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