Federal Court Jurisdiction as stated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [Archive]

View Full Version : Federal Court Jurisdiction as stated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

monty

11th January 2016, 12:18 PM

Straight from the Supreme Court's Rules of Criminal Procedure (1999-2000)

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_54.htm

Federal jurisdiction in the geographical Union states truly is a hoax. Take note, "State"

X. GENERAL PROVISIONSRule 54. Application and Exception
(a) Courts.
These rules apply to all criminal proceedings in the United States District Courts; in the District
(FOOTNOTE 1) of Guam; in the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, except as otherwise
provided in articles IV and V of the covenant provided by the Act of March 24, 1976 (90 Stat. 263);
in the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and (except as otherwise provided in the Canal Zone)
(FOOTNOTE 2) in the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone; in the United
States Courts of Appeals; and in the Supreme Court of the United States; except that the
prosecution of offenses in the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall be by indictment or
information as otherwise provided by law.

(b) Proceedings.
(1) Removed Proceedings.
These rules apply to criminal prosecutions removed to the United States district courts from state courts and govern all procedure after removal, except that dismissal by the attorney for the prosecution shall be governed by state law.

(2) Offenses Outside a District or State.
These rules apply to proceedings for offenses committed upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district, except that such proceedings may be had in any district authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3238 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_18/title_18_chap211.html#18usc3238).

(3) Peace Bonds.

(c) Application of Terms.As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

District court
" includes all district courts named in subdivision (a) of this rule.

"Federal magistrate judge" means a United States magistrate judge as defined in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 631 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc631), 632 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc632), 633 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc633), 634 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc634), 635 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc635), 636 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc636), 637 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc637), 638 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc638), 639 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc639), a judge of the United States or another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates.

"Judge of the United States" includes a judge of a district court, court of appeals, or the Supreme Court.

"Law" includes statutes and judicial decisions.

"Magistrate judge" includes a United States magistrate judge as defined in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 631 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc631), 632 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc632), 633 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc633), 634 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc634), 635 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc635), 636 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc636), 637 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc637), 638 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc638), 639 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc639), a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates, and a state or local judicial officer, authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3041 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_18/title_18_chap203.html#18usc3041) to perform the functions prescribed in Rules 3 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_3.htm#rule_3), 4 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_4.htm#rule_4), and 5 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_5.htm#rule_5).

"Oath" includes affirmations.

"Petty offense" is defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 19 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_18/title_18_chap1.html#18usc19).

"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.

"United States magistrate judge" means the officer authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 631 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc631), 632 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc632), 633 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc633), 634 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc634), 635 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc635), 636 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc636), 637 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc637), 638 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc638), 639 (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/US_Code/title_28/title_28_chap43.html#28usc639).

7th trump

11th January 2016, 01:02 PM

Straight from the Supreme Court's Rules of Criminal Procedure (1999-2000)

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_54.htm

Federal jurisdiction in the geographical Union states truly is a hoax. Take note, "State"

Its the same definition found in the IRC.....and that definition expands into all 50 states geographically.
You're playing a stupid semantic game because-
1. you refuse to understand the definition.
2. you are only willing to see what you want to see.

"Includes " is an expansive term...not a restrictive term.

monty

11th January 2016, 01:25 PM

Its the same definition found in the IRC.....and that definition expands into all 50 states geographically.
You're playing a stupid semantic game because-
1. you refuse to understand the definition.
2. you are only willing to see what you want to see.

"Includes " is an expansive term...not a restrictive term.

Expansive as in Apples to Apples, not Apples to Oranges. States do not equal Territories, Apples do not equal Oranges. Perhaps you didn't notice their are NO as in zero District Courts listed for any Union state in the FRCP.

Also you need to understand these are Article IV courts with jurisdiction limited by the Constitution in Article IV, not by the Supreme Court or by your precious statutes. Statutes are for government and citizens, not for the people.

Trump, for a law to be valid it must be written in lanuage clear enough so a person of average intelligence may understand it. A law, to be valid, may not imply something. The intent must be stated specifically or it is null and void.

Then reason the Congress and the Supreme Court chose not to put Nevada or Iowa and the other 48 states in their definition of "State" is because then the law would violate the Article IV property clause. So they purposely choose to use the word "includes" to deceive the populace. And the Constution is still the Supreme Law of the Land

You choose to ignore Rule 54(c) which tells in no uncertain terms where the District Court has jurisdiction.

It is the same definition found throughout all the USC and CFR. But let me ask you this, if the Congress has power to legislate in the 50 "States" why are the stats all guaranteed a republican form of government? Why do we even have a state legislature if what you say is fact?

monty

11th January 2016, 02:52 PM

http://s14.postimg.org/ngv0l8z4h/image.png

http://s14.postimg.org/sgsgt74r5/image.png

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State-Defined18Stat3140.pdf (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State-Defined18Stat3140.pdf)

palani

11th January 2016, 03:00 PM

California ... Revenue and Taxation code

6017. "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior
limits of the State of California and includes all territory within
these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Washington Code

Title 82 RCW deals with EXCISE TAXES
RCW 82.04.200
"In this state," "within this state."

"In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the
exterior boundaries of the state.

Wisconsin:

29.011 Title to wild animals.
(1)The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this
state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition,
and conservation of these wild animals.

The following is just shown to test your comprehension skills

Iowa Code
602.6202 Jurisdiction.
District judges have the full jurisdiction of the district court, including the respective jurisdictions of district associate judges and magistrates. While exercising the jurisdiction of magistrates, district judges shall employ magistrates’ practice and procedure.

Where does the comprehension come in? Why don't you tell me and I will let you know whether you are correct or not?

monty

11th January 2016, 03:48 PM

California ... Revenue and Taxation code
animals.

The following is just shown to test your comprehension skills

Iowa Code
602.6202 (tel:602.6202) Jurisdiction.
District judges have the full jurisdiction of the district court, including the respective jurisdictions of district associate judges and magistrates. While exercising the jurisdiction of magistrates, district judges shall employ magistrates’ practice and procedure.

Where does the comprehension come in? Why don't you tell me and I will let you know whether you are correct or not?

whats to comprehend? It is straight forward. Iowa district judges have full juristiction of their court, not limited to and including the jurisdiction of associate judges and magistrate judges. However when acting in the capacity of a magistrate a district judge shall use the magistrates' rulebook (practices and procedures).

palani

11th January 2016, 04:13 PM

whats to comprehend? It is straight forward. Iowa district judges have full juristiction of their court

You must train yourself to learn law. You don't presume anything.

JUDGES have full jurisdiction.

ONE JUDGE (singular) doesn't have full jurisdiction.

If you learn to read and comprehend you can tie their tail into knots.

monty

11th January 2016, 04:22 PM

You must train yourself to learn law. You don't presume anything.

JUDGES have full jurisdiction.

ONE JUDGE (singular) doesn't have full jurisdiction.

If you learn to read and comprehend you can tie their tail into knots.

That is what your statute says (plural). Can you provide an example? Are common law courts typically tribunals?

palani

11th January 2016, 04:38 PM

That is what your statute says (plural). Can you provide an example? Are common law courts typically tribunals?

The power of one justice of the peace (in common law) is the topic of Book II of Eirenarcha. The power of two or more justices of the peace (in common law) is the topic of Book III of Eirenarcha.

CAP 1

The authoritie and power of one Justice of the Peace, (without the Sessions) thus perused and passed over, let us now examine the like power of two both in generalitie, and particular.

It is universally true, that whatsoever thing one Justice of the Peace alone is premitted to do, either for the conservation of the Peace, or in the execution of the Commission (or Statutes) the same also may be no lesse lawfully perfourmed by two (or moe) Justices: except it bee in a verie few cases, where some Statutes do seme specially to appropriate the execution thereof to some one certaine Justice, either in respect that

307 CAP 1.
The 3. Booke.
Ryots, &c

That he is Next to the place, eldest of the Quorum or such like.

Eirenarcha is available for viewing or download at no cost from Google Books.

monty

11th January 2016, 05:34 PM

Interesting points in our judicial history

This began the most dangerous precedent of all Insular cases. This where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the States, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from Harvard law review of AMERICANS INS. CO. V. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

These courts then are not Constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the constitution, but is conferred by congress in the execution of those general powers which that body posses over th eterritories of the United States.” -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possession, page 481.

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution….” “In exercising the power, Conress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States, ….And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of the executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possession, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of the executive and legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable,” – Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” – Downs vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” – Waring et al, v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L, ed. 1847.

No reference: claimed; 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on the land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., Session 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-1845), no opposition was reported.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/Admiraltyextesionfordamageonland.jpg

http://www.energeticforum.com/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.energeticforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=154627&)

http://www.energeticforum.com/154627-post18.html?

Glass

11th January 2016, 05:59 PM

That is what your statute says (plural). Can you provide an example? Are common law courts typically tribunals?

Would be good to get some hard references. Common law is not tribunal. Magistrates "courts" are administrative tribunals.

Men must be judged by 2 Judges. That can be either 2 x Judges or 1 x Judge and a Jury of 12 good men. Not sure about petite Juries.

This is why Freemen want a Trial by Jury being a judge and jury under common law and not a Jury Trial which can be 1 Judge and a 6 member jury (I think it's 6) and the Judge can overrule and also direct the Jury as to the finding they will make. We know this is not correct because we have this thing called jury nullification which empowers the Jury over the Judge but only in common law jurisdiction.

Bigjon

11th January 2016, 06:25 PM

7th trump

11th January 2016, 07:13 PM

What is the difference between the State of Iowa and Iowa State?

One is the true union republic where "We the People" inhabit.
The other is the political federal state that lies within the exterior boundaries of the Union republic state that US citizens reside in (AKA....The Buck Act).

palani

12th January 2016, 04:16 AM

What is the difference between the State of Iowa and Iowa State?

There is no difference. Neither one includes any watershed.

7th trump

12th January 2016, 08:13 AM

There is no difference. Neither one includes any watershed.

Bahahahaha.....any grade school kid can pick up an atlas and see the boundaries to all 50 union states...they look exactly the same...one is a political jurisdiction the other is physical land mass.

Watersheds huh...........how freaken stupid!

palani

12th January 2016, 10:59 AM

Watersheds huh...........how freaken stupid!

Tell it to King George when you see him. Watersheds was how England described the United States when the revolutionary war severed relations.

Watershed empires go back to Mesopotamia. Lots more history with them than mere political boundaries.

7th trump

12th January 2016, 06:54 PM

Tell it to King George when you see him. Watersheds was how England described the United States when the revolutionary war severed relations.

Watershed empires go back to Mesopotamia. Lots more history with them than mere political boundaries.

Yeah well who cares how the English described this land...we kicked them and their political structure out.
It doesnt apply here.
But then again you're known for trying to push square pegs in round holes.

Glass

12th January 2016, 07:29 PM

Yeah well who cares how the English described this land...we kicked them and their political structure out.
It doesnt apply here.
But then again you're known for trying to push square pegs in round holes.

Sorry but you (probably not you but patriots of old) only kicked them to the shore line. The UK still controls your oceans and water ways with respect to "commerce" by way to treatise with the US Gov and Canadian Gov.

made with respect not animosity.....Your knowledge is pretty patchy. More research needed.

There is a thread posted in the past few days. Entitled something like Open letter to Judges or some such by a Lady with a German sounding name. Start there. It explains the outcome of the so called War of Independence.

I can't seem to find it so it must be in some forum other than General Discussion.

I think it is this one: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?87112-Judge-Anna-Von-Reitz-letters-about-the-state-of-our-State&highlight=open+letter

palani

13th January 2016, 04:07 AM

It doesnt apply here.

Why don't you try to describe your problem to the French then ... 'cause they seem to have sold the 'soil' you stand on now to the U.S. long after the English left the scene. Actually though they sold no 'soil'. They sold the watersheds. Seems the Indians didn't really claim them so the French seized them (as being abandoned and they discovered them), sold them to the Spanish, waited 40 years, bought them back from the Spanish and a year later sold 'em to the U.S. And the U.S. has done nothing with them in the intervening two hundred years except carve out some POLITICAL overlays.

But that's ok. I am sure you can impress 'em all on the mental ward with your superior knowledge. Every electrician knows he is smarter than anyone else.

Glass

13th January 2016, 04:31 AM

But that's ok. I am sure you can impress 'em all on the mental ward with your superior knowledge. Every electrician knows he is smarter than anyone else.

This conjures up disturbing images for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQa_sg4zN88

Glass

13th January 2016, 04:43 AM

"Includes " is an expansive term...not a restrictive term.

Supporting and clarifying. In some instances Includes is restrictive but only usually when that is clearly the intent. Otherwise to be considered expansive.

AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. MAROTTA.
In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, 'include' is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration. Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, 394, 119 P. 509, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1062; People ex rel. Estate of Woolworth v. S.T. Comm., 200 App.Div. 287, 289, 192 N.Y.S. 772; Matter of Goetz, 71 App.Div. 272, 275, 75 N.Y.S. 750; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,309; Cooper v. Stinson, 5 Minn. 522 (Gil. 416). Subject to the effect properly to be given to context, section 1 (11 USCA § 1) prescribes the constructions to be put upon various words and phrases used in the act. Some of the definitive clauses commence with 'shall include,' others with 'shall mean.' The former is used in eighteen instances and the latter in nine instances, and in two both are used.

When the section as a whole is regarded, it is evident that these verbs are not used synonymously or loosely, but with discrimination and a purpose to give to each a meaning not attributable to the other. It is obvious that, in some instances at least, 'shall include' is used without implication that any exclusion is intended. Subsections (6) and (7), in each of which both verbs are employed, illustrate the use of 'shall mean' to enumerate and restrict and of 'shall include' to enlarge and extend. Subsection (17) declares 'oath' shall include affirmation, Subsection (19) declares 'persons' shall include corporations, officers, partnerships, and women. Men are not mentioned. In these instances the verb is used to expand, not to restrict.

It is plain that 'shall include,' as used in subsection (9) when taken in connection with other parts of the section, cannot reasonably be read to be the equivalent of 'shall mean' or 'shall include only.'

There being nothing to indicate any other purpose, Congress must be deemed to have intended that in section 3a(1) 'creditors' should be given the meaning usually attributed to it when used in the common-law definition of fraudulent conveyances. See Coder v. Arts, 213 U.S. 223, 242, 29 S.Ct. 436, 53 L.Ed. 772, 16 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/213/223) Ann.Cas. 1008;

via Cornell Law School
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/513)
Referenced from here around line 22 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=L5twBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT56&ots=amuJVDnEzN&dq=is%20the%20word%20%22include%22%20definitive&pg=PT56#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20word%20%22include%22%20definitive&f=false) but worth reading down to there and beyond for several examples.

I had heard but unable to find confirmation that "includes:" was the restrictive form and "includes" was expansive. Being that anything after the : colon was a definitive list and anything not listed was excluded.

palani

13th January 2016, 05:09 AM

I had heard but unable to find confirmation that "includes:" was the restrictive form and "includes" was expansive.
You won't find anything definitive except as the word applies to YOU.

Let me explain. I looked high and wide for an authoritative source that clearly stated 'include' was not restrictive and could find nothing. Therefore I reasoned that as the word applied to me I had to engage the world in estoppel. That is to say I had to present to the world my definition and concepts in such a way that the world was given an opportunity to have their say and thereafter lost all their right to engage in the fine art of redefinition.

I settled on the LEGAL NOTICE as the most appropriate way to settle the issue. Now there is no issue 'cause I can always drag out my legal notice (which has been recorded by the way) and ask why they did not contact me within the period established for replies.

If you have not gone to this trouble then you must rely upon others for authority .. and this can be fatal.

mick silver

13th January 2016, 05:18 AM

http://libertyfight.com/images/zionsvillecopy.png

7th trump

13th January 2016, 07:41 AM

You won't find anything definitive except as the word applies to YOU.

Let me explain. I looked high and wide for an authoritative source that clearly stated 'include' was not restrictive and could find nothing. Therefore I reasoned that as the word applied to me I had to engage the world in estoppel. That is to say I had to present to the world my definition and concepts in such a way that the world was given an opportunity to have their say and thereafter lost all their right to engage in the fine art of redefinition.

I settled on the LEGAL NOTICE as the most appropriate way to settle the issue. Now there is no issue 'cause I can always drag out my legal notice (which has been recorded by the way) and ask why they did not contact me within the period established for replies.

If you have not gone to this trouble then you must rely upon others for authority .. and this can be fatal.

So if you are in a state park and a sign is posted to stay out of a certain area of the park and you venture in it because you have given your legal notice that certain "terms" of that particular states statutes don't apply to you......do you think you are therefore safe from arrest and prosecution for trespassing?

What I'm saying is you can give legal notice all you want but it doesn't necessarily mean squat.

palani

13th January 2016, 02:57 PM

So if you are in a state park and a sign is posted to stay out of a certain area of the park and you venture in it because you have given your legal notice

Kindly note that while you might perform the action of trespass such an action is simply not possible with me when I am in a watershed that belongs to me.

Who is going to charge me? ME?

Now if I happen to be in a foreign watershed then the first question I might ask is "Who is the Autochthon for this Watershed?" and if the charging officer cannot answer that question then he must not have a mandate from that individual and lacks the authority to charge me for being there.

monty

14th January 2016, 06:21 AM

6. ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE AND ARTICLE IV TERRITORIAL COURTS: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS"All “United States District Courts” are territorial and/or “legislative courts” that may only operate as administrative rather than Constitutional or Common Law courts. Nearly all of the courts in our federal system are “United States District Courts”. In fact, the only Constitutional or common law district courts in the country United States exist in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. This is confirmed by looking at the Notes under 28 U.S.C. §88 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/88.notes.html), which says for the District of Columbia:

“It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O'Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals ''shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia''

The Notes section under 28 U.S.C. §91 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/91.notes.html)for Hawaii say the following:

"Section 9(a) of Pub. L. 86-3 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/usc-pl/86/3) provided that: ''The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/index.html) of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States"

All district courts other than Hawaii and the District of Columbia are, by implication administrative courts, which means that they are territorial courts which may not rule on constitutional rights. Even courts that are Art. III can only exercise that power when the judges are also Article III judges, which few judges are. There is a great deal of confusion over this issue within the legal profession and few lawyers fully understand the implications of this distinction in our experience.All of the territorial “United States District Courts” are listed in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/pIch5.html). The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:

“Sections 81-131 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/81-131.html) of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945. All references to dates were omitted as unnecessary. “

The important thing to note is the date of January 1, 1945. At that time, Alaska and Hawaii were still territories instead of states of the Union. Consequently, the U.S. District Courts had jurisdiction throughout these two territories at the time this chapter was codified. All of the sections listed under this chapter identify the boundaries of the various districts, but the actual territory within these districts that falls under federal jurisdiction and under jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts is limited ONLY to areas of land that have been ceded by each state to the federal government by an act of the state legislature or which were owned by the federal government since before the state joined the Union. Anyone who is not domiciled in a federal area within the outer boundaries of these districts does not reside "within the district", and therefore does not come under federal jurisdiction, including jurisdiction to enforce the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A.

In the case of the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court admitted in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=244) (1901) that it was covered by the Bill of Rights because it had belonged to the states of Maryland and Virginia before it was ceded to the federal government after the Constitution was ratified in 1789. At the point when D.C. was ceded in writing by Maryland and Virginia to the new federal government, the land was covered by the Bill of Rights and no formal agreement was subsequently worked out by Maryland and Virginia to remove the applicability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to that area. Consequently, all courts trying issues in that area must be Article III courts.

Though the judicial system set up in a Territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase "court of the United States", when used in a federal statute, is generally construed as not referring to "territorial courts." See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=258&page=298) at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627. In Balzac, the high Court stated:

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=258&page=298) at 312, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)]

Below are some additional cites clarifying the terms “District Court of the United States” as compared with “United States District Court”.

Constitutional provision against diminution of compensation
of federal judges was designed to secure independence of
judiciary.
[O'Donoghue v. U.S., 289 U.S. 516 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=289&page=516) (1933)]
[headnote 2. Judges]
__________________________________________________ _________

The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in
Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a
wider connotation, had its historic significance and
described courts created under article 3 of Constitution,
and did not include territorial courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=303&page=201) (1938)]
[headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]
__________________________________________________ _________

Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal
Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States
including named territorial courts, omission in rules when
drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and
certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal
Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.

[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=303&page=201) (1938)]
[headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]
__________________________________________________ ____________

United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution.
[U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]
[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]
[headnote 2. Courts]
__________________________________________________ ____________

The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. [many cites omitted]
[Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm#2.%20TERRITORIAL%20JURISDIC TION

monty

14th January 2016, 07:43 AM

Its the same definition found in the IRC.....and that definition expands into all 50 states geographically.
You're playing a stupid semantic game because-
1. you refuse to understand the definition.
2. you are only willing to see what you want to see.

"Includes " is an expansive term...not a restrictive term.

"...The court [the Supreme Court of the State] also considered that the word 'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power attributed to it. It gives in connection with 'including' a quality to the grant of 110,000 acres which it would not have had,-the quality of selection from the saline lands of the state. And that such quality would not exist unless expressly conferred we do not understand is controverted. Indeed, it cannot be controverted...."

Some 80 court cases have chosen the restrictive meaning of ‘includes,’ etc., such as this one last example:

Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word ‘including’ the primary import of specific words following quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement. (Powers ex rel Dovon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd829)

To elucidate more clearly the 1961 definition, above: ‘includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to include things not enumerated, unless they are in the same general class. For instance, ‘State,’ in 26 USC 7701 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7701)(10): "The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia…" Here, "the District of Columbia," without any doubt, is not "in the same general class," category, or genus as Missouri or California—it is a federal "State." The District of Columbia has a totally different jurisdictional set up than a union state. It is under the absolute jurisdiction of the ‘U.S.,’ and the states are not. Only in the federal zone does the U.S. have jura summi imperii,right of supreme dominion, complete sovereignty.

http://freedom-school.com/citizenship/investigation-into-the-meaning-of-the-term-united-states.html#16.%20%91U.S.%20residents%92%20and%20% 91state%20Citizens.%92

monty

14th January 2016, 08:40 AM

I am aware most of you here have jobs, families etc., and don't have time to read all the stuff I have copy/pasted.

MARTIN EARL FISHER´S STORY (http://freedom-school.com/evidence/martin-fisher-1.html)

About United States Jurisdiction

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.
It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=324&invol=652) (1945) 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252

The term "United States", when used in its territorial meaning, encompasses the areas of land defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and 4:3:2, nothing more. In this respect, the "United States" is a separate Nation which is foreign with respect to the States united by and under the Constitution, because the "United States" as such has never applied for admission to the Union of States known as the "United States of America". Accordingly, statutory "citizens of the United States" who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are defined in the wording of the so called 14th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/) and of The Civil Rights Acts. At best, this so-called Amendment is a "private Act" rather than a public act which designates a class of people who are unique to the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Federal Territories and Possessions, and the land which has been ceded by the Legislatures of the 50 States to the foreign nation-state of the "United States" for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and "other needful buildings" (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2). Collectively, this territorial jurisdiction can be termed "The Federal Zone" to distinguish it uniquely from the nation as a whole and from the 50 States of the Union. The "nation" can, therefore, be defined as the mathematical union of the federal zone and the 50 States (using the language of set theory.)
The District of Columbia is technically a corporation and is only defined as a "State" in its own codes and under International Law (e.g., see IRC 7701 (http://freedom-school.com/tax-matters/eo-topic-i92.pdf)(a)(10)).

UNITED STATES is a Corporation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0) - There are Two Constitutions
CHAPTER 62, 1871
16 United States Statutes at Large 419
FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III.
CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. --
An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.
The language of this act provides that the government of the District (the Federal Government) is a corporation, municipal in nature but still a corporation. Furthermore, District citizens (United States citizens - U. S. citizens) [B]will now be subject to corporation law as well as law of the Republic.Corporate law is private law even thought the corporation is municipal. Generally we are led to believe that these corporate laws are laws of the people because they have came from Congress... they are not, they are private laws and can only be applied by contract.The United States is a Corporation (http://freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html)Title 5 U.S.C. §556(d)
"When jurisdiction is challenged the burden of proof is on the government.""No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ´assumed´, it must be proved to exist!"
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

STANDING and JURISDICTION

Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to "show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ´injury in fact´ that a favorable judgment will redress." Id. at 12. In comparison, "prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant´s raising another person´s legal rights." Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." --Edward R. Murrow

Someone say, "jurisdiction (http://freedom-school.com/lewis-mohr/someone-say-jurisdiction.html)"?
The Constitution of the United States of America (1787)
Article IV: Section 3: Clause 2: (Federal property and the Territorial Clause -- Main article: Territorial Clause)
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section Three also permits Congress to dispose of and legislate for all territories and properties belonging to the United States. Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, such authority is "exclusive".
The created United States government cannot define the rights of its creator, the American people.
Three forms of law were granted under the Constitution, common law, equity and Admiralty law.
Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.
The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended.
See Federal jurisdiction (http://freedom-school.com/lewis/mohr/40-usca-3112.pdf)

http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/pdf.gif United States of America, Inc. (http://freedom-school.com/citizenship/united-states-of-america-inc.pdf)
http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/pdf.gif US Code defines the term "United States" (http://freedom-school.com/code-defines-united-states.pdf)

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) - Article 9
§ 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR.(h) Location of United States.
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/pdf.gif Corporatization and Privatization of the Government (http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf)
(An in depth study.)
http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/pdf.gif THE STATE OF TEXAS (http://freedom-school.com/law/the-state-of-texas.pdf)

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." --George Orwell

Sage advice: Think about this: [T]he burden of proof is upon the party making the allegations. The party doing the complaining has the burden of proof or burden of evidence. Proof and evidence both mean basically the same thing. It is their duty to present this evidence, not your duty. Remember, if they do try to question you, if they do try to get you on the stand, the answer that should flow from your lips to any of their questions goes like this,
"Mr. Prosecutor, it appears you are assuming facts that are not in evidence AND because you haven´t given me the evidence you haven´t given me enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer."
That´s how one may avoid answering them and in a way that they can´t put you in jail for contempt because with that kind of an answer you didn´t refuse to answer, you weren´t arrogant, you were just straightforward. They didn´t give you enough information or knowledge. (They never do - why? They don´t have it - or - they don´t want you to know, ??? Take your pick.)
"[I]Gee, and I thought I had a right to be fully informed in this matter."The following cases substantiate that it is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction
must, when challenged, PROVE that jurisdiction exists:
McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed. 1135
Griffin v. Mattews, 310 Supp. 341, 423, F.2d 272
Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906
Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed. 111
Albrect v. U.S., 273 U.S. 1

http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/index.htm

monty

5th February 2016, 05:34 PM

State means

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Effective March 21, 1946, as amended to December 1, 2015
TITLE I. APPLICABILITY

Rule 2 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2

(3) ‘‘Federal judge’’ means:
(A) a justice or judge of the United States as these terms
are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451;
(B) a magistrate judge; and
(C) a judge confirmed by the United States Senate and
empowered by statute in any commonwealth, territory, or possession to perform a function to which a particular rulerelates.
(4) ‘‘Judge’’ means a federal judge or a state or local judicialofficer.
(5) ‘‘Magistrate judge’’ means a United States magistratejudge as defined in 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639.
(6) ‘‘Oath’’ includes an affirmation.
(7) ‘‘Organization’’ is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 18.
(8) ‘‘Petty offense’’ is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 19.
(9) ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, and any com-
monwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(10) ‘‘State or local judicial officer’’ means:
(A) a state or local officer authorized to act under 18U.S.C. § 3041; and
(B) a judicial officer empowered by statute in the District of Columbia or in any commonwealth, territory, or possession to perform a function to which a particular rule relates.

http://www.uscourts.gov/file/18073/download

palani

5th February 2016, 05:59 PM

(3) ‘‘Federal judge’’ means:
(A) a justice or judge of the United States as these terms
are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451;
(B) a magistrate judge; and
(C) a judge confirmed by the United States Senate and

Further on in those same rules

Other of these rules, where applicable, also apply to proceedings before United States magistrates. See Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Minor Offenses Before United States Magistrates Notice PLURAL use of magistrates?

State and local judicial officers are governed by these rules, but only when the rule specifically so provides.
Hint ... while state and local judicial OFFICERS are governed by these rules ... a SINGULAR OFFICER is not so limited. Says so doesn't it?

“Magistrate” includes a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. §§631 –639, a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia
Are you going to presume that a singular magistrate has the same powers as PLURAL magistrates? I wouldn't think you could make this leap on your own.

monty

11th February 2016, 12:23 PM

28 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions
(15)“United States” means—(A)a Federal corporation;

(B)an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C)an instrumentality of the United States.

Ares

11th February 2016, 12:45 PM

Great info Monty. Nice to see evidence of them actually referring to the District of Columbia as a "State" when we all know that it is not.

Goes right back to that Trowbridge case where he was able to prove that the entire Federal jurisdiction within a state is a total and complete fraud on the Constitution.

7th trump

11th February 2016, 01:16 PM

As usual you guys dont follow the law and would rather use a definition that doesnt apply to your situation to fit your pathetic reasoning cause.
This act of stupidity shows your lack of intelligence.

Very top of the page and the very first words

As used in this chapter:
Hahahahahaha..........you just gotta laugh at this amateur attempt

28 U.S. Code § 3002 applies to only chapter 176 of title 28....it does not apply out side of chapter 176 "Debt Collection Procedure".
Unless you're case is a debt collection effort or related to debt collection that definition doesnt apply.

Look at Ares go with the atta boy...........Monty....blah blah blah!
Do yourself a favor and stay out of the law because you'll have it all f$cked up before you even get started.
Or better yet leave the emotions out of it and use intelligence to guide you.....like thats gonna happen.
Sorry guys but I just have to ridicule you into shame because theres no other way to make you listen and learn.

Start using your head unbiased and you'll be as "right and correct" each and every time...like I am!

Ares

11th February 2016, 01:19 PM

As usual you guys dont follow the law and would rather use a definition that doesnt apply to your situation to fit your pathetic reasoning cause.
This act of stupidity shows your lack of intelligence.

Very top of the page and the very first words

Hahahahahaha..........you just gotta laugh at this amateur attempt

28 U.S. Code § 3002 applies to only chapter 176 of title 28....it does not apply out side of chapter 176 "Debt Collection Procedure".
Unless you're case is a debt collection effort or related to debt collection that definition doesnt apply.

Which is the very same cause that Mr. Trowbridge applied during his proceeding.

Again, assume too much, know too little and overly arrogant for no fucking reason.

Go back to your ego masturbation. We honestly do not give a shit what you have to say.

7th trump

11th February 2016, 01:22 PM

One case doesnt apply or effect another case. Each is seperate and individual.

7th trump

11th February 2016, 01:22 PM

Hahahahahaha......you get kicked in the nuts every freaken time because you're stupid.

monty

11th February 2016, 05:48 PM

28 U.S. Code § 1396 - Internal revenue taxes

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)

US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1396?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1396?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1395) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1397)
Any civil action for the collection of internal revenue taxes may be brought in the district where the liability for such tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer’s residence, or in the district where the return was filed.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=936).)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1396

28 U.S. Code § 1345 - United States as plaintiff

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)

US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1345?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1345?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1344) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346)
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 933 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=933).)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1345

monty

11th February 2016, 06:03 PM

28 U.S. Code § 963 - Courts defined

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)

US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/963?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/963?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/962) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/991)
As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise, the words “court” and “courts” include the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts enumerated in section 610 of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/610).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 927 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=927).)

28 U.S. Code § 610 - Courts defined

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/963

US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/610?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/610?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/609) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/611)
As used in this chapter the word “courts” includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/610

18 U.S. Code § 23.1 - Court of the United States definedCurrent through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)

US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/23?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/21) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/24)
As used in this title, except where otherwise expressly provided [2] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/23#fn002009) the term “court of the United States” includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320914(a) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d103:./list/bd/d103pl.lst:322(Public_Laws)), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2128 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=108&page=2128).)

[1] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/23#fn002008-ref) So in original. No section 22 has been enacted.

[2] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/23#fn002009-ref) So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/23#fn002008-ref

monty

12th February 2016, 10:30 AM

As a rule, franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon valuable considerations, for purposes of individual advantage as well as public benefit, 1 and thus a franchise partakes of a double nature and character. So far as it affects or concerns the public, it is publici juris and is subject to governmental control. The legislature may prescribe the manner of granting it, to whom it may be granted, the conditions and terms upon which it may be held, and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising it, and may also provide for its forfeiture upon the failure of the grantee to perform that duty. But When granted, it becomes the property of the grantee, and is a private right, subject only to the governmental control growing out of its other nature as publici juris. 2
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §4: Generally (1999)]

It is up to each party to define whether something provided by the contract or franchise constitutes a “benefit” or“consideration” in a legal sense. The opposite party cannot determine what constitutes consideration for YOU without instituting duress upon YOU. What the government calls “benefits” do not, in fact, constitute “consideration” from alegal perspective because they obligate the government to do NOTHING. Therefore, the franchise is not a contract and therefore is not enforceable as a right in equity in a true constitutional court.

“... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)

“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments... This is not tosay, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)]

For details on the above, see:
The federal government may NOT lawfully establish a franchise within a state of the Union or license any activitywithin the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union.

file:///page21image12908 9.1.9.2.

All franchises presuppose that those who participate occupy a public office, as you will see later. Thatpresumption is FALSE in the case of those not lawfully occupying such office BEFORE they sign up.

An example of a de facto license is a Social Security Number, which acts effectively as a de facto license to act asa “public officer” within the government. Note the phrase “trade or business” in the U.S. Supreme Court holdingbelow, which is defined as “the functions of a public office” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) :

“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, andwith the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses totrade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensivepower; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which thegranting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over thiscommerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongsexclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a Stateis warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly grantedto the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusivepower of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power.It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports,and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thuslimited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existingsubjects. Congress cannot authorize [e.g. “license”] a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”[License Tax Cases, [72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf

monty

26th February 2016, 09:55 PM

http://www.tax-freedom.com/FederalJurisdictionWithinStates.htm

http://www.tax-freedom.com/FederalJurisdictionBecraft.htm

monty

26th February 2016, 10:05 PM

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related almost entirely to external affairs of the States. Any single delegated power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion so as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits territorial jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, and it possessed jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly after formation of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. Over time, the States have ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is buttressed by the opinion of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the United States government published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm): Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, and this report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.

"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.

"On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government," Id., at 107.

Thus from a wealth of case law, in addition to this lengthy and definitive government treatise, the "jurisdiction of the United States" is identified as a very precise and carefully defined portion of America. The United States is one of the 50 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/FederalJurisdictionBecraft.htm

palani

27th February 2016, 02:25 AM

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.
The topic is academic. The federal government established by constitution dissolved in 1878 leaving an unpaid debt of $346,681,016. It was replaced by a national government established by a new constitution consisting solely of the 14th amendment and succeeding amendments.

People like to believe fairy tales. I prefer to confront reality. Fiction can be anything you like it to be.

I have two volumes of Bouvier law. One was published in 1855. It is bound in brown leather. It contains black letter law. The second was published in 1862. It has a gilt spine, marbled edges and marbled paper front and back. Full living color. Aka color of law. Embellished law. Real law requires no embellishments such as marbling and gilt. The publisher made a statement by his selection of binding materials concerning the legality of Lincoln's war with the south. Word for word the contents might be identical in both volumes but ..... there is a subtle difference.

Bigjon

27th February 2016, 06:55 AM

monty

27th February 2016, 07:17 AM

How long has it been since we had any unincorporated States?

The State entities that were meant to decide on whether or not to cede territory to the Federal corporation called UNITED STATES, have been ham strung for several years by a deceptive agenda on the part of the UNITED STATES.

probably since the passage of the 17th amendment. When the Senators were no longer beholden to the state legislatures congress discovered they could gain municipal jurisdiction through treaties,

TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER Within the last decade, many people have been utterly astonished at the phenomenal growth and influence of the so-called environmental movement. From its "salad days" of the early seventies, this movement has blossomed so quickly that it now has the visible support of giant corporations and powerful political figures. But, there appears to be a hidden agenda behind the environmental movement with its promotion of an environmental treaty.

contiued:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html

monty

27th February 2016, 07:35 AM

“[T]he germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one. to this I am opposed; because whenever all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. . . .”
Th: Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, quoted in “From Thomas Jefferson to C. Hammond, 18 August 1821,” Founders Online, National Archives

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-2260

From Thomas Jefferson to C. Hammond, 18 August 1821,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-2260 [last update: 2015-12-30]).

monty

27th February 2016, 08:04 AM

The topic is academic. The federal government established by constitution dissolved in 1878 leaving an unpaid debt of $346,681,016. It was replaced by a national government established by a new constitution consisting solely of the 14th amendment and succeeding amendments.

A good start to regaining some of our liberty would be repealing the 14th and 17th amendments. Both were rattified by fraud.

Bigjon

27th February 2016, 08:45 AM

A good start to regaining some of our liberty would be repealing the 14th and 17th amendments. Both were rattified by fraud.

Well Judge Anna says that nothing the corporation called the UNITED STATES did was constitutional. None of those amendments have any force of law under the 1787 Constitution as it has not been in force since they usurped our lawful government.

In order to put it in force we have to reassert our lawful claim for our government of the land jurisdiction. With a continental congress seated in Philadelphia. We have reconstitute our counties, than our states.

monty

16th March 2016, 07:07 PM

http://youtu.be/irV-59KC5lI

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/arizona-house-committee-passes-bill-setting-stage-to-reject-and-block-federal-indefinite-detention-and-targeted-assassination-program/

Arizona House Committee Passes Bill Setting Stage to Reject and Block Federal Indefinite Detention and Targeted Assassination Program

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/03/NDAA-arizona-031616-270x141.png (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/03/NDAA-arizona-031616.png)

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 16, 2016) – Today, an Arizona House committee passed a bill that would take a big step toward rejecting indefinite detention under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, and other federal laws which claim to authorize using the laws of war domestically.
Introduced by State Sen. Judy Burges, Senate Bill 1437 (SB1437 (https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1437/2016)) declares any attempts to use of the laws of war in the state of Arizona to be unconstitutional. This directly addresses various powers assumed by the federal government in recent years, including indefinite detention, assassination and rendition.
Last month, it SB1437 passed the Senate (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/arizona-senate-passes-bill-setting-the-foundation-to-reject-and-block-federal-indefinite-detention-and-targeted-assassination-program/) with an 18-12 vote. Today, the House Federalism and States’ Rights Committee passed it by a 4-3 vote (http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1437.hfsr.1.asp&Session_ID=115).

Titled the Liberty Preservation Act, the bill reads, in part:

It is unconstitutional and unlawful for any person to:

1. Arrest or capture any person in this state or any citizen of this state within the United States with the intent of detention under the law of war.

2. Actually subject a person in this state or any citizen of this state to disposition under the law of war.

3. Execute any person in this state or any citizen of this state within the United States without judicial sentencing after trial and conviction in a court ordained and established under Article III of the United States Constitution or under the Constitution of Arizona.

Passage into law would ban the state of Arizona from assisting the federal government with the indefinite detention of anyone within the state. Most prominent are sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), still in effect today. The federal government cites these sections, along with other war powers, such as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) as authority to detain alleged “terrorists” indefinitely. People detained under these powers have no trial, no access to an attorney, and virtually no recourse. (learn more here (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/06/ndaa-sections-1021-and-1022-scary-potential/))

The bill also addresses execution without due process, another power of war claimed by the executive branch. In 2013, Mediaite reported (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-napolitano-tears-into-obama-drone-policy-very-dangerous-stuff-nowhere-justifiable-under-federal-law/) that Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed both the unconstitutional nature of the “targeted assassination” program, and the potential to use it domestically.

Asked whether the administration’s argument in favor of their policy can lead to a “slippery slope” for future expansions of executive authority, Napolitano said, “This power used today against an unpopular target might be used in the future by another president against a person the president doesn’t like but as to whom there’s no moral justification for pursuing whatsoever.”

“Another concern,” he explained, “is that this 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could actually be extrapolated to permit the president to kill Americans here in the United States.” The outspoken libertarian added that Congress should be concerned the president is able to ramp up portions of the War on Terror without asking for the legislature’s consent.”

Asked whether it’s possible an administration could use this targeted assassination justification to strike American citizens at home, Napolitano brought up a “terrifying” memo from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (no relation), in which — according to the Fox analyst — she declared that certain people “who are pro-life, people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the government is too big and the IRS is too powerful could be characterized as ‘domestic terrorists.’”

Any person attempting to indefinitely detain or execute a person in violation of the state law would be “subject to prosecution pursuant to Title 13 or any other applicable law.”

A similar bill stalled in the Senate Rules Committee last year, and supporters call today’s vote a big step forward.

If passed into law, Arizona would become the fifth state to take steps to nullify indefinite detention and the laws of war domestically, joining Alaska, California, Michigan and Virginia. Those states have passed similar legislation in the last three years, but each have been far more limited in scope, with legislation based on the Tenth Amendment Center’s model, the Liberty Preservation Act (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/liberty-preservation-act/).

“Justice Antonin Scalia said we would be kidding ourselves if we didn’t think the Supreme Court would approve another WWII, Japanese-American style, internment,” founder of People Against the NDAA Dan Johnson said last year. “Arizona has a chance to join several states to head this off and avoid repeating a dark part of American history.”

All of these states are following James Madison’s blueprint for stopping federal overreach (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/12/15/james-madison-how-to-stop-the-federal-government/). In Federalist 46, heargued that a “refusal to comply with officers of the Union” along with other actions at the state and local level would create a situation where the federal government would have an almost impossible time enforcing their acts. When several states join together and do the same, Madison said it would “present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

ACTION ITEMS
In Arizona: Take steps to support SB1437 HERE (http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues-by-state/nullify-indefinite-detention-arizona/).

Other States: Contact your state legislators today – urge them to introduce similar legislation. Model bills and contact info HERE (http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/ndaa/).

Additional reporting by Mike Maharrey

monty

2nd September 2016, 04:21 PM

Since the passage of the (anti)Patriot Act and dumbing down of society Americans have cowed down to unconstitutional federal laws.

None of the defendants in the Malheur protest trial have challenged the court having authority granted by the constitution to take jurisdiction in Harney County Oregon. This challenge is extremely basic in that either contitutional authority exists or it does not. No other argument need be made.

There is an abundance of case law on federal criminal jurisdiction, much of it quoted in this article. The land at Malheur Reserve was not ceded to the United States by the Oregon legislature and jurisdiction was not relinquished.

Do Domestic Terrorists Have America Hostage?

http://i1.wp.com/oregon.redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/dt.jpg?zoom=2&resize=641%2C361Armed Domestic Terrorist Groups Take Americans Hostage in a Coordinated Series of Attacks:

The Terrorists Refuse to Release Them.

By Hari Heath (http://redoubtnews.com/?s=Hari+Heath)

That should be the headlines.
It did happen here. As a matter of law, it is a fact. But, that’s not what the conventional media is reporting.

Such a headline doesn’t fit the narrative of the programming we are fed. It is not what the owners and managers of that media want you to know. They are in the business of creating, altering and limiting the information we call news. But the attacks did happen on American soil. One American was killed in the initial ambush, while over twenty others were taken hostage in a series of kidnappings. This article is about what existing law says regarding the relevant facts in these attacks against Americans in our homeland.

We can “feel” one way or another about this murder and series of kidnappings. Often, names are used to demonize or glorify those on one side or the other in this ongoing contest, but what matters is the facts and the law, and the lawless conduct of the perpetrators.

The cause of this current act of terrorism on American soil began long ago. Congress unlawfully created the Bureau of Land Management (BLM (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/04/13/desertification-blm-part-2/)) which began putting state and private lands under its’ management regime. One can read about the decades long legal battles of the Hage family, who eventually won, or the BLM taking of all the ranch lands around Cliven Bundy in Nevada who lost all of his neighbors to unscrupulous legal actions by the BLM. Cliven Bundy (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/05/11/bundy-sues-obama-reid-judge/) was the last holdout trying to protect the same thing a federal court had just awarded the Hage family a month earlier in their long legal battle.

http://i0.wp.com/oregon.redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/hammond.jpg?resize=300%2C240
The Hammond Family

Similarly, the Hammonds (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/02/03/hammond-case-facts-ammon-bundy/) in Oregon had been tried and convicted for arson and went to prison when a controlled burn on their ranch escaped and burned some lands managed by the BLM: Lands that had been previously taken from other ranchers. The Hammonds were tried a second time for the same offense, this time with a charge of “terrorism” added to increase their prison time, all at the behest of the BLM and Department of “Justice” attorneys.

In protest of this unlawful conviction many people gathered in Burns Oregon last winter, and after the protest in town, a few of them went to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and began an occupation of the “refuge.”

That occupation resulted in a standoff, which ultimately resulted in the murder and kidnappings this story is about. But what should matter is the facts and the law here, not how we “feel” politically. And the law hinges on a legally defined term, “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.”

A History Lesson

Before we explore that issue we must start at the beginning: The beginning of our nation. You see, most of us went to public school and have a very limited understanding of American government and history. We tend to blur and blend important events, concepts and principles until our perception and understanding becomes clear as mud. We tend to believe in false notions like “Federal Supremacy.” We look at the out-of-control monster that is the federal government and say, OK, they are supreme so I guess it is OK.

Let’s look at a brief timeline to gain some perspective that was most likely missing from our government class in school.

In 1776, 13 British Colonies declared their independence from the British Crown, each becoming a nation-state equal to any of the nation-states of Europe. The last few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence explain this in great detail. These 13 nation-states were soon at war with Britain and found it difficult for each of them to independently manage the external affairs of this new union of American States. In 1781, these States instituted the Articles of Confederation to create a limited federal government to handle their collective external interests and conduct their affairs with the other nations in the world. This worked reasonably well until after the war was concluded, when they found that the Articles of Confederation did not adequately or equitably distribute powers to the federal government of that time.

http://i1.wp.com/oregon.redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/history.jpg?resize=300%2C158

In 1787, a convention was held to improve matters and, after much deliberation and consideration, the Constitution for the United States was ratified. Some felt that while it did lay down a good foundation for the new federal government, there were not enough protections and limitations in the exercise of government powers. The “Bill of Rights” corrected those shortcomings, adding the first ten amendments to the Constitution in 1791.

Federal Supremacy?

The Constitution declares that the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”. Key to proper understanding is the phrase, “made in Pursuance thereof.” The Tenth Amendment further limits the federal government to the powers delegated to it in the Constitution.

We are sometimes bombarded with the notion of “federal supremacy” by those who seek to blur and blend meaning to increase the appearance of federal power, but it is only the constitutionally delegated powers and laws that are made in pursuance thereof that are “supreme.” U. S. Code is full of “laws” not made “in pursuance thereof” because “We the People” have not done our job to keep our republic from ruin.

When it comes to “federal lands” there are some lawful ones. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 delegates an authority to own lands in a State for what is now Washington D.C. and for forts, arsenals, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings, if they are purchased with the consent of the legislature of the state they are in. Wildlife refuges are not within the scope of such a federal purpose or power. The protesters who peaceably occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were trying to bring some attention to this fact.

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

The prosecution of criminal activity necessarily requires “jurisdiction.” And federal courts require “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.” An early Supreme Court case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States:

“The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals.”Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885).

The Supreme Court later simply stated:

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/scotus-night.jpe

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” (Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215)

In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating as follows:

“Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out.”

But this doesn’t stop Congress. Congressmen don’t read the bills. And they don’t read the Constitution that only gives Congress the authority to pass laws “in Pursuance thereof.”

Terrorists?

So how is terrorism defined in current law? The FBI website (https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism) says: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the U.S. Code, entitled “Terrorism.” They also state: “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

· Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
· Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
· Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Assassination to Intimidate and Coerce?

Did the FBI snipers that assassinated Lavoy Finicum (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/03/12/fbi-say-shooting-lavoy-back-justified/) in an ambush last spring intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of government? Given the claims that Lavoy Finicum’s blood was found inside his vehicle before he exited it, was he assassinated, or shot in “defense” of the officers at the ambush, as the official story claims? Did he need to be stopped because he had 6 months of town hall meeting scheduled around the west to expose the unconstitutional fallacy of federal public lands?

Federal Kidnapping

Over 20 Americans have been captured by the FBI and other federal agencies in what can be called the “Bundy Round Up (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/07/19/bundy-judge-composting-constitution/).” They are being held in custody and threatened with lengthy prison sentences, in hopes of a plea deal with the Department of “Justice,” for alleged crimes related to the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation and the Nevada stand off at the Bundy Ranch.

http://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/child-cuffs.jpg?zoom=2&resize=358%2C223

All by a federal government which does not have the lawful authority to impose BLM ownership on a State. It does not own, but rather claims to “administer” public lands in a blur of obfuscation, hoping that “We the People” will never come to know the difference. As non-owners of any properties, properly ceeded by the state legislature as the Constitution requires, the federal government has no “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.” No real crimes have been committed here, yet over 20 Americans are being held hostage.

So who are the real terrorists? Without any lawful laws, “made in Pursuance thereof,” to support their actions, the perpetrators fit the definitions of the “crimes” they claim to protect us from. What are the nature of the crimes committed by the FBI, DOJ, BLM, Oregon State Patrol and others: kidnapping; unlawful detainment; murder; conspiracy; Accessory; Grand Theft; Perjury, to name a few?

So far, federal courts continue to protect federal interests and shield federal perpetrators, engaged in federal usurpations, all swept under the federal rug, while your fellow Americans who stood up for something important sit in jail waiting for you to forget.

Will there ever be a system of justice in America that does not allow criminal activities to be carried out in the name of government? Will the perpetrators of these attacks be brought to justice and face real consequences for their crimes? Federal Criminal Jurisdiction has its limits. What are your limits? Had enough of government and media lies? When will you stand for something important?

http://oregon.redoubtnews.com/2016/09/02/terrorists-holding-america-hostage/

Tumbleweed

2nd September 2016, 06:28 PM

Assassination to Intimidate and Coerce?

Did the FBI snipers that assassinated Lavoy Finicum (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/03/12/fbi-say-shooting-lavoy-back-justified/) in an ambush last spring intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of government? Given the claims that Lavoy Finicum’s blood was found inside his vehicle before he exited it, was he assassinated, or shot in “defense” of the officers at the ambush, as the official story claims? Did he need to be stopped because he had 6 months of town hall meeting scheduled around the west to expose the unconstitutional fallacy of federal public lands?

I hadn't heard that his blood was found inside his vehicle and that's pretty interesting if it was.

monty

2nd September 2016, 07:32 PM

I hadn't heard that his blood was found inside his vehicle and that's pretty interesting if it was.

I think Ryan Bundy wrote in one of his court filings that LaVoy was shot before he got out of the truck. It may have been Shawna Cox. I will try to find that paper again and post it.

monty

2nd September 2016, 08:07 PM

https://shastalantern.net/2016/03/10-facts-that-point-out-lavoy-was-murdered/

6th Finicum’s vehicle began, once again, taking live fire this time from .223 rifle fire at the exact moment the vehicle crested the corner and approached the ambush. Finicum was never provided the opportunity to slow his vehicle before Law Enforcement began using deadly force, .223 rounds were found to have penetrated the windshield, hood and radiator prior to LaVoy ditching his vehicle into the snow bank. This is confirmed by the FBI drone surveillance video, the Cox cellphone video and officer’s testimony. In testimony the officer that discharged his weapon stated he felt justified in using deadly force due to “It was clear to me, the speed the truck was traveling…was traveling at a speed which I knew from my training and experience, it was…it became apparent to me based off my training and experience as a crash, you know, technician, and overall time as a police officer, I knew there was…it had crossed the threshold of being able to stop prior to…that’s when I felt the use of force was my only option…” In short, the officer discharged his weapon, exercising his intent to implement deadly force and justified that action, because in his training and expertise there was not enough time for the suspect vehicle to stop safely. This confirms point 5 that the roadblock was illegal and intended as an ambush.

monty

17th December 2016, 07:18 AM

Letter 7b Ed and Elaine Brown, Dr. Edwardo Rivera, Cheek defense, Article III Judges . . .

Article III Courts, Article IV Courts video on jurisdiction, but daily motions are denied in the Article IV Adminstrative Courts - Bundy Trials, a prime example.

http://youtu.be/ifYtJY_D80E

https://youtu.be/ifYtJY_D80E

monty

18th June 2019, 12:35 PM

Burns, Oregon ~ Environmentalist groups sue to have Hammond grazing rights revoked.

Activists Sue BLM To Block Hammond’s Grazing Permits

Three environmental activist groups have filed suit to block the renewal of a 10-year grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., operated by Dwight Hammond Jr., and his son Steven Hammond.
The complaint, filed May 13, 2019, in U.S. District Court in Pendleton, OR, was filed by Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and Wildearth Guardians. Defendants were named as the U.S. interior secretary, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the BLM’s district manager in Burns, OR. The complaint argues that then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s renewal of the grazing permit after the Hammonds were issued pardons violated federal administrative regulations because it failed to consider the Hammond’s unsatisfactory record.

Continued (https://www.drovers.com/article/activists-sue-blm-block-hammonds-grazing-permits)

Hammond’s salvation lies in the fact the U.S. District Courts are Article I bankruptcy courts/Article IV territorial courts. As such they lack jurisdiction to hear this case.

Hal Anthony/Jefferson Mining District made this argument to Bundys who refused to follow his advice as Hammonds are likely to do by relying on the advice of bar a$$ociation liyers

http://youtu.be/U6bN9A9CZd0

https://youtu.be/U6bN9A9CZd0

Edit: Hammonds may not be a party to the lawsuit

Bigjon

18th June 2019, 03:32 PM

monty

18th June 2019, 05:18 PM

can you give us a hint as to the minute mark?

I know you love Hal, but he's not my cup of tea as he kind of wanders all over the map, without saying much.

sorry to be so blunt, but time is short. Or maybe just the cliff notes?

Listen to the first 15-20 minutes. He talks about the lack of court jurisdiction, how to challenge it by Quo Warranto and he felt like Ammon Bundy was premature in taking over the refuge rather than following his advice saying that justice doesn’t necessarily flow out of the barrel of a gun but rather from the lead of a pencil following proper procedures.

I have listened to half a dozen of his broadcasts and he does try and cram too many topics into one broadcast leaving me wondering what I just listened to.

On the other hand I have picked up a little knowledge of property/land law from listening to him, that is where my interest lies.

Bigjon

18th June 2019, 09:20 PM

I did listen to the first hour of so and picked up on the court jurisdiction thing.

Just listened to Ralph Winterrowd and he is saying the courts are just bar courts and their jurisdiction is something we grant them by showing up.

https://media.blubrry.com/rbn/b/content.blubrry.com/rbn/stream_2019-06-16_165959.mp3
https://media.blubrry.com/rbn/b/content.blubrry.com/rbn/stream_2019-06-16_175959.mp3

from:http://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/the-ralph-winterrowd-show/

From what I gather he's saying they went off the lawful path a long time ago. They just did stuff and because it is a closed society without any scrutiny whatever they can get away with is the better to fleece the sheep.

Paul jj Hansen has a lot of property stuff.
http://freeinhabitant.info/counseling-fees/counsel-time-available-by-paul-john-hansen.htm

monty

19th June 2019, 06:21 AM

The point of posting that, which I should have stated, is I believe there is a perfect opportunity to put the enviro-terrorists out of the land grabbing business. Hal Anthony discusses the mechanism in the podcast

Unfortunately, in the words of Hal Anthony “But it takes an integrated willing party. I just don't see it in any of these people, as nice as they might be. A lot frustrating.”.

Bigjon

20th June 2019, 03:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYwx_MlYw0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYwx_MlYw0

ziero0

20th June 2019, 03:50 AM

Ralph Winterrowd ... saying the courts are just bar courts and their jurisdiction is something we grant them by showing up.

Wynn-Miller suggests that all courts are nothing but foreign vessels in drydock.

The judge is in an elevated box. The jury is in a box. This removes them from the court. They are not in the court themselves. The court is the playing field where the action takes place. The elevated position of the judge tells you it is not a level playing field. The flag tells you what law they promote. Specifically the ratio of rise to run is important. The fringe is important. The device at the top of the pole is important.

Bigjon

20th June 2019, 04:11 AM

Wynn-Miller suggests that all courts are nothing but foreign vessels in drydock.

The judge is in an elevated box. The jury is in a box. This removes them from the court. They are not in the court themselves. The court is the playing field where the action takes place. The elevated position of the judge tells you it is not a level playing field. The flag tells you what law they promote. Specifically the ratio of rise to run is important. The fringe is important. The device at the top of the pole is important.

This all may be true, but don't you think it is strange that they pose as something else?

Where is the honor in deception?

Lieyers.

ziero0

20th June 2019, 04:22 AM

don't you think it is strange that they pose as something else?
Strange or not you accept their flag when you make your appearance. Spirits appear at a seance because they are compelled to. So too do you appear. This is part of the universe of the DEAD.

Where is the honor in deception?
Take a look at Wynn-Millers material. These courts don't deceive you because the signs are all present and out in the open. Even the language they use is honest and above board. It is up to you to know that any word beginning with a vowel and followed by two consonants has a meaning of 'no'. Attorney is such a word. Att-orney means 'no tornment' .... NO CONTRACT.

Parsing words is a useful tool. It is part of grammar. Grammar also requires that a sentence contain only one verb. Instead the use of adverbs convert nouns to verbs and the sentence structure used in writing frequently is nothing more than repeated adverb-verb phrases. All of these are constructed to tell you NO CONTRACT. They never lie. They just speak at a 3 year old level of education.

Bigjon

20th June 2019, 05:03 AM

Strange or not you accept their flag when you make your appearance. Spirits appear at a seance because they are compelled to. So too do you appear. This is part of the universe of the DEAD.

Take a look at Wynn-Millers material. These courts don't deceive you because the signs are all present and out in the open. Even the language they use is honest and above board. It is up to you to know that any word beginning with a vowel and followed by two consonants has a meaning of 'no'. Attorney is such a word. Att-orney means 'no tornment' .... NO CONTRACT.

Parsing words is a useful tool. It is part of grammar. Grammar also requires that a sentence contain only one verb. Instead the use of adverbs convert nouns to verbs and the sentence structure used in writing frequently is nothing more than repeated adverb-verb phrases. All of these are constructed to tell you NO CONTRACT. They never lie. They just speak at a 3 year old level of education.

Wynn-Miller is not to my knowledge a member of the court. How can he speak for it?

Our flag is called the civil flag: https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/1782b51b-ce8c-408c-88fc-a948997053a4/7872accd-72e1-4c0a-9a80-5fa0a284318d.png/:/

ziero0

20th June 2019, 05:17 AM

Wynn-Miller is not to my knowledge a member of the court. How can he speak for it?

He doesn't. His material makes an attempt to educate you on grammar. His legacy (he passed on last year) was the number of judges he deposed.

See all this is private law. You tend to view what goes on in court as public law but this is far from the truth. So when you parse their grammar you do so under the lens of private law.

https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/1782b51b-ce8c-408c-88fc-a948997053a4/7872accd-72e1-4c0a-9a80-5fa0a284318d.png/:/

The 2nd amendment assures you have the right to bear arms. An emblem as you display is such an arm. Arms are remnants left over from the feudal age. They are flags, seals and coats of arms.

Now take a look at the statement 'right to bear arms'. The word 'to' is a future tense word. You only form contracts in now time. Future tense guarantees you 'NO CONTRACT'. You have no constitutional guarantees in now time when all they discuss is future time. Rest assured that at some time in your future (or after you are dead) they will honor the constitution but THAT IS NOT NOW!!!

Bigjon

20th June 2019, 05:49 AM

He doesn't. His material makes an attempt to educate you on grammar. His legacy (he passed on last year) was the number of judges he deposed.

See all this is private law. You tend to view what goes on in court as public law but this is far from the truth. So when you parse their grammar you do so under the lens of private law.

https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/1782b51b-ce8c-408c-88fc-a948997053a4/7872accd-72e1-4c0a-9a80-5fa0a284318d.png/:/

The 2nd amendment assures you have the right to bear arms. An emblem as you display is such an arm. Arms are remnants left over from the feudal age. They are flags, seals and coats of arms.

Now take a look at the statement 'right to bear arms'. The word 'to' is a future tense word. You only form contracts in now time. Future tense guarantees you 'NO CONTRACT'. You have no constitutional guarantees in now time when all they discuss is future time. Rest assured that at some time in your future (or after you are dead) they will honor the constitution but THAT IS NOT NOW!!!

Hey artful dodger:
All this has no bearing on the question.
The question remains:

This all may be true, but don't you think it is strange that they pose as something else?

Where is the honor in deception?

Lieyers.

ziero0

20th June 2019, 08:02 AM

Hey artful dodger
I am a Cubs fan.

The question remains:

don't you think it is strange that they pose as something else?
I think it is strange that transvestites can use the women's rest room. My opinion carries little weight.

Where is the honor in deception?
Where is the honor in argument? Weren't you ever instructed not to argue with a crazy person? If you agree and let 'em go their own way at least they are off your horizon.

Lieyers.
Understanding is consent. Being a sharp negotiator doesn't make one a lie-R. It just means he is a better negotiator (it also means he might be insane though so take that into account).

Learn to take responsibility for everything in your universe and stop blaming everyone else for your pee-poor education. If you do this you will discover that you are also responsible for the lies you are told as well as those you actually believe.