U.S. statutes only apply to land owned by the U.S.A.

[Bigjon]

Officer Can Not Prove Land is “of” the United States.
(http://freeinhabitant.info/2012/08)
24
Aug

Just spent an hour in a Nebraska County Court (Sarpy), The Officer could not produce fact evidence that the act took place “on” land that is a possession or territory “of” the United States. Trial is Set to Continue.

I now understand that the “State” that the US Constitution with the USC calls a “State” of Nebraska is land in Nebraska owned by the USA.

Now the “State of Nebraska” is a grouped word title, different from the above singular word “State” and is therefore an entity (corporate), with its own land holding, yet being subject to its creator the USA.

So the land I was claimed to be traveling on without registration is of the “State of Nebraska” a corporate entity, (see accompanying Deed showing the highway where the stop occurred land owner) not of land “of” the United States which the statute requires to have force and effect of law.

Oh how tricky they have been, such a play on of words to trick us into believing US Court jurisdiction exists at this specific location.

So now I must direct examination the Officer and force him to admit ether the land is not “of” the United States, or admit he does not know and has not been able to bring that evidence to the Court, and if he says it is then I’ll demand he produce the fact evidence to support his statement.

For if the statement is not supported by fact it is only a belief then….. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. May 4, 2012 366 S.W.3d 732 “An affidavit, based on the affiant’s “best knowledge and belief,” is no evidence of the facts asserted.”

Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C.A. Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’ s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703

Therefore – Court must dismiss because no evidence of the criminal charge took place in (on land) the claimed jurisdiction of where the written law has force and effect of law applies.

[[All Motor Vehicle violations must occur in the state, state is defined as:
Statutes > Nebraska > Chapter 60 MOTOR VEHICLES > 60-666 State, defined.
60-666. State, defined.State shall mean a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a province of Canada. Source Laws 1993, LB 370, § 162.


3895

[Glass]

Very interesting Bigjon. The author hits on the point. It's a sleight of language. It's all a sleight of language. Some people can only comprehend things literally and not esoterically which is how these guys operate.

I thought this was extremely interesting.


or a province of Canada

Why would Canada be included in the claimed possessions of the US?

[palani]

Nebraska is part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Louisiana Purchase was purchased based upon watershed. After the U.S. engaged in treaties with the Indians the individual parcels were available for settlement and land patent. I don't believe there has been a single case of the U.S. granting even the smallest watershed to any individual or state. The watersheds tend to cross state and even international boundaries.

Point is ... an argument can be made that the U.S. does still have an interest in the land. It's interest is based upon a different plane than most people consider and which no court will assist in letting you know about. All you get is your logic thrown out and no explanation of why your reasoning failed.

If you go into a court with an argument when you are not licensed to argue you are likely to find yourself in a rubber room force fed mind altering chemicals.