Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
There was a quite a bit of paper filed in Trowbridge, Jr v. Lew, et al today
http://www.open-public-records.com/c...s-19054099.htm
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Response in Opposition to Motion] |
| Date Published: |
October 05, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Response] |
| Date Published: |
October 05, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Remand] |
| Date Published: |
October 05, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Objections] |
| Date Published: |
October 05, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Expedite] |
| Date Published: |
September 28, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Affidavit] |
| Date Published: |
September 28, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Other Notice] |
| Date Published: |
September 27, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Dismiss] |
| Date Published: |
September 21, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Notice of Appearance] |
| Date Published: |
September 19, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Certificate of Interested Parties] |
| Date Published: |
September 12, 2016 |
| Court Name: |
U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas |
| Case Number: |
4:16-cv-02747 |
| Party Name: |
Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al |
| Filing Type: |
Civil [Notice of Removal] |
| Date Published: |
September 12, 2016 |
-
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
"Federal jurisdiction" is very simple to understand:
army.mil + usmarshals.gov = government force over you
These idiotic paper filings would be amusing if not for being so pathetically sad.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
"Federal jurisdiction" is very simple to understand:
army.mil + usmarshals.gov = government force over you
These idiotic paper filings would be amusing if not for being so pathetically sad.
We see more and more of it as time goes by. They jailed 77 year old Joe Robertson in Montana for building a reservoir on his private land with all,the necessary state permits. Supposedly some of the soil he excavated from the pond poluted the creek which eventually connects to the Platte River, the Missouri, and ultimately the Mississippi. The EPA CHARGED him with violating the clean water act.
In Trowbridge's case,he has had them stalemated for the last 2 years. They haven't figured out how to handle him yet. If they let him win it will unravel 150 years of federal convictions.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
In Trowbridge's case,he has had them stalemated for the last 2 years. They haven't figured out how to handle him yet. If they let him win it will unravel 150 years of federal convictions.
The reason they haven't stomped on him yet is two-fold: 1) he isn't a real threat...yet; 2) the filing fees he has to pay as tribute are hefty. It's a good cash flow:
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/page/FeeSchedule
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
The reason they haven't stomped on him yet is two-fold: 1) he isn't a real threat...yet; 2) the filing fees he has to pay as tribute are hefty.
Yes, he has had cases all the way to the Supreme Court and back, currently there are 4 on the docket in the Texas District. I imagine he has put a small fortune in their coffers.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Yes, he has had cases all the way to the Supreme Court and back, currently there are 4 on the docket in the Texas District. I imagine he has put a small fortune in their coffers.
The shyster in the black dress almost never sees these documents. A clerk stamps them, and they're put in a folder. A small percentage of the time the clerk will follow a "standing order" and issue some sort of "response," usually a form with check boxes.
The clerks probably a get good laugh from it all, paying good money while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
paying good money while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Money is a fiction. When you pay 'the court' in fiction you should expect repayment in kind.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
I think this fits this tread because Dr. Trowbridge is fighting the. same corruption in the courts as the Bundys et al.
Did the Congress create the legislative United States District Courts to bypass the constitutional separation of powers?
Was Congress reason for doing this, in their ever growing lust for more power over the states and people, to prosecute UNITED STATES CITIZENS for various federal crimes, income tax violations, gun law violations or in the Malheur Protest prosecute American cowboys for educating people about the constitution under the guise of "impeding federal officers?
I posted the following on Outpost to Freedom blog and the RangeFire hoping some legal types will weigh in with their assessments.
Besides the fact that Oregon did not cede jurisdiction there is another question.
Does the constitution grant the US District Court authority giving it the capacity to take jurisdiction in Harney County Oregon? Are thes administrative courts part of the DOJ in the executive branch?
USC Title 28 Chapter 5 (United States District Courts) Section 85 (Jurisdiction) lists the jurisdiction of the courts. Each listing is CIVIL.
Did the Congress effectively bypass the separation powers when it created these United States District Courts with the exception of the court in Hawaii and the District of Columbia? (USC Title 28 Chapter 5)?
Article III courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are defined in Article III and do not include criminal and civil trials.
The Article IV district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Nowhere in the constitution are they given authority to take jurisdiction in Oregon and Nevada.
I suspect the Congress created these courts specifically to bypass the separation of powers. Not being under the judicial branch, they fall under the DOJ in the administrative branch. That explains why no one gets a fair trial and the constitution cannot be discussed or ruled upon.
Further investigation will show their jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory and the insular possessions.
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, 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. §91for Hawaii say the following:
“Section 9(a) of Pub. L. 86-3 provided that: ”The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 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. The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:
28 U.S. Code § 88 – District of Columbia
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
This section expressly makes the District of Columbia a judicial district of the United States.
Section 41 of this title also makes the District of Columbia a judicial circuit of the United States.
Section 11–305 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., provides that the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia shall possess the same powers and exercise the same jurisdiction as the district courts of the United States, and shall be deemed a court of the United States.
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” (Act of June 7, 1934, 48 Stat. 926); and also changed the name of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921). In Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 1927, 47 S.Ct. 557, 274 U.S. 145, 71 L.Ed. 972, the Supreme Court ruled:
“* * * The parallelism between the Supreme Court of the District [of Columbia] and the Court of Appeals of the District [of Columbia], on the one hand, and the district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other, in the consideration and disposition of cases involving what among the States would be regarded as within Federal jurisdiction, is complete.” See also to the same effect Clairborne-Annapolis Ferry Company v. United States, 1932, 52 S.Ct. 440, 285 U.S. 382, 76 L.Ed. 808.
28 U.S. Code § 91 – Hawaii
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Court of the United States; District Judges
Pub. L. 86–3, § 9(a), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 8, provided that:
“The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 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: Provided, however, That the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”
Section 9 of Pub. L. 86–3 provided in part that subsec. (a) of that section should be effective upon the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union.
28 U.S. Code § 108 – Nevada
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 174 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 94, 36 Stat. 1118; June 24, 1930, ch. 595, 46 Stat. 806; Nov. 15, 1945, ch. 482, 59 Stat. 582).
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
Amendments
1990—Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “, Reno, Ely, and Lovelock” for “and Reno”.
28 U.S. Code § 117 – Oregon
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 183 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 102, 36 Stat. 1122; Nov. 6, 1945, ch. 447, 59 Stat. 555).
Provisions relating to appointment and residence of deputies by the clerk and marshal, and maintenance of offices by said officers, were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
Amendments
2000—Pub. L. 106–518 substituted “Eugene or Springfield” for “Eugene”.
1970—Pub. L. 91–272 provided for holding court at Coquille.
1950—Act Aug. 3, 1950, provided for holding court at Eugene.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Reading further into our nations history that is EXACTLY what Congress did. Article III and Article IV courts no longer exists. Any courts that exists now are strictly Administrative courts.
I believe that's why Marc Stevens has had some success in challenging jurisdiction in traffic and tax courts. The courts cannot prove it has jurisdiction because it does not have it as they are not Article III / IV courts.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
