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

[7th trump]

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.

And these two court cases precede, in date, the Civil War. The Civil War brought out of it Congresses first ever subjects...."US citizens"...via the 14th amendment.
Shortly after the 14th, Congress gave its new subject citizens "rights" as not many of the "Bill of Rights" applied to these brand new subjects and therefore enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Do you see the separation between "The People" and "US citizens"?
Its in the rights you hold and possess.
Congress doesnt choose which rights you have....you do unless you are of colored skin. Then you have no choice in the matter.

Ever heard of "State citizens"?
Thats where the Bill of Rights applies....to those individuals.
A State citizen and "We the People" are one in the same.

Heres the thing with this idiot......hes applying court cases that cannot and do not apply to US citizens (which they proved he was with the 1040) in that context didnt exist until after the Civil War. And that last court case Pennoyer v. Neff applies to those who are not US citizens pre Civil War era and politics.
This idiot is picking and choosing what he whats to argue with and his picks dont even apply.....or is that you, Monty, supplying the three court cases? One of you is a completely ignorant of how whats going on.
The guy is an idiot douche with a so called high IQ

[monty]

And these two court cases precede, in date, the Civil War. The Civil War brought out of it Congresses first ever subjects...."US citizens"...via the 14th amendment.
Shortly after the 14th, Congress gave its new subject citizens "rights" as not many of the "Bill of Rights" applied to these brand new subjects and therefore enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Do you see the separation between "The People" and "US citizens"?
Its in the rights you hold and possess.
Congress doesnt choose which rights you have....you do unless you are of colored skin. Then you have no choice in the matter.

Ever heard of "State citizens"?
Thats where the Bill of Rights applies....to those individuals.
A State citizen and "We the People" are one in the same.

Heres the thing with this idiot......hes applying court cases that cannot and do not apply to US citizens (which they proved he was with the 1040) in that context didnt exist until after the Civil War. And that last court case Pennoyer v. Neff applies to those who are not US citizens pre Civil War era and politics.

This idiot is picking and choosing what he whats to argue with and his picks dont even apply.....or is that you, Monty, supplying the three court cases? One of you is a completely ignorant of how whats going on.

The guy is an idiot douche with a so called high IQ

Maybe you reading comprehension isn't so great. Here are 4 cases all after the civil war. 3 of them since 1978.

Care to explain why the Lufkin Court bailed and took the 5th when they were about to sieze his hobby farm for part of his 3 million dallar debt?





Pennyoyer V. Neff (1878)

• 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).

[monty]

Update Jan. 14
Petitioner files superseding Lufkin criminal complaint; demands payment of debt totaling $195,988,000

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.c...g-195988000-2/


https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...ry-14-2016.pdf


https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...ry-14-2016.pdf

[7th trump]

Maybe you reading comprehension isn't so great. Here are 4 cases all after the civil war. 3 of them since 1978.

Care to explain why the Lufkin Court bailed and took the 5th when they were about to sieze his hobby farm for part of his 3 million dallar debt?





Pennyoyer V. Neff (1878)

• 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).

I seriously ask you to click the link and read the whole thing.
Until you do you aren't going to understand why your beloved people holed up are going to lose and possible get themselves killed or hurt.

http://freedom-school.com/citizenshi...tizenship.html

[monty]

I seriously ask you to click the link and read the whole thing.
Until you do you aren't going to understand why your beloved people holed up are going to lose and possible get themselves killed or hurt.

http://freedom-school.com/citizenshi...tizenship.html

I have read it.

[Ares]

I seriously ask you to click the link and read the whole thing.
Until you do you aren't going to understand why your beloved people holed up are going to lose and possible get themselves killed or hurt.

http://freedom-school.com/citizenshi...tizenship.html

Awesome read, thanks 7thTrump.

[mick silver]

No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43. You have to remember the 14th amendment is not law, it´s never been passed, not ratified. So when you claim you are a U.S. citizen, you claim that you´re a little green man from Mars with six heads; and that´s the way the court looks at you, a dummy that doesn´t know what he´s talking about.
And how did you become a U.S. citizen? When you got your social security number. What you have now is the original social security act of 1935. I´d like you to read the top paragraph, and tell me where that trust fund is that they´re talking about on television and radio. You hear them say, "give us your money, we´ll keep it in the trust fund". Read what it says: Wards of court. Infants and persons ofunsound mind ... Their rights must be guarded jealously ...
Black´s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.

His [attorney] first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Edition. Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Edition.

Nobody here looks like an imbecile or and infant to me, but you claim you are, and the courts recognize you as such. That´s why you have to have an attorney.
And when you became a U.S. citizen, you became a citizen of the United States government. Now read what the United States government is:

The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
In re Merriam, 163 US 625.

Ninety-nine percent of the time when they say small ´s state, they´re referring to the common law republic country. A capital ´S´ State is a corporation. Large ´S" means corporation, fiction; small ´s´ means land mass, country.
Next is California Government Code section 242. Remember, as a U.S. citizen, you are a citizen of the District of Columbia. Is the District of Columbia a state of the Union? No. Now, you tell me under California law what you are, either (a) or (b):

Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens.

AN ACT To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

It´s for revenue raising, and other purposes. There is no trust fund. Everything you give to the government is for revenue purposes. They do not have to pay you anything in Social Security. It´s a gratuity given by government. It can be abolished, and taken away tomorrow. That´s what the courts have ruled, many times.
And when you´ve got your social security number you said " I want some welfare, I want some workmen´s comp, I want, I want, I want ... and you have my power of attorney to regulate and control me. I´m a fictitious entity. I´m not a human being anymore."
When you do that, you give the federal government power of attorney.Then the government gives it to their courts. You become a ward of the court. So, read what a ward of the court is:

[7th trump]

Awesome read, thanks 7thTrump.

Thank You....

[7th trump]

I've been harping and harping about the Social Security Act and what it really did to those who went and applied for one.

I hope this goes far and wide because those up in Idaho are gonna lose when the feds decide they've had enough of this and go in with guns.
These guys are doing more harm than any good for the cause of returning the government back into what it once was.
They should do some R and R........."retreat and regroup", but this time use their heads and learn where they stand within the law and step out of it and into the jurisdiction where they can do something about it.

[monty]

Awesome read, thanks 7thTrump.

Freedom School, Famguardian, 1215.org, barefoots world all are full of excellent information. I have been reading these sites for over 15 years. I am more confused now than when I started.