Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Edit: Because the oath of office for the federal officers contains a religious test and is repugnant to Article VI Sec. 3 the federal judges and justices cannot hold the judicial power of the Article III judicial branch of government.
Also, all the agencies of the administrative branch are usurping jurisdiction under the municipal government of Washington DC as explained below.
Exertped from the recent blog post:
It is essential that the reader understand the actual meaning of the word “federal”; to wit:
“fed′er–al . . . Of or pertaining to, or founded upon and organized by, a compact or act or union between separate sovereign states . . .” A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1903), p. 667.
In the case of the Republic, the compact is the Constitution and the “separate sovereign states” the members of the Union.[7] (Footnote 7 is posted below)
As shown below, all official use of the term “federal judge” is specious and intended to deceive—because no such judge has ever existed.
The three kinds of courts brought into existence by Congress, and their respective judges, are:
- Federal: courts of limited jurisdiction ordained and established by Congress under express authority Article III 1 of the Constitution, and federal judges authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., in such courts throughout the Union for having taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution—of which there has never been any such judge in American history.
- Territorial: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, and territorial judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction in “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” id., i.e. United States territories and enclaves; between the Judiciary Act (September 24, 1789) and sometime after incorporation of the District of Columbia, 16 Stat. 419 (February 21, 1871).
- Municipal: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution following incorporation of the District of Columbia February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, and municipal judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia; Congress on November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935, Congress in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15), in Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. (under which all civil or criminal proceedings are conducted), define “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” id., the object of which definition and meaning is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and omit to define “United States” in a geographical sense—and today every United States district and magistrate judge in every district court of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union is a District of Columbia municipal judge usurping exercise of general jurisdiction and declaring municipal law of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation throughout the Union with no authority to do so.
Bereft of authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, every justice of the Supreme Court and every United States district judge and magistrate judge is under the exclusive control of the legislative power (Congress), who manages the activities of such justices and judges by way of the laws of the “United States” (District of Columbia Municipal Corporation),i.e., municipal law of the District of Columbia known as, among others, the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations.)
Footnote 7:
[7] These facts are acknowledged by Congress in but a single obscure provision of Title 28 U.S.C., which admits of members of the Union as actual countries; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):
Ҥ 297 Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states
“(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit, district, magistrate, or territorial judge of a court of the Ninth Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the respective court.
“(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount received pursuant to this subsection.”
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
- Municipal: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution following incorporation of the District of Columbia February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, and municipal judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia; Congress on November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935, Congress in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15), in Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. (under which all civil or criminal proceedings are conducted), define “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” id., the object of which definition and meaning is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and omit to define “United States” in a geographical sense—and today every United States district and magistrate judge in every district court of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union is a District of Columbia municipal judge usurping exercise of general jurisdiction and declaring municipal law of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation throughout the Union with no authority to do so.
This is unconstitutional, as it sets up a separate state within a state. They had no charter to do this.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
This is unconstitutional, as it sets up a separate state within a state. They had no charter to do this.
Yes, but isn't most of what they do unconstitutional? Until the public becomes aware this isn't going to change.
If states and counties weren't "greenmailed" with federal grant dollars it might be possible to get local legislatures and law enforcement to run them out of the states.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Its a "parallel universe".
And people aren't given a choice because slave traders keep entering the first universe and coercing everyone into the parallel universe or kidnapping those that don't want to go / cross over.
And the key to it's function is political parties and politics. Neither of these are government but people mistake them as government. The Democrats are not Government, nor are the Republicans. They are politics who have convinced people to hand over their right to of control of government to them. They all have superior allegiances than to the constitution and other institutions of government, or to the people. They then tell the government (trustee) what to do, and basically what they tell it is designed to benefit them and theirs at the cost of you and yours.
People need to realize that the political parties are all owned by someone.... they are not simply friendship groups. Someone owns them.
Until politics is removed from the process/situation the problems will persist. For this to happen, the people need to evolve into mature responsible people prepared to take on this responsibility themselves. I fear we still have a long way to go.... and we seem to be going backwards.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
This is unconstitutional, as it sets up a separate state within a state. They had no charter to do this.
Unfortunately (as well as by plan) this is a result of the XIV amendment which creates a national government. Prior to this the US of A was merely a federation of independent countries. Each of these independent countries under the federation had a capital city with territory attached. The laws these state citizens complied with were all municipal laws of the capital city. The purpose of the federation was to control the interaction between signatory countries.
In much the same way the U.N. has established PRIVATE international law between their member countries. The reason their international law is PRIVATE is that originally international law in general was intended to define the relations between CHRISTIAN countries.
Anytime you have a nation you have a capital city and the laws of that municipality apply to the territory attached.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glass
People need to realize that the political parties are all owned by someone.... they are not simply friendship groups. Someone owns them.
Attributes of parties are all the same. They come with funny hats, horns to blow, party favors and frequently booze, sex and outrageous behavior. Political parties share these features with any other class of party (wedding,birthday, anniversary).
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
- Municipal: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution following incorporation of the District of Columbia February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, and municipal judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia; Congress on November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935, Congress in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15), in Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. (under which all civil or criminal proceedings are conducted), define “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” id., the object of which definition and meaning is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and omit to define “United States” in a geographical sense—and today every United States district and magistrate judge in every district court of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union is a District of Columbia municipal judgeusurping exercise of general jurisdiction and declaring municipal law of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation throughout the Union with no authority to do so.
The Washington DC US District Court judge also said her jurisdiction and the Texas Court jurisdiction comes from Congress power to tax, Article I Sec. 8. Cl. 1. She didn't say her that her court was created by implied Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 authority, but I believe she backs up Dr. Trowbridge's allegation. The Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 1 taxing power does not explain the Oregon and Nevada courts claiming criminal jurisdiction. The Clause 17 municipal court does cover it. Congressmen's allegiance to the Rothchild's banks since their first central bank in the 18th century is the direct cause.
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...-complaint.pdf
https://s19.postimg.org/8gfe4bw9v/IMG_1499.png
https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2...on-regret4.jpg
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
The United States deposited $100,000.00 into the Court Registy (CRIS) for One of their cases against Trowbridge. That must be their reward for entering a judgement against him
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...idge,_Jr_et_al
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Trowbridge, Jr. et al
| Case Filed: |
Jul 07, 2014 |
| Terminated: |
Mar 03, 2016 |
| Docket last updated: 03/10/2017 11:59 PM CST |
|
|
misc Registry Funds Received Fri 3:24 PM Registry Funds Received from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the amount of $100,000.00, Receipt 6-34668 (mjc, ) |
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...0/oDe7hGVvMsAJ
Court Registry Investment System, how courts earn interest on investements
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
While your comment is correct, it's the banking system that the courts are, its setting off Big Ben Bells ringing for me.
I think Winston Shrout might have covered this. I don't have my notes here with me but I feel confident he might have covered this. He did a bunch of presentations. I would probably look at his Shenowa? seminar. Not sure if that is the right spelling but it should be obvious if you can find a list of his videos.
It maybe that you can do an Accept for Value on the court paperwork and cash out that account. I'm not sure if I have my wires crossed about this specific account but Winston certainly went over an A4V process to do with court documents..... and the "clerk" paid out on the paperwork.
Either that or the Agency is extremely confident they will be warehousing the goods in the very near future.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
The United States deposited $100,000.00 into the Court Registy (CRIS) for One of their cases against Trowbridge. That must be their reward for entering a judgement against him
I have a PACER account, so I logged in to take a look. Interesting. The document in question is Document 85, and, of course, is not available. Just a simple line entry.
