Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

The problem is most employers require a signed W-4.

---

And that stems from the employer not fully understanding what the W4 is all about. Hence why I look at the fine print on the back of the W4 (Paperwork Reduction Act) to understand the purpose of the form.
All employers believe they pay "wages" and they must have a signed W4 on file for the employee. They believe what they pay to their employee as compensation are these taxable "wages".
Problem with this belief is that they don't understand that its not their decision for the employee's to sign a W4....its the employees decision not the participate in Social Security to NOT sign a W4.

The government cannot pass any laws that force participation to any program where there are mandatory imposed taxes...Social Security is one such program. This is why you sign a W4 instead of the government just taking the imposition.
There are many court cases citing this.

And the kicker is the employer is also responsible for half of each employees SS taxes to boot for a tax thats not their legal decision for an employee participate in and is completely voluntary!
These CPA's they hire to do their taxes dont have a clue and are just as worthless when it comes to tax laws. All they do is file the taxes for the company..............and anyone with a half a brain can do that on their own.
CPA"s are stupid educated brain dead morons only doing what the are taught.....the real brains and intelligence is the person who can figure it all out and stop the madness. CPA's need everyone to be as stupid as they are to keep their worthless job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

And that stems from the employer not fully understanding what the W4 is all about. Hence why I look at the fine print on the back of the W4 (Paperwork Reduction Act) to understand the purpose of the form.
All employers believe they pay "wages" and they must have a signed W4 on file for the employee. They believe what they pay to their employee as compensation are these taxable "wages".
Problem with this belief is that they don't understand that its not their decision for the employee's to sign a W4....its the employees decision not the participate in Social Security to NOT sign a W4.

The government cannot pass any laws that force participation to any program where there are mandatory imposed direct taxes ..Social Security is one such program. This is why you sign a W4 instead of the government just taking the imposition.
There are many court cases citing this.

And the kicker is the employer is also responsible for half of each employees SS taxes to boot for a tax thats not their legal decision for an employee participate in and is completely voluntary!
These CPA's they hire to do their taxes dont have a clue and are just as worthless when it comes to tax laws. All they do is file the taxes for the company..............and anyone with a half a brain can do that on their own.
CPA"s are stupid educated brain dead morons only doing what the are taught.....the real brains and intelligence is the person who can figure it all out and stop the madness. CPA's need everyone to be as stupid as they are to keep their worthless job.

---

Quoted for truth.

One other point. Self-employed who participate in Social Security via W-9 pay 100% of FICA (15% of taxable income)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Quoted for truth.

One other point. Self-employed who participate in Social Security via W-9 pay 100% of FICA (15% of taxable income)

---

Direct or indirect taxes...the government cannot force anyone into a social program that has an imposition....period! And they dont!
Notice for all the programs out there including obama care....it takes your signiture?

A W9 is not a form for the self employed...all it does is verify that the participant in Social security, whether or not employed or self employed, can legally participate. It was designed to weed out illegals using fake credentials.

Examples of indirect taxes


https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small...yed/Excise-Tax

Excise Tax

Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel.
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Excise-Tax
Alcohol and tobacco taxes

http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml

I've been reading into trying to revoke your signed W-4 since it apparently is illegal for your employer to deny you being hired without giving them your Social Slave number and signing a W-4 if you don't want too. I'm not having much luck finding anything. But I'll need something to have an employer of 100,000+ people take me seriously without firing me.

Anyone have any documentation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I've been reading into trying to revoke your signed W-4 since it apparently is illegal for your employer to deny you being hired without giving them your Social Slave number and signing a W-4 if you don't want too. I'm not having much luck finding anything. But I'll need something to have an employer of 100,000+ people take me seriously without firing me. Anyone have any documentation?

---

I had some in my files. I will look when I get home shortly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I've been reading into trying to revoke your signed W-4 since it apparently is illegal for your employer to deny you being hired without giving them your Social Slave number and signing a W-4 if you don't want too. I'm not having much luck finding anything. But I'll need something to have an employer of 100,000+ people take me seriously without firing me.

Anyone have any documentation?

---

Ares if you are looking for official documentation from a government source you will not find any.
This is all hinged on you standing on your Constitutional Rights. The government has no obligation to show you what rights you have. That area is solely up to the individual himself. Its not a bad thing, but a blessing!
The first step I took to rid myself of the use of the SSN and the W4 was to write to the SSA. Once I had that letter from the horses mouth stating that participating in SS was completely voluntary I used it to show the employer.
I can show you step by step what I did if you like, but first before I go any further you need to write to the SSA inquiring your Rights and the voluntary nature of SS.
If you would write that up I can twink it for you to get the same response I did which was them admitting that SS is 100% voluntary.
What you are going to do here is educate the employer and do all the work for them so they dont feel like they might be liable for any taxes. Make them as comfortable as possible in that you are doing everything legal and legit.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you never want to go to the employer in such a way they will terminate you. What I did was make myself a desirable asset to the company by saving them tons of money by them not being liable for half of the SS from participating.

Are you in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

And that stems from the employer not fully understanding what the W4 is all about. Hence why I look at the fine print on the back of the W4 (Paperwork Reduction Act) to understand the purpose of the form.
All employers believe they pay "wages" and they must have a signed W4 on file for the employee. They believe what they pay to their employee as compensation are these taxable "wages".
Problem with this belief is that they don't understand that its not their decision for the employee's to sign a W4....its the employees decision not the participate in Social Security to NOT sign a W4.

The government cannot pass any laws that force participation to any program where there are mandatory imposed taxes...Social Security is one such program. This is why you sign a W4 instead of the government just taking the imposition.
There are many court cases citing this.

And the kicker is the employer is also responsible for half of each employees SS taxes to boot for a tax thats not their legal decision for an employee participate in and is completely voluntary!
These CPA's they hire to do their taxes dont have a clue and are just as worthless when it comes to tax laws. All they do is file the taxes for the company..............and anyone with a half a brain can do that on their own.
CPA"s are stupid educated brain dead morons only doing what the are taught.....the real brains and intelligence is the person who can figure it all out and stop the madness. CPA's need everyone to be as stupid as they are to keep their worthless job.

---

I would like to know of a way that I can keep my money instead of sending it to the IRS. Yes, the system is supposedly voluntary but from what I've seen, if one receives a check, instead of cash, there is no way to stop the Federal Mafia from taking their toll. They may let the occasional small-fry go but if they put you in their sights, they will take whatever they decide, through the crooked courts. I believe you said before that you pay zero income tax. I think that is a risky thing. I am all for it and I hope you can continue to pay zero, but from what I've seen, the deck is stacked against us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodman

I would like to know of a way that I can keep my money instead of sending it to the IRS. Yes, the system is supposedly voluntary but from what I've seen, if one receives a check, instead of cash, there is no way to stop the Federal Mafia from taking their toll. They may let the occasional small-fry go but if they put you in their sights, they will take whatever they decide, through the crooked courts. I believe you said before that you pay zero income tax. I think that is a risky thing. I am all for it and I hope you can continue to pay zero, but from what I've seen, the deck is stacked against us all.

---

Woodman I keep all my pay because I do not earn 3121(a) "wages" or 3401(a) "wages". If your employer is reporting income then that income is taxable. Only reportable income is taxable.
I'm perfectly legal and legit otherwise the employer is in for one hell of a law suit worth millions to me....untaxed millions at that.

Theres a lot you can learn from me and I have a lot to show you. I've been researching the tax laws now since around 1995 and the one thing all these so called tax guru's never looked into was the mechanism of reporting and how and why its reported. The key is "reporting".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Woodman I keep all my pay because I do not earn 3121(a) "wages" or 3401(a) "wages".

Theres a lot you can learn from me and I have a lot to show you. I've been researching the tax laws now since around 1995 and the one thing all these so called tax guru's never looked into was the mechanism of reporting and how and why its reported. The key is "reporting".

---

Woodman: Notice that 7th Trump magically dismisses whatever he writes in "parentheses" as not existing. Are you going to also magically dismiss the "fines" and "jail" imposed upon you by following 7th Trump's magical thinking?

http://www.alternet.org/files/story_images/prison_5.jpg
These "bars" don't exist when 7th Trump puts them in parentheses.










:rolleyes: tell the wife and kids you ain't really in "jail" for not "reporting" income

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewboo

Woodman: Notice that 7th Trump magically dismisses whatever he writes in "parentheses" as not existing. Are you going to also magically dismiss the "fines" and "jail" imposed upon you by following 7th Trump's magical thinking?

http://www.alternet.org/files/story_images/prison_5.jpg
These "bars" don't exist when 7th Trump puts them in parentheses.










:rolleyes: tell the wife and kids you ain't really in "jail" for not "reporting" income

---

Yes, this is precisely my worry. I don't want to lose everything I have. Better to lose some than all. I am told that the Amish, who live all around this area, do not pay any income tax. The way they do this is by working only for cash. They are not part of the Social Security System either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I've been reading into trying to revoke your signed W-4 since it apparently is illegal for your employer to deny you being hired without giving them your Social Slave number and signing a W-4 if you don't want too. I'm not having much luck finding anything. But I'll need something to have an employer of 100,000+ people take me seriously without firing me.

Anyone have any documentation?

---

http://sedm.org/LibertyU/WithngAndRptng.pdf

go to page 44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodman

Yes, this is precisely my worry. I don't want to lose everything I have. Better to lose some than all. I am told that the Amish, who live all around this area, do not pay any income tax. The way they do this is by working only for cash. They are not part of the Social Security System either.

---

you might want to review this:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I've been reading into trying to revoke your signed W-4 since it apparently is illegal for your employer to deny you being hired without giving them your Social Slave number and signing a W-4 if you don't want too. I'm not having much luck finding anything. But I'll need something to have an employer of 100,000+ people take me seriously without firing me.

Anyone have any documentation?

---

http://sedm.org/LibertyU/WithngAndRptng.pdf

page 37

You can call the number a “Nontaxpayer Identification
Number” instead of a “Taxpayer Identification Number” if you
followed the procedures in
26 C.F.R.
§
301.6109
-
1
(1)(i), which
says:
“. . .A person may establish a different [NONTAXPAYER] status for the
number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue
Service...Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual,
the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual’s
social security number. . .”

[

26 C.F.R.

§

301.6109

-

1

(1)(i)]

•

You can also satisfy all the above requirements by simply

attaching the following to your corrected information returns

and use STANDARD instead of altered IRS forms:

Tax Form Attachment

, Form #04.201

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Thanks Monty!!

Looks like they (sedm.org) walks you through submitting a W-8BEN which corrects a status.


7th Trump,

Yeah I'm in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewboo

Woodman: Notice that 7th Trump magically dismisses whatever he writes in "parentheses" as not existing. Are you going to also magically dismiss the "fines" and "jail" imposed upon you by following 7th Trump's magical thinking?

http://www.alternet.org/files/story_images/prison_5.jpg
These "bars" don't exist when 7th Trump puts them in parentheses.










:rolleyes: tell the wife and kids you ain't really in "jail" for not "reporting" income

---

Sad is all you are Jewboo.
Just another chum thinking hes awake and courageous....but the reality of it all is Jewboo is ignorant to what will set him free.
Jewboo is scared and weak and wants everyone to be just like him so hes cozy and confident in his chains and everything is just..A-ok!

Way to go jewboo.....knew you couldnt muster enough courage to be a champion....just hide behind your picture pages and play with dolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Thanks Monty!!

Looks like they (sedm.org) walks you through submitted a W-8BEN which corrects a status.


7th Trump,

Yeah I'm in

---

perfect.......I was hoping you would be. You'll something.

Entities that are SUBJECT to 26 CFR use IRS forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

Entities that are SUBJECT to 26 CFR use IRS forms.

---

Anybody who participates in Social Security is subject to the income tax (at source).

IRS forms are used for many many types of constitutional taxes. "Entities" mean nothing and have no bearing.

I think entities is supposed to mean types of corporation. There are quite a few types and some not are not obvious. Person is a type of corporation but I'm not sure what type. It's been described as a Franchise. It might be. I'm not sure but Starbucks might be a franchise. Are the stores independently owned? McDonalds is, but HQ owns some stores as well.

A person might be a grant of a franchise to do trade according to a system of trade - statutes. The statutes may adhere to some doctrines. Admiralty, private commercial law, lex mercatoria but not common law.

What does the form do? Does it cancel or remove or defer SS?... is it participation or liability that it deals with? I guess it's probably both. One begets the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Anybody who participates in Social Security is subject to the income tax (at source).

---

If you have income you are subject to income tax. Social security is a recent innovation (relatively speaking) but income tax was introduced in the U.S. during the (un)Civil War. It was brought over from England who started the practice in the early 1800's.

Point being ... you don't need a SSN to owe tax.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2a5dtas.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

IRS forms are used for many many types of constitutional taxes.

---

You are mistaking the IRS for TREASURY. Don't mistake the agent for the principal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

"Entities" mean nothing and have no bearing.

---

Articulating a right or accepting an obligation creates a legal entity. If you lived in a world with no rights or obligations you would find no entities. Entities are created. A corporation is a legal entity. A person is a legal entity. A declaration of citizenship is a legal entity. Applying for a benefit such as Social Security creates an entity.

Once you start creating these things you are hooked as if on a drug. You create probably 100 entities a day and you do so without realizing this fact.

UPDATE: Judge was a no-show

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...-hearing-date/


Houston Judge a no-show on appointed hearing-date

NOVEMBER 24, 2015SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENTThe Houston Division case is the initial case and the one that Petitioner appealed to the Fifth Circuit and, thereafter, the Supreme Court.


When the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit, who affirmed the judgment in the Houston Division, Petitioner returned to the Houston Court and filed a motion to vacate the original Judgment and Order (Houston Dkt. #82), as void for multiple reasons.


The hearing date for the motion was set for September 30, 2015.


On September 29, 2015, the Houston Judge made a ruling and entered an Order (Houston Dkt. #83) denying the motion.


A month later, on October 28, 2015, Petitioner filed in the Houston Division case, Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s May 23, 2014, Amended Final Judgment (Dkt. #53) and Order of Sale and Vacature (Dkt. #54) as Void for (a) Lack of Constitutional Authority that gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Harris County, Texas, and (b) Denial of Due Process of Law (the “October 28, 2015, Houston Motion to Vacate”) (hyperlinked below).


The contents of the October 28, 2015, Houston Motion to Vacate are substantially identical to those of Petitioner’s September 14, 2015, Lufkin Division Objection and Demand—in response to which the Lufkin Court and plaintiff disappeared and declined to participate any further.


The October 28, 2015, Houston Motion to Vacate was docketed and a hearing set for November 18, 2015 (Houston Dkt. #84).


November 18, 2015, however, came and went with no word from the Houston Judge.


The Houston Court (as every other United States District Court in America) is a legislative-branch Article IV territorial court of general jurisdiction with authority only in the District of Columbia (for proof of this fact, see Houston Division Record, Fifth Circuit Record, Supreme Court Record, or Lufkin Division Record), masquerading as a judicial-branch Article III constitutional court of limited jurisdiction (of which, since no later than June 25, 1948, there are no more: see 28 U.S.C. 132 and parenthesized legislative history thereunder).


In every civil or criminal proceeding in every United States District Court in America, “United States” means a Federal Corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15))—and the supreme Federal corporation, over all other Federal corporations and other Federal entities of any kind, is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation (inc. February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419).


Every United States District Court in America, such as the Houston Court, is a District of Columbia Municipal Corporation tribunal, expounding and enforcing municipal (Roman civil) law, beyond the boundaries fixed therefor by the Constitution at Article 4 § 3(2): “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”—such as the District of Columbia.


Neither Harris County, Texas (in the Houston Division case), nor Tyler County, Texas (in the Lufkin Division case), is situate within “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”


The only geographic area in which any United States District Court anywhere in America is authorized to hear and decide cases is the District of Columbia—and every such “court” is a kangaroo court[1]operating under color[2] of law, office, and authority, deceiving and extorting the American People, with no constitutional authority to be doing business in any county, parish , or borough in America.


When cornered, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation legislative-branch officers—e.g., Federal judges, magistrates, and DOJ officers—routinely fall back on the policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.”


This approach, however, will not work under these circumstances for all Federal officers.


Whereas, the Lufkin DOJ attorneys can disregard with impunity Petitioner’s Demand for the constitutional authority that gives the Lufkin Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and walk away from the case; the Lufkin Judge enjoys no such luxury: He cannot ignore his responsibility to attend to and conclude the case and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b), without violating his oath of office; to wit:


“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” [Underline emphasis added.] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of office.


There is, however, a bigger situation:

• The most important policy—over all others—in the Federal judicial system is to maintain the appearance of impartiality (not impartiality per se, only the appearance thereof);

• No one in government has come forward with the constitutional authority that gives any United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt (28 U.S.C. 3002(8)), in any county, parish, or borough in America;

• The reason no one in government has come forward is that there exists no such constitutional authority[3];

• It is not possible to have a fair proceeding in a kangaroo court;

• Every United States District Court in America is a legislative-branch Article IV territorial court of general jurisdiction, usurping exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area;

• Every United States District Court in America is a kangaroo court;

• The Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction can be concealed no longer; and

• The appearance of impartiality is crumbling under the weight of fraud and treason to the Constitution.

The reason the Houston Judge failed to rule on Petitioner’s October 28, 2015, Houston Motion to Vacate (hyperlinked below) as appointed on November 18, 2015, in Houston Dkt. #84, is that anything he may say that actually addresses the issue set forth in the motion—either for or against Petitioner—will amount to a confession of fraud and treason to the Constitution.


But as with the Lufkin Judge, the Houston Judge’s oath of office requires that he make a ruling on Petitioner’s October 28, 2015, motion within a reasonable time—or be in violation thereof.


The Lufkin Division case is over in substance, DOJ attorneys having abandoned the case and the Lufkin Judge having violated his of oath of office (70 days of silence, despite the duty to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction within a reasonable time).


The clock is ticking in the Houston Division.


Having been defrauded and deprived of Petitioner’s real and personal property in the Houston Division case under color of law, office, and authority, by way of complicity among the Houston Judge, Fifth Circuit Judges, and Supreme Court Justices, Petitioner is active in rectifying matters and will report all developments on this webpage as they occur.
Houston Motion To Vacate, October 28, 2015
* * *
Bonus:
Jeff Rense interviews John Trowbridge on RenseRadio.com (Nov. 16, 2015)

Awesome update. Although the corner he got them in there really is no way for them to remove themselves from without admitting to treason.

This is an interesting case which I will be monitoring for a while.

Madfranks or JohnQPublic would it be possible to sticky this thread so that it doesn't get buried?

This I feel is a landmark case and could be used against any federal district court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Awesome update. Although the corner he got them in there really is no way for them to remove themselves from without admitting to treason.

This is an interesting case which I will be monitoring for a while.

Madfranks or JohnQPublic would it be possible to sticky this thread so that it doesn't get buried?

This I feel is a landmark case and could be used against any federal district court.

---

I certainly have to agree. I think all anyone with a case in a federal court in any one of the fifty states needs to do is use this man's demand to show Constitutional authority and their case will stop dead in its tracks.

I imagine the feds are scrambling trying to come up with with another scheme to maintain thier control over the people.

The Fifth Circuit cuts straight to the chase:“Silence can ... be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .” U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (5th Circuit, 1970).

Update Dec.15, 2015


The lesson they do not teach in law schools or high school civics classes: the Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction


DECEMBER 15, 2015SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENT

• Part 1: Article III federal courts versus United States District Courts

The Constitution creates the judicial power of the national government at Article 3 § 1 and delineates the character of the controversies to which the judicial power extends at Article 3 § 2(1); to wit, respectively and in pertinent part:


“Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .


“Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States will be a party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


In a judicial sense, “jurisdiction” (from the Latin jus right, dictio act of saying) means, essentially, the legal power, right, or authority of a court to hear and decide causes and pronounce the sentence of the law within a certain geographic area; to wit:


“forum . . . 2 a : a judicial body or assembly . . . b : the territorial jurisdiction of a court forum before personal jurisdiction may be exercised — National Law Journal” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated: Springfield, Mass., 1996), p. 201.


“—Territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considered as limited to cases arising or persons residing within a defined territory, as a county, a judicial district, etc. The authority of any court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed. . . .” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, Second Edition (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul. Minn., 1910) (hereinafter “Black’s 2nd”), p. 673.


The true distinction between courts is as to species of jurisdiction, i.e., either general or limited; to wit:


“General jurisdiction is that which extends to a great variety of matters. General jurisdiction in law and equity is jurisdiction of every kind that a court can possess, of the person, subject-matter, [and] territorial . . .

“. . . Limited jurisdiction (called, also, special and inferior) is that which extends only to certain specified causes.” [Emphasis in original.] John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn.: 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 1761.


“—Limited jurisdiction. . . . The true distinction between courts is between such as possess a general and such as have only a special jurisdiction for a particular purpose . . .” Black’s 2nd, p. 673.


It is well settled that trial courts ordained and established by Congress under authority of Article III of the Constitution, supra, are courts of limited jurisdiction, with authority only over certain controversies; to wit:

• “The character of the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend are delineated in Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. . . .” Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd., v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982).

• “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . .” Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 457 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006).

• “[T]he jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited not only by the provisions of Art. III of the Constitution, but also by Acts of Congress. Palmore v. United States,411 U. S. 389, 411 U. S. 401; Lockerty v. Phillips,319 U. S. 182, 319 U. S. 187; Kline v. Burke Constr. Co.,260 U. S. 226, 260 U. S. 234; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 44 U. S. 245.” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372 (1978).

• “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Id. at 374.

• “The courts of the United States are all of limited jurisdiction . . .” Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830).

• “[S]tate courts are courts of general jurisdiction . . . . By contrast, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . .” Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 43 6 F.3d 335, 337 (2nd Cir. 2006).

Whereas: Only courts with territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) can take cognizance of civil and criminal causes; and


Whereas: All Article III federal trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (certain controversies only),


Wherefore: No trial court ordained and established by Congress under Article III of the Constitution is authorized to take cognizance of civil and criminal causes.


Notwithstanding the above blackletter law,[1] Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure Section 3002 Definitions provides, in pertinent part:


“As used in this chapter:
“. . . (8) ‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”


Whereas: No inferior trial court ordained and established by Congress under authority of Article III of the Constitution is invested with territorial jurisdiction; and


Whereas: No Article III federal trial court has the territorial jurisdiction necessary to take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments arising from a civil or criminal proceeding; and
Whereas: Every United States District Court (28 U.S.C. 132(a)) located throughout the Union takes cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enters judgments arising therefrom; and


Whereas: No Federal trial court can take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments arising therefrom unless authorized to do so by the Constitution; and


Whereas: Article III of the Constitution is devoid of such authority,


Wherefore: No United States District Court is an Article III court—and we must look elsewhere in the Constitution for the authority that gives United States District Courts the territorial jurisdiction necessary to take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, as authorized by statute in 28 U.S.C. 3002(8).

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...urisdiction-2/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

“Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

---

Because all activity in the US is under Admiralty and Maritime, this is how they do it. The extension of the 100 mile constitution free zone is an example of extending maritime reach inland. Highways are often classified as waterways which project inland and all "traffic" is considered to be maritime and subject to interdiction as per the rules of Admiralty.

Part 2,

• Part 2: Treason to the Constitution

The only provision of the Constitution that grants Congress power to create inferior courts with territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments arising therefrom, is an implied authority, Article 4 § 3(2), also known as the territorial clause; to wit, in pertinent part:


“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; . . .”


Whereas: As granted in Article 1 § 8(17) of the Constitution (infra), Congress have power of exclusive legislation (territorial, personal, and subject-matter) in “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (supra); to wit:


“Section 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings;”; and


Whereas: The full extent of the “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (id. at 4 § 3(2)) today is the collective of:

• the District of Columbia;

• Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, North Island – JACADS, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, and Navassa Island [2]; and

• any other “Places purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings” ( at 1 § 8(17)); and

Whereas: All courts created by Congress under authority of Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution are legislative Article IV territorial courts of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction); and


Whereas: Every United States District Court is authorized by statute (28 U.S.C. 3002(8)) to exercise general jurisdiction and take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt; and


Whereas: Every United States District Court is authorized at Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to exercise territorial jurisdiction and “dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations [statutes] respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”; and


Whereas: Every commonwealth united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union—numbering 50 at present, the last of which being Hawaii, August 21, 1959—is situate without all “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (id.), and


Whereas: There is no constitutional authority for any United States District Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction and take cognizance of civil and criminal causes and enter judgments in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt anywhere within the exterior limits of the geographic area occupied by the 50 respective commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union; and


Whereas: Every United States District Court doing business within the exterior limits of the Union is a legislative-branch Article IV territorial court of general jurisdiction, under the exclusive control Congress, extending its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed therefor by the Constitution at Article 4 § 3(2) (“Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”), and usurping exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area (the Union), under color[3] of law, office, and authority, and therefore a kangaroo court[4]; and


Whereas: “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution,” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821),


Wherefore: Every single Congressman, Federal bench officer, and Department of Justice attorney is in violation of his oath of office and culpable for, among numerous other crimes and high crimes: fraud; misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance in public office; misprision of felony; misprision of treason; and treason to the Constitution.

• Part 3: Legislative fraud on the part of Congress; connivance therewith on the part of Federal bench officers and Department of Justice attorneys

The only 26 U.S.C.7701(a)(10) “State”[5] of the 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) “United States”[6] whose residents are liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code is the Title 26 U.S.C. State of District of Columbia.[7]


Notwithstanding the above statutory fact, bench officers in the Federal judiciary and attorneys in the Department of Justice treat virtually every American as a resident of the District of Columbia: liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code and subject to all other Federal rules and regulations.


Said Federal officers justify this by construing / interpreting any of an unknown number of “acts and statements” (26 C.F.R. 1.871-4(c)(2)(iii)) arising in the course of normal and ordinary interaction between individual Americans and government agencies / programs, as evidence of “a definite intention to acquire residence in the [26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9)] United States” (26 C.F.R. 1.871-4(c)(2)(iii)), i.e., the District of Columbia.


Such “acts and statements” include evidence created through the application of one’s signature to a driver’s license application, voter registration form, tax return, application for Social Security benefits, IRS Form W-4, passport application, and any other of the myriad government forms one encounters in the course of his life—and require that the applicant certify that he is a citizen or resident of the (statutory) United States or resident of a (statutory) State.[8]


Americans who make such “acts and statements” are deemed to have made a general election (comprehensive choice) to be (1) treated as a resident of the District of Columbia under general legislation at 26 U.S.C. 6013(g)(1) or (h)(1), (2) liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Chapters 1 Normal taxes and surtaxes and 24 Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages, and (3) subject to all legislation within the 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) “United States” (District of Columbia only), not just income-tax statutes; to wit:


“Quando lex est specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. When the law is special, but its reason is general, the law is to be understood generally.” Bouvier’s, p. 2156.


We learn from the Supreme Court, however, that such “legislation” is legally fatally flawed, and therefore ultimately unenforceable—because no one can elect (choose)—or appear to elect—to be treated as a resident of a particular place for the purpose of taxation (or any other purpose) without also having a factual presence in that location; to wit:


“When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences whether intended or not. 13. One can not elect to make his home in one place in point of interest and attachment and for the general purposes of life, and in another, where he in fact has no residence, for the purpose of taxation. . . .” Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939).


To acquire residence in a particular place one must do one of two things: (1) establish bodily presence as an inhabitant (by taking up housekeeping in a fixed and permanent abode), or (1) realize earnings (by way of permanency of occupation) from a source located therein.


Wherefore: It is clear that Congress have another master than the American People—and that every Federal bench officer and DOJ attorney is in connivance with Congress and complicit in the legislative fraud and treason to the Constitution

• Part 4: Dealing with the Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction

That the statutes of Congress may authorize United States Attorneys to bring suit in United States District Court is insufficient, in and of itself, to vest jurisdiction in any such court; to wit:


“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).


It is well settled that before a federal judge can rely on the authority of a statute for jurisdiction to hear and decide a particular cause, said judge must confirm that the Constitution has given him the capacity to take it; to wit:


“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . . To the extent that such action is not taken, the power lies dormant.” The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851 (1868) (emphasis added); accord, Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813). [Underline emphasis only added.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).


Bereft of lawful authority, United States District Courts located within the Union depend utterly upon the ability of their respective bench officers to prevaricate,[9] dissemble,[10] and sidestep issues that would destroy the charade of legitimacy and appearance of impartiality.


Until Petitioner’s September 14, 2015, Objection and Demand and September 30, 2015, Demand for Dismissal, Petitioner had never heard of a Department of Justice attorney failing to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction or a United States District Judge refusing to rule on a motion or abandoning an ongoing case (and failing to provide otherwise for its disposition).


But that is what happened in the Lufkin Division case (see October 28, 2015, post, infra).


Here is the reason:


Anything either DOJ attorney would have said, whether for or against Petitioner’s demand for the Lufkin Court’s constitutional authority, would have amounted to admission of fraud or treason to the Constitution or proof of incompetence.


Whereas, DOJ attorneys can back out of a case without incident, this is not so for a United States District Judge; to wit:


“Judicis officium est opus diei in die suo perficere. It is the duty if a judge to finish the work of each day within that day.” Bouvier’s, p. 2140.
“Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest republicæ ut sint fines litium. It is the duty of a good judge to prevent litigations, that suit may not grow out of suit, and it concerns the welfare of a state that an end be put to litigation.” Id. at 2127.


The Lufkin Judge has a duty not only to Petitioner, but to the American Republic—by way of his oath of office (5 U.S.C. 3331), to“bear true faith and allegiance” (id.) to the Constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” (id.) of United States District Judge—and conclude the instant litigation:


“When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” Melo v. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026.
Instead, the Lufkin Judge went silent.


The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (to whom Petitioner would appeal for resolution of the instant unresolved motion), explains in United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir., 1970), the significance of the Lufkin Judge’s silence:


“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.24


“. . . 24. See United States v. Sclafani,265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3 L.Ed.2d 1534 (1959); c.f., Avery v. Clearly, 132 U.S. 604, 10 S.Ct. 220, 33 L.Ed. 469 (1890); Atilus v. United States, 406 F.2d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1969); American Nat’l Ins. Co., etc. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1967).”


Presently, there is a neglected unresolved motion on both the Lufkin and Houston Division Docket.


Notwithstanding the fraudulent statutory definitions of “State” throughout the United States Code, “We are bound to interpret the constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted,” Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895).


Wherefore, no United States District Judge has constitutional authority to expound or enforce Federal statutes in Texas or any other of the “several States of the Union” (infra) against any American residing there or property located there; to wit:


“The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the right [sic] and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is that every State[of the Union] possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. . . .” [Underline emphasis added.] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).


“Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur. To a judge who exceeds his office (or jurisdiction) no obedience is due,” Bouvier’s, p. 2140, and, as demonstrated hereinabove and elsewhere in this webpage, every United States District Judge and Magistrate in every United States District Court within the Union, in connivance with Congress and conspiracy with officers of the Department of Justice, is exceeding his jurisdiction, beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution, at Article 4 § 3(2), for Federal trial courts of general jurisdiction, and perpetrating the Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction.


“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one,” id. at 2157, and there is nothing prohibiting any other litigant from making the same demands as Petitioner, in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.


No United States District Judge or Magistrate can reply responsively (meaningfully) to a demand for dismissal of a Federal case, civil or criminal, within the Union, for lack of constitutional authority that gives the particular United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in the defendant’s particular county, parish, or borough, without also producing evidence of serious wrongdoing on his part.


Evidently, the Lufkin and Houston Judges have “taken the Fifth” sub silentio[11] and refused to answer their respective unresolved motion on the ground that it may tend to incriminate them.


The Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction can be concealed no longer.


Petitioner is in the process of rectifying matters in these cases, and will report developments as they occur.


* * * *


[1] blackletter law. One or more legal principles that are old, fundamental, and well settled. ● The term refers to the law printed in books set in Gothic type, which is very bold and black. — Also termed hornbook law. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A Garner, Editor in Chief, (West Group: St. Paul, Minn., 1999) (hereinafter “Black’s 7th”), p. 163.


[2] U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs, (1) “All OIA Jurisdictions,” and (2) “U.S. Territories under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction or Shared with Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS): (1) http://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/index.cfm, (2) http://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/islandfactsheet2.cfm, respectively.


[3] COLOR. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence a deceptive appearance ; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality ; a guise or pretext. . . . Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1891) (hereinafter “Black’s 1st”), p. 222.


[4] kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s 7th, p. 359.


[5] The 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) States are the bodies politic of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and no other. Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8–14.


[6] The 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) United States is the collective of the geographic area occupied by the bodies politic of the six respective 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) States, supra, fn. 5. Id.


[7] Id. at 15. (Continued)

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...urisdiction-2/

Definitions continued:

[8] In all Federal law, “State” is a statutory term and means, ultimately, the District of Columbia, id.., which is why use of “State” is avoided in this webpage.

Unpunctuated, grammatically incorrect, two-capital-letter United States Postal Service (“U.S.P.S.”) designators for each of the putative 50 States (50 political subdivisions of the District of Columbia; id. at 11), and ZIP Codes, are political—not geographical—identifiers.

ZIP Codes are assigned to United States Post Offices only, not geographic areas, Domestic Mail Manual (“DMM”) § 602-1.8.1 Purpose of ZIP Code, the purpose of which is to facilitate processing of mail within and between U.S.P.S. facilities only, id. at 708-10.1 and 2—not delivery of mail, id. at 602-1.8.1.

Whereas, a ZIP Code is not required in a sender’s return address, id. at 602-1.3(e)(2), a ZIP Code is a required element of a sender’s return domestic address, id. at 602-1.5.3—signifying that, the word “domestic” in DMM carries a duty and means District of Columbia, because such ZIP Code use, otherwise optional, is mandatory in the District of Columbia (all District of Columbia residents are subject to the absolute, exclusive legislative power of Congress and must obey all legislation within the District of Columbia, such as DMM, or risk subjection to a criminal charge and fine).

Use of a ZIP Code is voluntary, id. at 602-1.3(e)(2), confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

“We note that under section 122.32 of the U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual, the use of a zip code remains voluntary. See United States Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual § 122.32, at 55 (Mar. 1992). . . .” Joseph Peters v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 966 F.2d 1483, 296 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1123 (1992).

Carrier delivery of mail is free, DMM § 508-4.1.2 Purpose; postage pays for transmission of mail between U.S.P.S. facilities only, id. at 708-10.2 Application.

[9] pre-var′i-cate . . . v. . . . i. . . .To use ambiguous or evasive language for the purpose of deceiving or diverting attention; misrepresent by shape or turn of statement; give a wrong color to facts in speaking or answering; quibble; shuffle. . . . A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903), p.1410.

[10] dis-sem′ble . . . v. . . . i. . . . To put on false appearances; disguise the reality; represent a thing or things untruly. Id. at 531.

[11] SUB SILENTIO. Under silence ; without any notice being taken. . . . Black’s 1st, p. 1129.


Related

Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45

Sister Federal tax case:Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any furtherReblogged by 1 person

Houston Judge a no-show on appointed hearing-date






https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...on-2/#_ftnref8

Thanks for the update Monty.

Definitely a very interesting case. Really enjoy watching this unfold and keeping notes as well as downloading documentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Thanks for the update Monty.

Definitely a very interesting case. Really enjoy watching this unfold and keeping notes as well as downloading documentation.

---

Likewise. I have a gut feeling he has them by the balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Likewise. I have a gut feeling he has them by the balls.

---

No he doesnt....its his ignorance of "HIS" voluntary actions that'll make him lose the case.

He volunteered his political presence into that particular jurisdiction venue. The definitions mean nothing in that sense. Besides the definitions define perfectly what he volunteered himself into.
He's playing semantics with the court like most people do who dont know what they are doing.
I bet none of you understand why they changed the definitions around the 1868 are..................has everything to do with the Civil War and who was free'd but wasn't accepted as "We the People" by none of the union states including the northern states.

They'll just pull the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" card..........and it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

No he doesnt....its his ignorance of "HIS" voluntary actions that'll make him lose the case.

He volunteered his political presence into that particular jurisdiction venue. The definitions mean nothing in that sense. Besides the definitions define perfectly what he volunteered himself into.
He's playing semantics with the court like most people do who dont know what they are doing.
I bet none of you understand why they changed the definitions around the 1868 are..................has everything to do with the Civil War and who was free'd but wasn't accepted as "We the People" by none of the union states including the northern states.

They'll just pull the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" card..........and it is true.

---

If it was true the court would of asserted jurisdiction. Reading through his previous documentation on his site he was able to show through court cases that just because he has a signed W-4 does not mean that he is a U.S. citizen (one who actually resides in DC.) He was also able to show that the U.S. District courts have zero jurisdiction in states with matters of debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

If it was true the court would of asserted jurisdiction. Reading through his previous documentation on his site he was able to show through court cases that just because he has a signed W-4 does not mean that he is a U.S. citizen (one who actually resides in DC.) He was also able to show that the U.S. District courts have zero jurisdiction in states with matters of debt.

---

Sure he can show these things but in the end he cant defend himself from his actions.
If he signed a W4 and contributing to SS hes legally a second class "US citizen".
The W4 is signed under penalty of perjury proclaiming federal US citizenship.....he signed it as such.
They convicted Pete Hendrickson using this tactic...they used his signed W4 to prove he was making 26usc 3401(a) "wages. They didn't have to explain why or how other than his signature on the W4 convicting him.
Social Security is the number 1 tool that puts anyone using the number to gain federal benefits in their jurisdiction. Some here will argue with me on this but all government forms cannot be processed unless theres a ssn.

You cannot be in the same jurisdiction as "We the People" and still take benefits under the federal government (another jurisdiction). Theres many court cases citing this.
If he tries to prove hes not and accepting federal benefits hes in violation of the US Constitution. And I wouldn't put it past the DC goons on trying to hang him on that to end that argument once and for all if he wins the argument in court.
So he wins his case...that doesn't mean the definitions are wrong. A lot of other people fall within the meaning of those definitions. Most americans want their federal benefits and so the definitions stand as written.
Lets say he wins his case. What makes you think they wont arrest him for fraud. If you stand on your rights and the law you better know how to use the law to defend yourself.
They'll use his momentum to convict him. And from what I've seen so far he hasn't proven himself that he's not a "US citizen". All I see is he's playing a dangerous court game of semantics over silly definitions all while standing in the jurisdiction he claims hes not in. In the end the definitions will not change anyway because theres people who cannot be anything else but "US citizens" and will remain in such jurisdiction under the definitions because they are "federal personnel" residing within one the 50 states which the federal government has every right to reach in and control....namely the negro. They are not to this day recognized as "We the People"...they are "US citizens" and cannot go any higher.
This is why the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 because they don't have the protections of the "Bill of Rights".
NOT AN INTELLIGENT PERSON. He needs to open his eyes wider to see the legal noose he's made for himself and hope he doesn't put his head in.
Always stay a few steps ahead of the game.
First of all......understand the game before making a move and that is what he hasn't figured out yet.

What is true is that when it comes to conviction you and only you are the one providing the evidence that convicts you. Far better to provide no evidence than to show how wordy and intelligent you are.

These guys know they are in the Land of Oz (they follow the YELLOW BRICK ROAD). They know YOU know they are in the Land of Oz. Any argument at all provides evidence that YOU are in the Land of Oz and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of OZ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Sure he can show these things but in the end he cant defend himself from his actions.
If he signed a W4 and contributing to SS hes legally a second class "US citizen".
The W4 is signed under penalty of perjury proclaiming federal US citizenship.....he signed it as such.
They convicted Pete Hendrickson using this tactic...they used his signed W4 to prove he was making 26usc 3401(a) "wages. They didn't have to explain why or how other than his signature on the W4 convicting him.
Social Security is the number 1 tool that puts anyone using the number to gain federal benefits in their jurisdiction. Some here will argue with me on this but all government forms cannot be processed unless theres a ssn.

You cannot be in the same jurisdiction as "We the People" and still take benefits under the federal government (another jurisdiction). Theres many court cases citing this.
If he tries to prove hes not and accepting federal benefits hes in violation of the US Constitution. And I wouldn't put it past the DC goons on trying to hang him on that to end that argument once and for all if he wins the argument in court.
So he wins his case...that doesn't mean the definitions are wrong. A lot of other people fall within the meaning of those definitions. Most americans want their federal benefits and so the definitions stand as written.
Lets say he wins his case. What makes you think they wont arrest him for fraud. If you stand on your rights and the law you better know how to use the law to defend yourself.
They'll use his momentum to convict him. And from what I've seen so far he hasn't proven himself that he's not a "US citizen". All I see is he's playing a dangerous court game of semantics over silly definitions all while standing in the jurisdiction he claims hes not in.
NOT AN INTELLIGENT PERSON. He needs to open his eyes wider to see the legal noose he's made for himself and hope he doesn't put his head in.
Always stay a few steps ahead of the game.

---

His arguement is the US District courts are territorial courts, Article IV courts lacking Constitutional authority to take jurisdiction in the 50 geographical states. He has shown that to be the case. Congress has given these courts jurisdiction, general jurisdiction over federal crimes. The Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to grant jurisdiction in the union states. Congress lacks Constitutional authority to legislate in the union states. The Congress has usurped this power.

By the way, as far as intelligence, he was a National Merit Scholar. I rated in the 99th percentile in the USA on the National Merit Scholarship tests for 1960. That wasn't enough for me to qualify to be awarded a National Merit Scholarship. So he must have been near the 100th percentile to awarded the honor. That means 99 % of the high school seniors taking the National Merit Scholarship exams the year he graduated rated lower than he did.

Can you show us where, in the Constitution the US District courts have authority to take jurisdiction in any of the union states? I don't think you can and neither can these two federal judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

His arguement is the US District courts are territorial courts, Article IV courts lacking Constitutional authority to take jurisdiction in the 50 geographical states. He has shown that to be the case. Congress has given these courts jurisdiction, general jurisdiction over federal crimes. The Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to grant jurisdiction in the union states. Congress lacks Constitutional authority to legislate in the union states. The Congress has usurped this power.

By the way, as far as intelligence, he was a National Merit Scholar. I rated in the 99th percentile in the USA on the National Merit Scholarship tests for 1960. That wasn't enough for me to qualify to be awarded a National Merit Scholarship. So he must have been near the 100th percentile to awarded the honor. That means 99 % of the high school seniors taking the National Merit Scholarship exams the year he graduated rated lower than he did.

Can you show us where, in the Constitution the US District courts have authority to take jurisdiction in any of the union states? I don't think you can and neither can these two federal judges.

---

You're not understanding that he's playing a semantic game.
The District courts have always been within the states from the gitgo. They hear arguments on the federal level. When you as a "US citizen" (federal personnel; see 5usc 552(a)(13)) fall within the that jurisdiction and/or argue a topic that's within that jurisdiction you will argue it in said jurisdictional court. State courts do not hear federal level arguments.
It is you that falls within their federal jurisdiction, not the argument that district courts falling within state jurisdiction....and the semantic argument hes trying to prove is he believes hes a state-citizen where district courts don't have jurisdiction. He doesn't know that under penalty of perjury of being a US citizen hes standing directly in federal jurisdiction.
You are not a state-citizen (We the People, having the full protections of the Bill of Rights) when contributing into the SS welfare program....you are federal "US citizen" (having privileges granted by the federal government in the form of Civil Rights). That's why a W4 is signed under penalty of perjury to being a US citizen. You have to pledge that jurisdiction to get those jurisdictional benefits. Its that way because the Constitution forbids the feds to mingle in "We the People" affairs.
Hope that helps but I'm not holding my breath!
Notice the difference between the two citizenships....its in the Rights you hold or don't hold.
Monty go to www.state-citizen.org to understand this.

You still haven't shown us where the Constitution gives the US District courts jurisdiction in the 50 union states. Yes they have statutory jurisdiction. I don't know wheter or not this man signed a W-4. He is a medical doctor in his own practice perhaps self employed. He did sign a 1040 because the judge ordered the DOJ attorney to bring a copy which the judge apparently used to cause Dr. Trowbridge to be a (statutory) US CITIZEN.

Whereas: “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821),



“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . . To the extent that such action is not taken, the power lies dormant.” The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851 (1868) (emphasis added); accord, Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813). [Underline emphasis only added.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

Here Lowell Becraft opines on Constitutional jurisdiction. He seems to have reniged on future parts to his article.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm
Larry Becraft -- Jurisdiction Questioned, Part 1

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED
PART 1

By Attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Jr.
June 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

We suffer a plague of the acronymic alphabet agencies: DEA, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, FBI, TVA, IRS, BATF, ad nauseam. One may study the U.S. Constitution searching for the specific provision granting Congress authority over airplanes, telecommunications, securities as well as a wide variety of other matters and learn that Congress has apparently been denied authority over these subject matters.

This raises an extremely interesting question: where do we find the Constitutional authority for such agencies and the laws they administer?

By statute, all federal agencies must confine their activities to the jurisdiction delegated to them: see 5. U.S.C. §588. While this is a simply statutory command, there is an evident problem in that most federal agencies fail to publish any statements, either in the C.F.R. or some other source, which define their jurisdiction in clear and express terms.

The C.I.A. is one agency where it is easy to determine its jurisdiction because a statute has deprived it of any domestic jurisdiction; see Weissman v. C.I.A., 565 F.2d 692, 696 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, to determine the jurisdiction of other agencies requires some study.

Perhaps the best way to determine the jurisdiction of any given federal agency is to examine various cases regarding the subject matter of that agency. For example, the United States Constitution does not provide that Congress has any authority concerning the fish and wildlife within this country and this has been previously litigated with obvious results. In McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 394- 95 (1877), the Supreme Court held regarding the fish within the oceans:

"[T]he States own the tidewaters themselves and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running." The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and interstate commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the state.....

http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-r...upport-NWV.gif

Like fish, the Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife within the states of this nation and this has been noted in several cases. A ready example of such a case is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March, 1913, could apply.

Through this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal officials started enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting migratory birds.

Shauver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the Tenth Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which hunting could be controlled. In so concluding, he held:

"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."

Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where another man arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:

"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game in this country resides in the states, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."

The above decisions have never been overruled and they stand today as valid authority for the proposition that Congress under the Constitution does not have any direct grant of power to regulate and control fish and wildlife within our country.

If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been created and currently operates?

Part II and III, coming soon.

© 2004 Lowell Becraft - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

You still haven't shown us where the Constitution gives the US District courts jurisdiction in the 50 union states. Yes they have statutory jurisdiction. I don't know wheter or not this man signed a W-4. He is a medical doctor in his own practice perhaps self employed. He did sign a 1040 because the judge ordered the DOJ attorney to bring a copy which the judge apparently used to cause Dr. Trowbridge to be a (statutory) US CITIZEN.

Whereas: “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821),



“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . . To the extent that such action is not taken, the power lies dormant.” The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851 (1868) (emphasis added); accord, Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813). [Underline emphasis only added.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

---

A 1040 huh?
Then yes hes a bonified under penalty of perjury "US citizen".
Employed or self employed.....both fall under the definition of "employment" as defined in the SS Act.

Just as the court ordered to use the doctors 1040 to prove jurisdiction.............hes a federal second class "US citizen". They know what exactly to use to prove this. I've been saying it the whole time about SS and taxes.

Constitution doesn't give jurisdiction but I haven't seen one district court on state land either. All these buildings are federal buildings on federal land from what I know.
Heres your issue............you believe the district court has illegal jurisdiction in the 50 states. They can and will hear federal issues relating to the district they cover. That doesn't mean they have jurisdiction over the land....they just have jurisdiction to hear federal level arguments covering that area.
Since this doctor is under a federal retirement and welfare program called Social Security and resides in a state he'll be going to that district court to cast his argument.
This isn't going to end well for him because he doesn't understand what he's arguing. And just because the judges are taking their time doesn't mean they are stumped. It took months for the court in Pete Hendricksons case and they convicted him using his signed W4.