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

[Glass]

Makes for a very interesting read. I am going to have to go back over the first post on this page.

I am not into the October post where he go the Feds to abandon in complete Silence, their claim against him. Basically they have this thing called Sub Silentio which means they don't have to tell you what they are doing to you.... all the while talking to you like they will do something else.

Docket and record, Houston and Lufkin Division Federal tax cases.

Houston Division case:

Not until shortly after Petitioner filed in the Supreme Court did Petitioner discover the obscure artifice used by the district judge to justify pretending that Petitioner is a resident of the geographic area in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division is authorized to exercise jurisdiction: the District of Columbia.

You did not misunderstand the previous sentence.

The only geographic area in which any contemporary United States District Court in America has jurisdiction is the District of Columbia.

The supreme political authority in America is the American People (Declaration of Independence, Conclusion; Constitution, Preamble), referred to by the Supreme Court as “joint tenants in the sovereignty”; to wit:

“[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471 (1793).

The sovereign authority in the District of Columbia, however—as ordained by the American People (the “Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty”) in the Constitution (Article 1 § 8(17))—is Congress.

Whereas, there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to legislate rules or regulations (statutes) against Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty, this is not so with residents of the District of Columbia—who are subject to any legislation Congress may impose on them.

To ensnare Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty in the banker-contrived artifice of income tax in behalf of their banker creditor, Congress enacted recondite[1] legislation that would foreclose Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty from fully comprehending the law, by transmuting certain everyday words into statutory terms with a convoluted or constitutionally opposite definition and meaning, and formulating statutes (and statutory definitions) using obscure rules of statutory construction to guarantee maximum complexity—thereby allowing Federal executive and judicial officers to operate within the “letter of the law” and justify treating Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty as residents of the District of Columbia, but without having to explain what they are doing.

“Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow,”[2] and today we are dealing, literally, with an infinity of absurdities foisted upon us in the wake of the initial absurdity perpetrated by Congress June 30, 1864 (described in detail in both the Houston and Lufkin Record).

On that date, Congress quietly decreed that the word “state” (and shortly thereafter “State” and “United States”) means “the territories and the District of Columbia” (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864 [Go to “Turn to image” 306])—but ultimately translates to the District of Columbia only and excludes by design all commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union.

Since June 30, 1864, any Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty (you) who innocently believes or admits that he resides in a state, State, or the United States, unwittingly confesses or concedes that he is a resident of the District of Columbia—and subject to the absolute, exclusive legislative power of Congress and jurisdiction of District of Columbia executive and bench officers (Department of Justice attorneys and United States District Judges and Magistrates).

Congress incorporated the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation February 21, 1871,[3] and have ruled the District of Columbia under municipal (Roman civil) law ever since.

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.

Link to Post
Well worth bookmarking. IMO

[monty]

It is true. It is in the definitions of the federal statutes.

The UNITED STATES for federal tax purposes is the statutory United States (District of Columbia) not the continental United States. 26 USC 7701(a)9 and (a)10



9) United States

The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

[7th trump]

I've been telling you guys this now for over 4 years.
Social Security puts you in the jurisdiction of Congress. Social Security is the reason why you are being taxed on your labor (at source).
Social Security is the why your earnings are labeled (defined) as "wages".

Heres the proof you are subject to federal jurisdiction. Couldn't get any more blatant than this.

5usc 522a(13)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Social Security Administration is a federal agency over seeing your federal retirement program.

[monty]

I've been telling you guys this now for over 4 years.
Social Security puts you in the jurisdiction of Congress. Social Security is the reason why you are being taxed on your labor (at source).
Social Security is the why your earnings are labeled (defined) as "wages".

Heres the proof you are subject to federal jurisdiction. Couldn't get any more blatant than this.

5usc 522a(13)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Social Security Administration is a federal agency over seeing your federal retirement program.

That is why they say the Income Tax is voluntary. You volunteered when you signed your W-4 Form.

[Ares]

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the 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 Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for 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 Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Holy Shit!

[monty]

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Is this statement saying that if the judge dismisses the case he is responding in writing? I would think yes. That will leave this case in limbo. I wonder what this may do to future filings?

[Ares]

Is this statement saying that if the judge dismisses the case he is responding in writing? I would think yes. That will leave this case in limbo. I wonder what this may do to future filings?

While it leaves the case in limbo, it basically nullifies all federal laws by passing such an objection / demand in any federal court case. Once jurisdiction is challenged it has to been proven before moving forward. You're right Monty I don't even think they can dismiss the case without committing treason.

[Glass]

Is this statement saying that if the judge dismisses the case he is responding in writing? I would think yes. That will leave this case in limbo. I wonder what this may do to future filings?

I think so. They let it go "sine die" in politic/legal speak. (Sign-ey die). Basically means abandoned. That is what they did to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1973. Set up a new one called Parliament of Australia. Moved sideways.

He has the court dockets etc linked. I guess we need to verify it's legit.

There was also the mention of an out, once you were in the system. Like the SS as Trump says. I've read through it again tonight but I can't see where the guy mentions it. I'm sure it was there.

[7th trump]

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the 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 Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for 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 Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Holy Shit!

The way the tax laws work I think the reason they will not respond (too early to really know if they truly are not willing to reply) is because they don't really want you to know its Social Security that's causing the imposition. It really has nothing at all to do with "state" or "united states"...those two didn't cause you to fall within the tax code....earning "wages" did.
Social Security has the same Title 26 definitions to "state" and "united States"............and that's not a coincidence.

[palani]

That is what they did to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1973. Set up a new one called Parliament of Australia. Moved sideways.

When I was growing up there was a settlement of native indians calling themselves MESQUAKI in Iowa. To own land the governor of the state had to create a trust for them. Now they call themselves MESKWAKI and they appear to be avoiding state laws on gambling by running a casino in a sovereign capacity (as near as I can tell).

Name changes signal a new entity on the block.