apply to the solution.

DEFINITIONS:

Involuntary servitude can be defined as denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and defying the authorities of the laws that give that specific power effect by any arrangement which forces a citizen to perform unlawfully a service or to satisfy an obligation for an arranger’s advantage but at the citizen’s disadvantage without the citizen having a viable free choice to decide if they will comply. See Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq.

One condition of involuntary servitude is a condition where a citizen’s rights and liberties under a contract arrangement could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder without the citizen’s knowledge, consent, or participation. U.S. Peonage Cases, 123 F. 671 at 679.

A ‘system of peonage’, a ‘system of peonism’, and a ‘system of involuntary servitude’ are terms sometimes used synonymously for denying free citizens a power of the Thirteenth Amendment and for defying, to those citizens, the authorities of those certain laws which give that specific constitutional power effect.

Involuntary means ‘done contrary to or without choice’ ‘compulsory’—’not subject to control of the will.’ U.S. v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 at 936, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L. Ed. 2d 788
Servitude means ‘[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life’—’slavery’—’the state of being subject to a master.’ Ibid.

Subjugating means being incapable of making a rational choice. U.S. v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448 at 1452.

Escape means to flee from a condition of compelled servitude, when there is no power below to redress and no incentive above to relieve an unwholesome condition. Ibid. at 2451.

A clear distinction exists between peonage and the voluntary performance of labor in compliance with a contract; in the latter case, the oblige of a contract, though subject to an action for a breach, can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance; a peon, however, is compelled by coercive force to perform. Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 at 215, 25 S.Ct. 429, 49 L. Ed. 726.

Holding consists of continuing, by any means, a condition previously existing. Ibid. at 219.

Returning means to be put back, by any means, into a previous condition. Ibid. at 219.

Criminal conspiracy consists of at least two persons or entities joining in some act common to the commission of a substantive offence. Pinkerton v. U.S., 328 U.S. 640 at 643.

There are three separate classes of a crime each of which is individually punishable: (1) completed substantive offense – the commission of an unlawful act; (2) aiding, abetting, or counseling another to commit a crime – plotting to commit a substantive offense; and (3) conspiracy to commit a crime – a partnership. Ibid. at 649.

A substantive offence is one that denies a constitutional or deliberately defies any of the ancillary laws which give that power effect.

The Thirteenth Amendment applies to all government actors, both state and federal, commercial and non-commercial entities, and private citizens; the Fourteenth Amendment, however, only applies to acts of a state. Ibid. Pinkerton at 216, and see Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1581 et seq., 14 Stat. 27 and 114 Stat. 1486; and Fourteenth Amendment and 17 Stat. 13.

Trafficking in a system of peonage means profiting financially or in any material way, by any means in the venture, either knowingly or in reckless disregard of the associated legal facts.

FACTS, POINTS OF LAW, AND AUTHORITIES:

The New Mexico State Government acts as though it owns New Mexicans; however, it does not own those citizens who are subject to its derived authority. See Article II, Section 2, Constitution of the State of New Mexico, to wit:

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.

No person, be they government official, commercial or private entity, or private citizen, has power, authority or immunity to subjugate and then to impose a condition of involuntary servitude on a free citizen by legal coercion by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and by defying the authority of those federal statutes giving that specific power effect. See Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq., 14 Stat. 27, and 114 Stat. 1486.

Any action by a free citizen attempting to escape from a felonious condition of involuntary servitude, however manifested, constitutes exercising a constitutional power and its ancillary statutory authority. Ibid.

Forcing a free citizen to satisfy an imposed obligation of service under conditions of unlawful involuntary servitude by legal coercion or otherwise constitutes ‘holding’ the citizen to the unlawful servitude and becomes a criminal act without a claim of immunity. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 at 938 citing U.S. v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475 at 487, U.S. v. Harris, 701 F.2d 1095 at 1100, and 18 U.S.C. § 1595 for a civil remedies voiding immunity as addressed inImbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 at 429 (1976); to wit:

This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for the willful deprivation of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal analog of § 1983. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503, 94 S.Ct. 69, 679, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974; cf. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2628, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972). The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts. Imbler.

Taking action to forcibly return one to an unlawful condition of involuntary servitude by a court of law or political authority after one has attempted to escape and be free of such servitude constitutes ‘returning’ one to the unlawful condition of involuntary servitude and becomes a criminal act for which there exists no claim of immunity. Ibid. and 18 U.S.C. §1581.

Those, meaning more than one entity jointly associated financially or materially, who subjugate, hold, or return free citizens to conditions of involuntary servitude using a court of law or a political authority by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and by defying the authorities which give that specific power effect, whether commissioned officers of government, commercial or non-commercial private entities, or private citizens, are engaged in trafficking in a system of peonage. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 and 1593A.

No person serving as state public officers from Year 1963 to the present has ever filed and recorded a fidelity, recognizance or stipulation bond in exchange for the public trust in order to lawfully enter the public office claimed among the Records maintained in the Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State which bound them to the promises made in their individual oath of office as persons elected or appointed to public office and as required by Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America. See Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America, Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of the State of New Mexico, and Section 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 NMSA 1978, the latter being congressional acts which give those specific powers effect and prevents either revision or repeal by the state legislature.

Federal civil officers commissioned as judicial officers who were nominated to positions on the federal bench and who failed to inform the president that they were not lawfully holding a state public office at time of their nomination falsified their financial disclosure statement required to be submitted by them within thirty days of the nomination. Upon subsequent confirmation by the United States Senate and appointment to federal office, each one submitting the falsified financial statement thereby defrauded the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; each one of them contaminated the court where they claim to hold positions; if at least two of them served in judicial positions on the same court and drew public appropriations for felonious services rendered, then they were co-conspirators defrauding the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286.

DISCUSSION:

What is Peonism?

Peonage is a common practice operating financially within the commercial and political systems throughout New Mexico and other parts of the United States; the practice is profitable; it is supported openly, and quite possibly deliberately throughout the legislative and judicial system, both state and federal, and the practice is enforced by both judicial and police powers at all levels. First, consider the commercial activities and practices of the home mortgage finance industry.

Home mortgages can be packaged by the lender and the package sold, at a financial discount, to an unknown bidder without the knowledge, participation, and consent of the individual borrower, and without their individual financial consideration in the subsequent third-party contract; yet the borrower remains bound by the original mortgage home loan contract, by a provision therein, as though no change had occurred. The ‘by a provision therein’ condition in the original home mortgage contract violates 42 U.S.C. § 1994, the Peonage Act, which states that any laws, customs or usages to establish or enforce the voluntary or involuntary, direct or indirect service or labor of any persons as peons, a status of involuntary servitude, in satisfaction of any obligation or debt is declared null and void. A peon is a person subjugated by the illicit contract condition of involuntary servitude, absent a criminal conviction, even if he/she tries to escape the illicit servitude; the peon can then be held by legal coercion under a third-party contract to satisfy an original invalid obligation of service or debt; and there is a better than even chance that some judicial or police power can be engaged by the said legal coercion to return the peon to satisfy his/her original invalid contract obligation.

Some third-party mortgage contract holders use a post office box to delay mortgage payments so that foreclosure procedures can be implemented to illicitly acquire the equity of one home to improve, for the profit motive, the rate of return on their investments; the judicial system can then be used to cover-up the deception; and the home owner loses his or her property interest when police power is exercised to enforce a writ of execution. Can you see how a condition of involuntary servitude can be imposed on a free citizen without recourse to a fair court of law?

How is peonism manifested?

Politically, a person in New Mexico can register to vote in local and general elections, and must simultaneously declare a party affiliation in order to vote in the primary elections. Seems fair except, a registered voter may elect not to affiliate with any political party and thereby not be allowed to vote in the primary election. Under such circumstance, the citizen is subjugated to a condition of servitude as a peon by his own choosing – both voluntary and directly – denying him or herself an opportunity to vote in a primary election and thereby participate in determining who among the candidates shall govern him/her in the future. That is not fair, and it violates 42 U.S.C. § 1994 which voids such election contracts under state law. In New Mexico, the number of those who do not choose to affiliate with any political party is growing to some sixteen to twenty percent of the electorate, a possible substantial voting bloc; however a voting bloc with a diluted vote. They can be denied the vote in primary elections by law; since, the legislators, who make such laws, are all members of the major parties due to the primary election system. They do not enact laws that weaken their power, the non-primary voting public be dammed. Those members of the electorate who choose not to affiliate with a given political party effectively attempt to escape from the existing political system by their own free choice and are punished by not being permitted the vote in a primary election for doing so. Should they try to vote in a primary election, they will be denied the opportunity to vote under existing law; in other words, they are held to their diluted voting servitude status. Should they take the matter to a court of law, the judge will enforce the existing invalid law enacted by party members for their future protection, and they will thereby be returned to their diluted voting servitude status.

What societal engine drives the system of peonism?

Both politically and commercially, the system of peonage in New Mexico is profitable. On the one hand, the illicit foreclosure procedure acquires what equity the home owner may have had in their real property. In the political sense, the major parties maintain their exclusivity under self-serving law.

Consider the judicial systems in New Mexico A person who chooses to represent him or herself is referred to by judges and practicing attorneys as pro se litigants which has become just short of a curse word; and while before the court of law, they are held to the same standards and compliance requirements as are those who are permitted to practice law for profit with special privileges by denying the power of Article IV, Section 26, Constitution of New Mexico and by defying the authority of Section 38-1-1. Maybe you can see how the New Mexico judicial system imposes a condition of involuntary servitude on private citizens, absent a criminal conviction in a court of law, without recourse; maybe not. Article IV, Section 26 states:

The legislature shall not grant to any corporation, or person, any rights, franchises, privileges, immunities, or exemptions, which shall not, under the same terms and under like conditions, inure equally to all persons or corporations; no exclusive right, franchise, privilege or immunity shall be granted by the legislature or any municipality in this state.

Section 38-1-1, Rules of pleading, practice and procedure, states:

The supreme court of New Mexico shall, by rules promulgated by it from time to time, regulate pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts of New Mexico for the purpose of simplifying and promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant. [Emphasis added.]

The supreme court shall cause all rules to be printed and distributed to all members of the bar of the state and to all applicants, and no rule shall become effective until thirty days after it has been so printed and distributed.

History: Laws 1933, ch. 84, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 19-301; 1953 Comp., § 21-3-1; Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 31.

Note: bar members are entitled to personal copies of all court rules; pro se peons are not.

Understand that the courts of law, both state and federal, are created for the society by the electorate through their legislative representatives, both state and federal, for the purpose of settling disputes and for enforcing the laws; they are not created by or for judges or practicing attorneys; however, the latter process evolves under conditions of peonism. Because the practicing attorneys are generally the only ones allowed to become judges in courts of law, the judicial system is prejudiced against private citizen pro se litigant who choose to represent themselves in courts of law; however, the said system is not prejudiced against attorneys authorized to practice law when they represent themselves. A private citizen pro se litigant entering court is then subjugated to hundreds of pages of court rules, both locally made and those made with the approval of the legislature; should the pro se litigant violate the rules, or not be able to produce court cases that support his/her dispute, and their case will be dismissed, generally with prejudice. Next, the pro se litigant is bombarded with case law, cases previously heard and determined by other judges, which the pro se litigant has no way of knowing without having the permission to practice law for profit, and without the means to gain proficiency as are attorneys. A pro se litigant is thus handicapped; he/she is subjugated to a condition of servitude and then forced by legal coercion, either by judicial power or police power, to be held to the same standards and compliance requirements as are practicing attorneys. In time, the pro se litigant is returned by the court to the imposed condition of servitude by the legal coercion of case law and court rules used regularly by practicing attorneys with acquired legal prowess but foreign to the pro se litigant. Always remember peons, it’s called the adversarial system of justice in New Mexico and it is designed to continue the practice of peonism.

Is the practice of involuntary servitude, absent a criminal conviction, ever justified?

Consider the possibility of an epidemic involving a contagious deadly disease. Should the government have the power to quarantine, from society, those known to have the disease by imposing conditions of involuntary servitude on the diseased to protect those of affected society not yet infected? The answer is yes, especially when the disease can spread rapidly and uncontrollably, and when the disease can cause unnecessary death, physical impairment, or excessive financial costs. Government has power under law to protect the health, safety, and welfare of affected society; however, such protection is not the result of a whim being imposed solely by arbitrary judicial or police power without benefit of the professional medical council. To permit such an abuse of power would border on an application of mass punishment.

How about when natural disasters occur?

How about an evacuation order forecast by professionals predicated upon a flood capable of corrupting the community water supply and the sewage system? How about a mandatory evacuation order to physically vacate an area because of a known gas leak in the community which might be exploded by a random electric spark; an order that might save both lives and property? Finally, consider an out of control community fire approaching and threatening a community. The answers would be yes if the health, safety, and welfare of the communities fall within a certifiable risk. There are numerous example where government must act with restraint or constrained by the facts to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the affected community; just as there are arbitrary abuses of authority predicated upon haste, immature reasoning, or unsupported suppositions. Some lawful system must be in place in a community and must be actionable by responsible government before a threat harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the community materializes; however, under no circumstance does a system of peonism have to be in place for such purposes.

CONCLUSION:

The author believes that a system of peonage exists throughout the United States of America and the financial crises creating the current prolonged recession is but one symptom of the evils of peonism. Borrowers of loans to purchase a home find themselves bound by a contract provision that permits the lender to sell its interest to another without the borrowers’ knowledge, consent, or participation, a condition subjecting the borrowers to involuntary servitude. The defect in the contract is that the borrowers’ interest and the lender’s interest in the contract are inseparable, a condition which voids the contract; and neither the lender nor the borrowers may contract with a third party without the other party’s knowledge, consent or participation.. Nevertheless, the borrowers in the every state are being held by legal coercion to that unlawful provision; the courts will hold the borrower by a court order and the local police, based upon that court order, will return the borrowers by eviction procedures to the unlawful condition of involuntary servitude. Thus, the evil system of peonism is active throughout the United States.

In U.S. Peonage Cases, the judge had this to say about the evils:

The evils of the system not only degraded those who were subjected to the system, but exercised a baleful influence upon all other classes, which in innumerable ways fought against the industrial prosperity and moral advancement of the people among whom the “system” was enforced. It was also wholly out of keeping with the spirit of the [Thirteenth] amendment to the Constitution, which forbids involuntary servitude, except upon due conviction of crime.

Involuntary servitude, absent a criminal conviction in a court of law, involves situations requiring one to comply with a furtive obligation imposed by some circumstance in which one is left with no viable choice but to comply. Such servitude may be justified where the imposed circumstance is supported both constitutionally and by a lawful act; absent one or the other, however, voids the circumstance, and the remaining situation becomes a substantive crime constituting the first class of crime addressed by Pinkerton..

Congressional action is in place to suppress the various forms of illicit slavery. However, some presidential action is required to execute the laws giving effect to the Thirteenth Amendment power in place for suppression of peonism. The system of peonism is and has been profitable within the State of New Mexico for many years which thereby provides the engine for its continued support and perpetuation; those profiting from the practice directly provide that support; and presidential judicial nominations for federal commissions generally choose felonious candidates from New Mexico who, upon appointment and commissioning, subsequently extends support for the practice from the federal bench for the said engine of profit. The Department of Justice and the federal judiciary has been formally notified of the felonious nominations and the information provided has been ignored. Thus more than one government governmental entity, both state and federal, have actively conspired for the substantive crime to persist over a period of time, a conspiracy to commit a substantive crime which constitutes the second class of a crime addressed by Pinkerton.

Finally, two of the three branches of the New Mexico Government and the United States Government were formally notified of the substantive crime; both branches of government had sufficient power to cure the defect had the assigned public officers therein been bound by their oath of office; and thereby, no action was ever taken by either government to cure the defect. Thus, all three classes of a substantive crime, as addressed in Pinkerton, have been satisfied successfully for years without any fear of interference or hindrance from any government source.

Citizens of New Mexico are owned by the New Mexico Government and thereby subjugated to the system of peonism by persons illicitly posing as state public officers supported by two branches of the federal government all of whom took an oath of office and file evidence of having done so but did not simultaneously file an individual fidelity, recognizance, or stipulation bond binding them to that oath as constitutionally mandated by Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America in order for each of them to enter the public office claimed. Should a citizen attempt to escape the woes of peonism, while in a court of law, state or federal, by challenging the authority of the person posing as a state judge for exercising the power and authority of that office without the required individual fidelity bond, that citizen would be liable for incarceration for having done so. Six deputy marshals stood by in a federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico to assure that circumstance. An incarceration actually happened in a state district court in San Juan County, New Mexico.

Still further, if a citizen becomes a valid candidate for public office against other candidates who fraudulently and feloniously file their candidacy for the same office, the felonious candidate with a majority vote is certified as the winner by another person unlawfully holding public office who thereafter authenticates the certification to the federal government. This tactic is another source of profit for the existing efficacious system of peonism, and efficiently returns the true winner to the system of peonism from which they attempted to escape.

The system of peonism describe above in this conclusion has been operative since Year 1963, the year that fidelity bonds were discontinued. Such bonds, which would bind persons lawfully elected or appointed to state public office to their individual oaths of office, as their contract consideration, is given publicly in exchange for the public’s trust for their subsequent entry into public office to perform the duties of the office entered. No fidelity bond, no entry to the office claimed. Always remember, a contract must have mutuality – that is, some consideration is given by the parties to assure its mutuality, it must bind in all its parts and bind all parties, or it binds none.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

Possible Judicial Solution

There is no lawful court of law, either state or federal, available to the pro se litigant as a solution. Attempts have been made to cure the defect in the First and Eleventh Judicial Districts without success. Further, a case filed in the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking to cure the defect and the substantive issue presented was changed by the court to avoid addressing the crime. Finally, the Chief Justice was hand-delivered a document explaining the substantive crime and the content of the document was ignored. The federal district court for the District of New Mexico and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit were also formally notified; however, the notification fell on deaf ears. Thus, a judicial solution for pro se litigants is not available under the system of peonism.

Probability of Political Solution

Both the office of the President and the United States Department of Justice are aware of the denial of the Thirteenth Amendment power and the defiance of the ancillary statutory authorities giving those powers effect and both have ignored the defective New Mexico Government or have refused to do anything about it. Indeed, federal public fund appropriations are provided to the defective New Mexico Government with abandon.. Thus attempts for the Executive Department of the United States Government to take action have been futile and are therefore solutions from that department are improbable.

Depending upon the Congress of the United States Government to take action to cure the defect by a submitting a petition might provide the means for an investigation; however, that approach is unlikely in an election year. Besides, a petition was previously sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary and not even a letter acknowledging receipt was sent; the petition was ignored.

The United Nations, on the other hand, maintains that enslavement of any type in any government constitutes a Crime against Humanity which is defined thusly:

According to the Parry & Grant Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law, Third Edition. Oxford 2009, crime(s) against humanity is defined as:

The first articulation as to what constitutes a crime against humanity appears in art. 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 (82 U.N.T.S. 279): ‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and any other inhumane acts committed against a civilian population . . . or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal . . .’. [Emphasis added.]

Thus defined, this category was intended to fill any gaps in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for egregious acts not covered by the other limbs of art. 6, viz. crimes against peace and war crimes. Since the judgment of the Nuremberg I.M.T. (41 A.J.I.L. 172 (1947)), where crimes against humanity were essentially regarded as an egregious form of war crimes, and the adoption of the Nuremberg Principles by the International Law Commission on 2 August 1950 ([1950] I.L.C. Yearbook 374), crimes against humanity have become a recognized—and free standing—part of international criminal law, being within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (2187 U.N.T.S. 3) defines a crime against humanity, in art. 7(1), as ‘any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack, directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender . . ., or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical healthy’. See Eichmann Incident Case (1961) 36 I.L.R. 5. See Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity: A Normative Account (2004).

In view of the foregoing and the fact that presidential elections are forthcoming, action before the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations may be possible as a solution. It would be appropriate to inform the Office of the President and the Department of Justice that the United Nation Commission on Human Rights would be notified of the enslavement of a significant population within the United States of America was active and might not be limited to the citizens of New Mexico.

Probability of Citizen Protest

This study will be available by email to any person desiring a copy for protest purposes. Sufficient information is contained within the document to render it separable from the appendix without loss of meaning. Those who desire the references mentioned in the document without access to the appendix are free to seek their own sources for review. Accordingly, should Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube communications be exercised to generate massive protest during the presidential campaign, the possibility that some action will be taken not to count the New Mexico vote either by the ballot box or the electoral college might just do the trick. It remains a possible solution.

SOLUTION:

In view of the foregoing, no simple solution is possible. Either the citizen must universally engage in a nationwide protest against the evils of peonism, whether affected by it or not, or some influential international actor must take an interest and act on behalf of the American citizen to bring about a change to end the conditions of peonism imposed upon them. No branch of the United States Government will do it voluntarily or be convinced to do so.

Respectfully submitted to the Citizens of the United States of America,

__________________________

Winfred Paul Adams

MAJOR, USAF, Retired

2347 Forest Avenue

Durango, Colorado 81301