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

[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: