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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

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.

---

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

I wonder if all federal courthouses are on federal land. Some Post Offices are leased on privately owned land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

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.

---

Here is his argument concerning the 1040 the judge ordered into evidence:

Also, the federal court may be on federal land, but the crime was not commited in the court.

Petitioner had the Houston Division case won following Petitioner’s initial March 19, 2014, motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Houston Docket #18)—because there was no evidence in the record that Petitioner was a resident of the only statutory “State” of the statutory “United States” whose residents are liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C.: the District of Columbia.


The judge stacked the deck against Petitioner by commanding sua sponte[4] the DOJ attorney to file in the record what the judge would use sub silentio[5] to justify pretending that he was authorized to treat Petitioner as a resident of the District of Columbia: one of Petitioner’s tax returns.


Courtesy of Congress, the filing of a tax return is one of an indefinite number of undefined “acts or statements” that purportedly prove “a definite intention to acquire residence in the [statutory] United States” (26 C.F.R. 1.871-4(c)(2)(iii)), i.e., the District of Columbia.


In combination with legally defective congressional legislation at 26 U.S.C. 6013(g) and (h), actors in government pretend that the filing of a tax return constitutes one’s voluntary election (choice) to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia, and thereafter pretend that they are authorized to treat the filer as such without disclosing what they are doing.


The only flaw is that an alleged “definite intention to acquire residence” is insufficient legal ground in and of itself for someone to acquire or be granted residence or be treated by a government officer as a resident of a given place.


Under such logic, every non-American crossing the border into America without authorization could claim the right to be treated as a resident (Note: There is no substantial difference between being treated as a resident and being a resident).


Residence depends on facts and is established in one of two ways: through bodily presence as an inhabitant of, or realization of earnings in, a given place / geographic area.


The Supreme Court, whose opinions are not law per se, but have the effect of law, affirms that no one can elect (choose) 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).
http://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

UPDATE:
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...eral-actors-2/

The Union is the collective of the 50 respective commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitution, and the geographic area they occupy.

There is no provision of the Constitution that grants Congress power of territorial or personal legislation anywhere within the Union—only subject-matter legislation over certain things (Article 1 § 8(1-16)).


This means that Congress have no legislative power over property located anywhere within the Union or any American residing there, a limitation confirmed by the Supreme Court:


“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).


Notwithstanding that there is no provision of Article III of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to ordain and establish any court with power of territorial or personal jurisdiction anywhere in the Union (only jurisdiction to hear or decide certain controversies, Article 3 § 2(1)): The United States District Courts created by Congress (28 U.S.C. 132(a)) and doing business throughout the Union are usurping exercise of territorial and personal jurisdiction over property located there and Americans residing there.



Wherefore, every Federal bench officer, including, without limitation, every Supreme Court justice, is culpable for:

• criminal negligence of the provisions of the Constitution relating to jurisdiction, in respect of the legislative powers therein conferred upon Congress;

• violation of their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same” (5 U.S.C. 3331); and

• Treason to the Constitution; to wit:

“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),



What separates Man from the beasts is the faculty of reason:

• "Ratio est radius divini luminis. Reason is a ray of the divine light." Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1891) (hereinafter “Black’s 1^st”), p. 995.

• "Ratio est formalis causa consuetudinis. Reason is the formal cause of custom." Id.

• "Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex. Reason is the soul of law ; the reason of law being changed, the law is also changed." Id.

At implementation of the Constitution March 4, 1789, the soul of law in America was personal liberty under the common law; to wit:


“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law.” William Blackstone and John Innes Clark Hare, cited in 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. 1965 (s.v. “Liberty”).


“Due course of law,” supra, is synonymous with “due process of law” and means process according to the law of the land, i.e., the Constitution; interpreted according to the principles of the common law; to wit:
“Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. . . ." Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 533, 3 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).


“Due process of law . . . refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law. . . .” Id. at 535.


On June 30, 1864 (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 4-14), Congress invoked the sovereignty of the American People to override their will as declared in the Constitution, and changed, beginning with the revenue act of that date, the reason of law in America, from personal liberty under the common law to civil liberty under municipal (Roman civil) law, i.e., rules and regulations commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong; to wit:


“Under the Roman law, civil liberty was the affirmance of a general restraint, while in our law it is the negation of a general restraint.” Ordronaux's Constitutional Legislation, quoted in Bouvier’s, p. 1965 (s.v. “Liberty”).


There is only one provision of the Constitution that expressly grants Congress power to make rules and regulations—Article 4 § 3(2), which provides, 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; . . .”


All “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” id. (which is enumerated at Article 1 § 8(17) of the Constitution), is extraneous to the Union.


Congress have no authority to legislate rules and regulations (statutes) for the 50 commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union, or the Americans who reside there—and in such geographic area the Department of Justice and United States District Courts are bereft of constitutional authority to take jurisdiction and execute or declare or enforce any such rule or regulation (statute) enacted by Congress.


The contents of this webpage reflect Petitioner’s efforts to dissolve unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous attempts to impose Federal rules and regulations on Petitioner in order to justify seizure of Petitioner’s property.


“Est autem vis legem simulans. Violence may also put on the mask of law” (Black’s 1^st, p. 433)—and Federal elements today, like an occupying army, usurp exercise of territorial and personal jurisdiction and impose rules and regulations throughout the Union and deprive the Americans residing there of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, under municipal (Roman civil) law of the District of Columbia, in treason to the Constitution.


Notwithstanding the monstrousness of such organized outlawry, reason, not violence, is the answer.


It has taken all this time—roughly 100 years (since Federal actors first began enforcing provisions of the fraudulent Sixteenth and Eighteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution on Americans residing throughout the Union; see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 8)—for someone to divine the question that Federal aggressors are required by blackletter law[1] to answer, but cannot without also incriminating themselves for treason to the Constitution.


Petitioner’s objective is the exact estimation of effort that gets Federal actors to honor their oath of office and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and cease usurping exercise of territorial and personal jurisdiction without “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2)).


For the first time in their professional life, upon receipt of Petitioner’s September 14, 2015, objection to denial of due process of law and demand for the constitutional authority that gives the Lufkin Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, the Federal judges, magistrates, law clerk, attorneys general of the United States, and DOJ attorneys involved in that case hewed to the provisions of the Constitution relating to jurisdiction and ceased attempting to defraud Petitioner and deprive Petitioner of Petitioner’s property under color of law, office, and authority.


Despite this positive sign, however, said actors cannot be trusted to resign their office or refrain from committing the same crimes against other Americans less knowledgeable in such matters than Petitioner, and therefore must be brought under control.


Wherefore, in accordance with provisions of the Fourth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, and as provided in 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision[2] of felony, Petitioner on December 30, 2015, filed by mail with certain of the only Federal authorities who might be worthy of trust—66 senior officers in military authority—an affidavit of information (criminal complaint), upon probable cause of misdemeanor, felony, and treason supported by oath and particularly describing the persons to be seized, against every Federal actor in the Lufkin Division case, and a second affidavit of information limited to the Lufkin Judges and Magistrate Judges only.


Petitioner also lodged each Affidavit of Information with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—and sent each Lufkin Federal defendant his own copy.


“Ubi jus, ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there is a remedy,” Bouvier’s, p. 2165—and every Federal Lufkin defendant is liable to Petitioner for damages for, among other things, denial of the constitutional right to due process of law—wherefore, Petitioner has remedies.


These criminal complaints are the first step on the path to obtaining remedy.


Affidavit of Information No. 1 – all Federal actors, Lufkin Division


Affidavit of Information No. 2 – Lufkin Division judges only


* * * *


[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), p. 163.


[2] mis-pri′sion, mis-prizh′un, n. . . . Law. . . . The concealment of a crime, especially of treason or felony. . . . A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903), p. 1133.




supremecourtcase | December 30, 2015 at 22:07 | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p6epB3-aJ

Reads like a conspiracy website.....as usual.
And nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to come of it because the guy is a "US citizen" under Congressional policy.
His argument his no merit other than the court letting the cat out of the bag that "US citizens" are under federal policy and not legally a member of "The People".
The Constitution doesn't need to give authority for District courts to operate within state land when the courts are on federal land dealing with federal personnel and federal issues.
This is just an example of the stupidity of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Reads like a conspiracy website.....as usual.
And nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to come of it because the guy is a "US citizen" under Congressional policy.
His argument his no merit other than the court letting the cat out of the bag that "US citizens" are under federal policy and not legally a member of "The People".
The Constitution doesn't need to give authority for District courts to operate within state land when the courts are on federal land dealing with federal personnel and federal issues.
This is just an example of the stupidity of people.

---

The way I read these court cases it appears the Supreme Court does not share your opinion.

"Special provision is made in the constitution, for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts, or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."
[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]


When Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain which Georgia possessed at the date of the cession, except so far as this right was diminished by the public lands remaining in the possession and under the control of the United States, for the temporary purposes provided for in the deed of cession and the legislative acts connected with it. Nothing remained to the United States, according to the terms of the agreement, but the public lands. And, if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted. 7 ”
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 213, 221, 223 (1845)]


“In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court “must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. 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. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” Id., at 404 (emphasis added)
[U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)]

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).

---

The "crimes" were not committed in the Federal Courthouse.

Quote:

---

And nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to come of it because the guy is a "US citizen" under Congressional policy.

---

Probably nothing will become of it because to do so would unravel the entire federal bureaucracy. Nobody in government will enforce it. I believe Trowbridge will have no further problems with the feds because to do so they would be incriminating themselves. The feds will continue to rape the uneducated.

To expect the US DOJ to act on its unconstitutional court system is beyond imagination. Ain't gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Probably nothing will become of it because to do so would unravel the entire federal bureaucracy. Nobody in government will enforce it. I believe Trowbridge will have no further problems with the feds because to do so they would be incriminating themselves. The feds will continue to rape the uneducated.

To expect the US DOJ to act on its unconstitutional court system is beyond imagination. Ain't gonna happen.

---

Its not unconstitutional. You just dont want to see the truth and pander in believing its all a conspiracy.
There are no district courts operating outside it's jurisdiction.
The first district court was approved by the very first Congress and has been intact ever since and then nobody batted an eye about district courts.
They are all on allotted federal land within the boundaries of the union states.

Its you who has fallen within their jurisdiction. And that appears as though they are within the state and unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Its not unconstitutional. You just dont want to see the truth and pander in believing its all a conspiracy.
There are no district courts operating outside it's jurisdiction.
The first district court was approved by the very first Congress and has been intact ever since and then nobody batted an eye about district courts.
They are all on allotted federal land within the boundaries of the union states.

Its you who has fallen within their jurisdiction. And that appears as though they are within the state and unconstitutional.

---

So where exactly does it say that District Courts have jurisdiction to try cases in matters of debt outside of the District of Columbia? This is the guys whole basis, that the post civil war congress made changes to the definition of words in order to redefine DC jurisdiction.

You cannot possibly with a straight face sit there and say that the 17th Amendment passed when there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution says states have the authority to give up their suffrage to the people turning a Republic into a Democracy. Or how there is mounds of evidence that supports the original 13th Amendment denying anyone with titles of nobility (BAR carrying attorney's) from being able to serve in Congress. All the evidence points that the original 13th Amendment passed, yet while there is also mounds of evidence that shows the 17th Amendment failed to pass, yet it was declared.

Why the fuck (and how the hell is this even lawful) that Delaware didn't even Ratify the 17th Amendment until 2010. (97 years later)
http://guides.lib.udel.edu/c.php?g=85632&p=548217

There isn't always a conspiracy everywhere, but there always seems to be one when power attempts subjugation of people are involved. If there wasn't we would not even be discussing this on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Its not unconstitutional. You just dont want to see the truth and pander in believing its all a conspiracy.
There are no district courts operating outside it's jurisdiction.
The first district court was approved by the very first Congress and has been intact ever since and then nobody batted an eye about district courts.
They are all on allotted federal land within the boundaries of the union states.

Its you who has fallen within their jurisdiction. And that appears as though they are within the state and unconstitutional.

---

The first district courts were admiralty courts hearing maritime cases. There have been several changes made to the federal court system by the Congress since the first district courts were created.

The Supreme Court says all Federal Courts are Article III courts, courts of limited jurisdiction not able to hear civil and criminal cases.

If you were to steal money from the Post Office or kill someone on Nellis Aire Force Base in the State of Nevada you would be tried in the Article IV District Court of general jurisdiction because that would be on property belonging to the United States where they do have general jurisdiction.

• 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).

Quote:

---

Its not unconstitutional. You just dont want to see the truth and pander in believing its all a conspiracy.

---

The courts are not unconstitutional. The act of usurping the states jurisdiction is unconstitutional.