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

[Glass]

I don't know this discussion video adds a lot to the story but it does give some more information about sovereign stance etc.

http://www.naturallybetter.tv/missio...ible-global-2/

Has links to a few other web sites carrying the story.

[monty]

https://scannedretina.files.wordpres...led-093015.pdf

[palani]

Equity is a bitch. You know it is a court of Chancellery when there is only one judge. Don't try that Law nonsense when the topic is FAIRNESS.

You might not be able to kill a puppy without being charged with animal abuse but you can take it to an animal shelter where they can feed it for 10 days before sticking it with a needle.

[monty]

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.


https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com


This applies to the "Gun Control Act of 1964", and any other laws the congress has passed or shall pass.

Until the Constitution is amended Congress has no power to legislate in any of the the 50 sovereign states.

Any high school student should have learned this in his civics class. I guess today though, they teach students to put rubbers on bananas instead of civics.

[monty]

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...t-of-columbia/


Revocation of election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia

AUGUST 20, 2015SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENT“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his

legal rights harms no one.” 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. 2157




The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the District of Columbia[1]—and can be

accomplished in as little as one sentence.




As any legal professional (other than one with a vested interest in the 26 U.S.C. 6013 general-election-facility hoax) can verify: No one can elect (choose) to be a resident of a particular geographic area for purposes of taxation without also (1) physically moving there and establishing his personal abode / dwelling / home, or (2) realizing earnings there.


There is no difference between “being a resident” and “being treated as a resident” of a particular place; the legal effect is the same.


That government pretends that all of the American People are residents of the District of Columbia—and treats them as such—gives one an idea of the magnitude of the situation.


“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.


“GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized ; as opposed to special. Principal or central ; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally ; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded ; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole or directed to the whole ; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.” Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1890), p. 534.


The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is designated as “general” and therefore is universal or unbounded (as opposed to limited) and is the ultimate inference used by actors in government to subject its creator, the American People, to rules of conduct and regulations, in the form of statutes, and deprive them of life, liberty, and property for alleged violation thereof, under color of law, office, and authority.


There is no constitutional authority for any American legislature to impose any rule or regulation on any American except residents of the District of Columbia or one of the Territories—and no one can produce any such authority.[2]


Actors in government and the Internal Revenue Service follow the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (which are grounded in fraud); they just did not expect that anyone would figure out the true meaning thereof.


The meaning of the definition of the Internal Revenue Code terms “United States” and “State” is the District of Columbia (seeMemorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 6, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).


Anyone can revoke his alleged general election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia. To see Petitioner’s “Statement of Revocation,” click on the hyperlink below.


(Note: Revocation of election applies only to the current and future tax years; it does not apply retroactively to previous tax years.)


[1] See Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8-18, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof.


[2] The wild-card in the 16th Amendment that fooled everyone is the meaning of the operative definition of the statutory term “State,” which is used in the text thereof and comprehends the District of Columbia and the Territories (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 4-8, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).


****


Petitioner’s July 20, 2015, “Statement of Revocation”
Correction

About these ads

SHARE THIS:

[Glass]

I've been thinking I need to knuckle down and read our Income Tax Act 1974 from front to back and see what is really in it. It's a humongous document so you can see how enthusiastic one could be about that little job.

However, since there was a coup in 1973, the whole of that Act might not even be lawful or valid. Since 1973, a lot of our laws are not enacted lawfully and can be challenged on that basis. Trying to come up with a way to find out without having to go through a court case like this guy did and using the Discovery process which only comes into play during a court matter.

[monty]

Apparently this case has its beginnings some 20 years ago.

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...cate-judgment/



Supreme Court declines to review case; Petitioner moves district court to vacate judgment

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENTThe origins of this case go back 20-plus years and involve an alleged tax liability of more than $3 million, factors that evince a significant investment of time, energy, and resources on the part of the Internal Revenue Service and government to acquire Petitioner’s property.


Only at the very end of the process, on June 8, 2015, when Petitioner first learns of the Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s April 29, 2015, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, does Petitioner find the last piece of the puzzle.


Said discovery merits a second petition, the June 30, 2015, Petition for Rehearing, which the law clerks and justices of the Supreme Court review and accept for consideration, a rarity, within one day of submission.


Although the Petition for Rehearing presents sufficient grounds for the justices to grant it, it is not surprising that they decline to do so,[1] given what is at stake: willingness of the average American to continue participating in the “voluntary tax system” (only thing that allows principals of the Federal Reserve to maintain their private banking monopoly[2]).


The Clerk of the Supreme Court notifies Petitioner of the disposition of the Petition for Rehearing in the Clerk’s August 10, 2015, notice of entry of order.


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, at Rule 60, provide for relief in proceedings of the character of that of the district court of first instance; to wit, in pertinent part:


“(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons
:
“. . . (4) the judgment is void;”


It is well settled that final judgments and orders entered in a manner inconsistent with due process of law—a Right guaranteed by the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution—are void; e.g.:


“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144 [of Title 28 U.S.C.], but on the Due Process Clause. . . .” United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir., 1976).


“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 502 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). Mere error does not render the judgment void unless the error is of constitutional dimension. Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United States, 456 U.S. 917, 102 S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177 (1982).” [Underline emphasis added.] Klugh v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 892 (1985).


“[I]f a ‘judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s motion to vacate the judgment.’ United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995). A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if ‘the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.’ Id. at 1316 (citations omitted) . . .” [Underline emphasis added.] Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624 (7th Cir., 2007).


“[D]enying a motion to vacate a void judgment is a per se abuse of discretion.” Burrell v. Henderson, et al, 434 F.3d, 826, 831 (6th Cir., 2006).


Whereas, the record of the district court of first instance is rife with violations of due process of law, Petitioner documents the same in Petitioner’s September 9, 2015, Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order (below) and moves the district court to vacate said court’s May 23, 2014, Amended Final Judgment and Order of Sale and Vacature.

Had Petitioner known at the beginning of this case what Petitioner knows now, it is unlikely that Petitioner would have needed to take the measures chronicled in this website.


Petitioner’s motion to vacate (1) condenses into 19 pages the fruits of the last 18 months of litigation, in both this and a sister case (USDC, E. Dist. Tex., Lufkin Div. No. 9:14-cv-00138, which, following Petitioner’s filings, stagnated and has gone nowhere since beginning 14 months ago), (2) reveals how Federal judges evade and defeat the jurisdictional limitations of the Constitution in every civil and criminal action brought throughout the Union, and (3) provides sufficient grounds for the judge in the district court of first instance to vacate the aforesaid May 23, 2014, judgment and order (basis of the Supreme Court appeal presented in this website), as mandated by law.


The contents of the below motion to vacate have direct and intimate bearing on the life of every American who resides without the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.


Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order, September 9, 2015


[1] “[T]he Supreme Court has admonished us [10th Circuit Court of Appeals] that ‘[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case . . .’ United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490, 43 S.Ct. 181, 182, 67 L.Ed. 361 (1923) (emphasis added) . . .” Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441 (10th Cir., 1983).


[2] “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly. . . .” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, p. 1260.

About these ads

SHARE THIS:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google

Post navigation

→

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

←

REVOCATION OF ELECTION TO BE TREATED AS A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[monty]

The contents of the below motion to vacate have direct and intimate bearing on the life of every American who resides without the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.

Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order, September 9, 2015

[monty]

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.

Glass, Is this what you were refering to?


https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...ly-20-2015.pdf

[monty]

Some history on Dr. John Parks Trowbridge
http://www.grfcpa.com/resources/wash...ral-income-tax

Washington Tax Updatehttp://www.grfcpa.com/media/Capitol.jpg



Citizen of a US State Can’t Avoid Federal Income Tax

Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman CPAs is a member of CPAmerica International, an association of CPA and consulting firms that provides industry knowledge including insightful articles, to help member firms serve clients and other individuals and organizations.

Mar 3, 2015

The modern-day secession movement that has sprung up around the country in recent years is evidence that a number of states – as many as 20, stretching from New Jersey to Oregon to Texas – have citizens who would like to assert their independence from the federal government.


John Trowbridge Jr. found out the hard way that living in Texas means he is a US citizen and is subject to U.S. tax laws.


In addition, district courts have the jurisdiction, and the Internal Revenue Code gives them the power, to hear tax cases and settle those disputes.


Trowbridge has been a long-time tax protester. He has on two prior occasions lost Tax Court cases regarding similar issues.


This particular case involved the district court, which had reduced Trowbridge’s tax liabilities for the years 1993 through 1997 to the amount of the associated tax liens on his property. The court foreclosed on the liens and then sold Trowbridge’s property for back taxes.


Trowbridge’s argument against the court is that he lives in Harris County, Texas, which he doesn’t consider a part of the United States, meaning that he is not, therefore, a US citizen. He feels that he isn’t subject to the federal income tax laws and that the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction in his case.


The courts have already held in prior cases that citizens of Texas are also citizens of the United States, so Trowbridge lost that argument. There is also an Internal Revenue Code section authorizing the district courts to hear Tax Court cases and disputes, so he lost on that issue as well (United States of America v. John Parks Trowbridge, Jr., No. 14-20333, US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Feb. 3, 2015).


Having lost his case with the court, Trowbridge was fined an additional $8,000 for bringing this frivolous appeal before the appeals court.



- See more at: http://www.grfcpa.com/resources/wash...come-tax#.dpuf