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

[7th trump]

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.

Famguardian has more half truths than truths. I wouldn't go there...they are conspiracy minded.
1215.org is great in showing theres two citizenship.
But state-citizen.org (not up for some reason) has the best court cases to show how the two citizenships differentiate and what you can do to try and regain the Status of "WE the People".

Monty to stay unconfused you need to know the basics and that's knowing that "We the People" are state citizens while "US citizens" are federal citizens under the jurisdiction established by the 14th amendment.....the rest falls into place

[palani]

Famguardian has more half truths than truths.

Yet you rely upon STATUTE law where you will find NO-TRUTH but much OBFUSCATION.

[7th trump]

Yet you rely upon STATUTE law where you will find NO-TRUTH but much OBFUSCATION.

No I dont rely upon statute. I study the statute to understand its operation and jurisdiction.....aka how one falls within its authority.
Know your enemy to understand your enemy.

But then again we both understand this but you like to play games.

Imagine that....you, a conpiratist, protecting a site that full of conspiracy. Seems you have an eye for recognizing a site filled with bullshit and feel obligated to come to its aid!

[palani]

No I dont rely upon statute.

you are out of your mind. You rely on SEMI-COLONS. If that isn't taking devotion to the nth level I don't know what is.

Imagine that....you, a conpiratist, protecting a site that full of conspiracy.

Famguardian? I suppose their information is better than some and not as good as others.

And I have no beef with conspiracies .. either pro or con. My approach is called REASON 'cause that is the basis for Law. Now you can find REASON in many places and yes there is occasionally even REASON to be found in statutes. Where I find REASON I have no problem with accepting Law based upon that REASON.

What you call conspiracies is nothing more than other people considering what they think are facts, looking for a REASON behind those facts and formulating theories. I don't do this because I have no facts to go on. All these people do to construct their favorite conspiracy is rely upon others observations (aka 'hearsay' or opinion). They have no facts. And then the action of REASONING requires LOGIC. You have provided sufficient clues that you do not know what LOGIC actually is.

In short your analysis fall far short of being accurate because I have seen mules that are more flexible.

[7th trump]

you are out of your mind. You rely on SEMI-COLONS. If that isn't taking devotion to the nth level I don't know what is.

Famguardian? I suppose their information is better than some and not as good as others.

And I have no beef with conspiracies .. either pro or con. My approach is called REASON 'cause that is the basis for Law. Now you can find REASON in many places and yes there is occasionally even REASON to be found in statutes. Where I find REASON I have no problem with accepting Law based upon that REASON.

What you call conspiracies is nothing more than other people considering what they think are facts, looking for a REASON behind those facts and formulating theories. I don't do this because I have no facts to go on. All these people do to construct their favorite conspiracy is rely upon others observations (aka 'hearsay' or opinion). They have no facts. And then the action of REASONING requires LOGIC. You have provided sufficient clues that you do not know what LOGIC actually is.

In short your analysis fall far short of being accurate because I have seen mules that are more flexible.

Yep....you just giving justification to believing in conspiracies.
You'd make a great advisor to Hillary Clinton.

[palani]

believing

Lack of facts means belief becomes a dominant factor.

I have no facts.

Neither do you have facts.

Your opinion matters (to you).

Your opinion matters not at all (to me).

You have no facts.

You have no reason.

You have no logic.

Perhaps you care to examine what you HAVE because you surely know what you have NOT.

[7th trump]

Lack of facts means belief becomes a dominant factor.

I have no facts.

Neither do you have facts.

Your opinion matters (to you).

Your opinion matters not at all (to me).

You have no facts.

You have no reason.

You have no logic.

Perhaps you care to examine what you HAVE because you surely know what you have NOT.

Then perhaps you should look into each of your conspiracy fallacy tales and search for facts to see if the conspiracies you hold to your heart have any merit. If not then discard them instead of continuing to look for facts you will not and cannot find that would validate the merit of the conspiracy lie.
Theres a saying about being insane........something about doing the same thing over and over in hopes for a different outcome.
So why do you cling to fallacies you know have no facts (which you call evil) and pass them off as being legit?

[palani]

why do you cling to fallacies you know have no facts

People present fallacies all the time on this board (and others) based upon opinion and belief. This does not mean they are wrong but it also does not mean they are right. I try not to judge but see no reason not to present alternative 'views'.

(which you call evil)

Etymology online quotes the source of the word symbol 'fact' as being of evil origin. Am I wrong in pointing out this? Or do you select the meaning of the words you use to gain some advantage?

and pass them off as being legit?

Is the difference between what you view as the 'real' world and the actual fantasy land you live in based upon some concept of what is 'legit' and what is not?

[Ares]

Damages of $37,822,100 demanded of 31 Federal actors in the Houston case; criminal complaint filed with military



In the original Houston Division case, 31 Federal actors in the United States District Court, United States Department of Justice, and United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit taken collectively, committed over a thousand felonies while perpetrating the theft of Petitioner’s house in Montgomery County, Texas.

This is known as “Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity” (Texas Penal Code Sec. 71.02).

Presently, United States District Courts located throughout the Union purport to have territorial and personal jurisdiction, over property located and people residing there.

Success of such United States District Courts, in tandem with the United States Department of Justice, in defrauding and depriving the American People of life, liberty, and property, depends utterly on concealment of the fact that the Constitution authorizes Government to exercise territorial and personal jurisdiction only in geographic area in which Congress have power of territorial and personal legislation.

There is no provision of the Constitution that confers upon Congress the power of territorial or personal legislation anywhere within the Union.

Congress have power of territorial and personal legislation (two of the three aspects of exclusive legislation, the other being subject-matter) only as expressly provided in Articles 1 § 8(17) and 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution.

The geographic area in which the Constitution grants Congress power of territorial and personal legislation is “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2)), e.g., the District of Columbia and the territories.

There really is nothing more to the Federal con than that simple fact.

Government is usurping exercise of territorial and personal jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area throughout the Union, and engaging in organized criminal activity in doing so.

Every such act is an instance of usurpation, constituting breach of oath of office and treason to the Constitution.[1]

Petitioner is in the process of effectuating remedy in the Houston Division case, for the unlawful taking of Petitioner’s home without constitutional authority (theft), and the below-hyperlinked instruments represent the first step toward that end.

The below-hyperlinked Affidavit of Information was filed with the same 65 senior officers in military authority as previous criminal complaints.

Letter to 65 senior officers in military authority, January 28, 2016 (10.3 MB)

Affidavit of Information, Purported Houston Litigation, January 28, 2016

Demand for Payment (of Damages), 31 Federal actors, January 28, 2016

* * * *

[1] 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).


https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

[monty]

The magistrate judge took 11 pages to avoid addressing the real issue, the courts lack of constitutional authority.


Lufkin magistrate recommends the Court grant United States’ motion for summary judgment; Petitioner responds

FEBRUARY 17, 2016SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENT

After five months of silence there is movement in the Lufkin Division.

A Lufkin Division actor has made a move to compensate for the Lufkin Court’s lack of constitutional authority to take territorial and personal jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and facilitate theft of Petitioner’s real property under color of authority.

Petitioner on September 14, 2015, demanded the Lufkin Court’s constitutional authority—and following the United States’ failure to respond thereto, on September 30, 2015, alleged lack of territorial and personal jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and demanded dismissal of the case, to which demand the United States never filed an opposition.

Petitioner’s September 14 and 30, 2015, unanswered demands signify that the Lufkin Court has no territorial or personal jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, the United States is not entitled to summary judgment, and Petitioner is entitled to dismissal with prejudice of the case.

With no dismissal forthcoming, Petitioner on January 14, 2016, filed an Affidavit of Information (criminal complaint) with the military and served the Lufkin Division actors with a copy, as well as a Verified Accounting of Offenses and Debt and a Demand for Payment.

Whereupon, United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on January 26, 2016, entered a Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment and Motions to Dismiss (the “Report and Recommendation”), hyperlinked below, in which he cherry-picks from the record of the Lufkin Division case certain facts, which he presents as conclusive “proof” that the United States is entitled to summary judgment, and Petitioner’s real property—to the exclusion of all material facts and evidence in the same record from Petitioner’s September 14 and 30, 2015, filings, and the United States’ failure to respond thereto, that supersede and nullify those he uses as the basis of his recommendation.

Magistrate Giblin is applying the Government policy, “Never respond, confirm, or deny when confronted with a situation where anything you say will work against you,” and pretending that Petitioner never made the September 14 and 30, 2015, demands and allegations.

Magistrate Giblin is counting on his co-workers to go along with the ruse.
This convention has a name: culture of silence.

In an impartial judicial system such custom could never gain any footing.

Magistrate Giblin is gambling that the general appearance of his 11-page Report and Recommendation is so “official” and its contents so “thorough” and “authoritative” that the idea of verifying its conclusions and recommendation against the actual record of the case never crosses the reader’s mind.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.24

“. . . 24. See United States v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3 L.Ed.2d 1534 (1959); c.f., Avery v. Clearly, 132 U.S. 604, 10 S.Ct. 220, 33 L.Ed. 469 (1890); Atilus v. United States, 406 F.2d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1969); American Nat’l Ins. Co., etc. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1967).” United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970).”

Ongoing silence on the part of the United States for the last five months, followed by the preposterous whitewash of the record by Magistrate Giblin, operates to confirm that Petitioner has correctly identified the ultimate Achilles’ heel of every de facto United States District Court throughout the Union: no constitutional authority to take territorial and personal jurisdiction.

Magistrate Giblin’s employer, plaintiff United States, is too terrified to reply to Petitioner’s demands and put anything in writing, lest it be used as evidence of a crime—hence the stratagem of the Report and Recommendation.

Magistrate Giblin’s “solution” to his employer’s jurisdictional problem is to ignore the evidence, falsify the record, and recommend that the Lufkin Judge “authorize” the taking of Petitioner’s home in Tyler County, Texas, without constitutional authority—among numerous other offenses, a felony of the first degree under the Texas Penal Code.
The Report and Recommendation is a desperation attempt to stave off the inevitable.

General ignorance of the jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution is what has led to the disappearance of judicial-branch Article III constitutional courts and proliferation of legislative-branch Article IV territorial courts, called “United States District Courts” (28 U.S.C. 132(a)), of which the Lufkin Division court is one.

Anyone who can grasp pages 3–5 of Petitioner’s Objection to Lufkin Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, hyperlinked below, will know more about constitutional jurisdiction than any law professor (or at least what he teaches and will admit to).

That Government has been so successful at defrauding and swindling other Americans of their wealth over the last century or so without constitutional authority, is no reason that Petitioner has to go along with the charade, bend to pretended authority, and consent to the theft of his home under pretext of a judicial proceeding.

“Extra territorium jus dicenti non paretur impune. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1914), p. 2134.

Lufkin Division actors who conspire to falsify the record, exercise jurisdiction out of their territory, and take Petitioner’s property without constitutional authority are whistling past the graveyard if they think they are going to do it with impunity.

Petitioner on February 16, 2016, filed the aforementioned Affidavit of Information (criminal complaint) with Angelina County, Texas, District Attorney Art Baureiess, who has authority to charge and prosecute Lufkin Division actors for violations of the Texas Penal Code.

The more that Lufkin Division actors struggle, the messier it is going to get.

“Semper necessitas probandi incumbit et qui agit. The claimant is always bound to prove (the burden of proof lies on him).” Id. at2162.

“Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi tractatur de ejus commodo. A party who is silent is considered as assenting, when his advantage is debated.” Id. at 2158.

“De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. The law is the same respecting things which do not appear and things which do not exist.” Id. at 2130.

“Idem est non probari et non esse ; non deficit jus sed probatio. What is not proved and what does not exist, are the same ; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.” Id. at 2136.

“Actore non probante, reus absolvitur. If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.” Id. at 2124.

“Omnia præsumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium. All things are presumed to be done legitimately until the contrary is proved.” Id. at 2152.

“Quod per recordum probatum, non debet esse negatum. What is proved by the record, ought not to be denied.” Id. at 2159.

“Facta sunt potentiora verbis. Facts are more powerful than words.” Id. at 2134.

This situation is not going to go away and magically disappear just because Magistrate Giblin has decided to play make-believe with the record: Lufkin Division actors have no authority to take Petitioner’s home—and are liable to Petitioner in individual capacity if they do, for criminal offenses knowingly and willfully committed without the scope of their office or employment under color of authority.

Lufkin Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

Petitioner’s Objection to Lufkin Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com