Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[monty]

Who owns Nevada?

https://s19.postimg.org/5g5cfby1v/IMG_1463.png


https://s19.postimg.org/vcz0ry1pf/IMG_1464.png

[monty]

Bundy Standoff trial cartoon for today

Bunkerville Patriot Trials – By Micah McGuire

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...s-1024x687.pngBy: Micah McGuire – Bundy Ranch Political Prisonerhttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png

[monty]

MrsB Stacy has put up a new video - Judge Napolitano says federal govt. using Satanic Show of force to imtimidate family.



https://youtu.be/7Bht1stMy3E

[monty]

Review Journal files appeal, Ammon Bundy writes a book, emails received - Stacy Benner offers her opinions 48 minutes



https://youtu.be/354QUwfpj_w

[monty]

To Jury, or Not To Jury? Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom


Burns Chronicles No 54 – To Jury, or, Not To Jury

January 23, 2017, 5:16 am
Burns Chronicles N^o 54
To Jury, or, Not To Juryhttp://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ng-284x300.jpg

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 23, 2017

Though I have posted the Preamble to the Bill of Rights a number of times, people still ask if there really is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble sets forth the purpose of the document, as the Preamble to the Constitution sets forth its purpose. It is not a part of the document, rather an explanation as to why the document was created. When Congress approved, and sent the Bill of Rights to the States, as required by Article V of the Constitution, the first paragraph explained why the Joint Resolution was passed. It states, “declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” for the purpose of “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.” To wit:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So, now, we must determine if, in fact, it has extended “the ground of public confidence in the Government“, in light of the current situation. Our query must be directed to the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

We must also look to the Seventh Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

So, between these two Amendments, we find that every judicial concept in the Constitution, with the exception of the House and Senate’s disciplinary procedures regarding their own members, requires a jury to make the determination of guilt or innocence.

The matter at hand is the additional charges brought against the lower level defendants in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Since the government did not get a conviction of the leaders of said occupation, they have stooped to a new low, perhaps just being poor losers. They have brought a Misdemeanor Information, for Trespass and other crimes, against the second group of defendants. These charges were not a part of the Superseding Indictment..

Now, with regard to “public confidence“, we need to look no further than what Judge Anna Brown has provided for in her “Order Following January 20, 2017, Status Hearing“. The pertinent text is as follows:
TRIAL BY JURY ON MISDEMEANOR COUNTS The Court concludes each of the misdemeanor counts in the Misdemeanor Information (#1628) are Class B misdemeanors and, therefore, are petty offenses on which Defendants do not have a right to a trial by jury as to those counts. Pending further order, the Court will conduct the trial on the Class B misdemeanor counts at the same time as the trial on the felony counts in the Superseding Indictment (#282), that is set to begin February 14, 2017.

The Court, nonetheless, will consider the parties arguments regarding whether the Court has the authority to provide Defendants with a jury trial on those counts and, if so, whether it should do so. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file no later than Noon, January 25, 2017, a single, joint status report that sets out (1) the parties’ arguments as to the Court’s authority to provide Defendants with a trial by jury on Class B misdemeanor counts; (2) if so, parties’ arguments regarding whether the Court should exercise its discretion to provide Defendants with a trial by jury on the Class B misdemeanor counts; and (3) the parties’ recommendations as to trial procedure in the event that the Court determines it will conduct a bench trial as to the Class B misdemeanor counts.

From past history, all that Judge Brown is looking for is the Prosecution to come up with some words that she can include in here Order to “proclaim” that the Constitution is null and void, and that the criminal charges of trespass are not really criminal, and that those who Framed the Constitution didn’t really mean “criminal” when they said “criminal prosecutions“.

Is it at all possible that she honestly believes that the misdemeanor charges are, somehow, civil? That strains credulity, at best. But, if the charges are civil, then the defendants still have a right to a jury.

Since the Judge seems to think that it is not “criminal”, since they are Class B Misdemeanors, let’s see what the Prosecutor thinks. At the end of “Misdemeanor Information” (linked above), we find:
Upon conviction of the offenses set forth in Counts 1 through 7 of this Information, defendants JASON PATRICK, DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, and JAKE RYAN shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) any firearms and ammunition involved in or used in the willful commission of the offense.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924( d) as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ).The U. S. Code is broken into “Titles”. You will note that they want firearms to be “forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code“. It continues on to say, “All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d)“. Well, heck, according to the law books, Title 18 is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures“. So, they are going to make them forfeit any firearms, by using Criminal Statutes, but the crime that they did not commit is not criminal. Darn, that is enough to boggle the mind.

NOTE: Even before I got this far in writing this article, I had visions of Alice in Wonderland. And, yes, it did include the Queen of Hearts, acting as Judge Brown, and saying “Off with their heads.”!

Now, the Information does cite the “Code of Federal Regulations” (C.F.R.) as the authority, or, well, the “law” that has been violated. But, the C.F.R. is often only of rules promulgated by administrative agencies, and not laws. Congress enabled rule-making, though they have no constitutional authority to delegate that authority, as the Constitution describes them as holding, “All legislative Powers“. However, they have also created a Fourth Branch of Government, which is explained in greater detail, in “Administrative Agencies – The Fourth Branch of Government“.

Perhaps, since they are rules promulgated by administrative agencies, they really are not criminal. However, if that were the case, we can clearly see that the government that was created by the Constitution no longer abides by the Constitution.

This warrants a final thought, from a North Carolina Supreme Court decision, given prior to the culmination of the Constitutional Convention:
“But that it was clear that no act they could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.” Bayard v. Singleton [1 N.C. 42] 1787

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Facebook
  63
• Google
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Twitter
• More

Like this:



Tags: administrative agencies, Bill of Rights, Burns Oregon, congress, Constitution, courts, de facto, de jure, fourth branch of government, government, Harney County, history, law, patriots, public
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback

[monty]

Prosecuteors in Bundy Standoff trial file a motion in limine to prevent BLM abuses from being exposed

http://thepetesantillishow.com/prose...g-bundy-trial/

Prosecutors In Nevada Beg Trial Judge To Protect The BLM From Scrutiny During Bundy Trial

the conspiracy to cover-up

petesantillishow

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...0661151294.gif
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...AM-1024x96.png
Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine late Tuesday in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al — in hopes that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro – will allow the Government to “cover-up” any wrong doing agents in the Bureau Of Land Management – who conducted the Bundy cattle impoundment in April of 2014 – may have committed.

“It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle,” says a defense attorney representing one of the defendants in the case.

The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...-1008x1024.png
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...M-1024x466.png

The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.

Further the government which successfully used the idea that some of the defendants in the Oregon trial of the United States vs Ammon Bundy et al .. were also involved in the Bundy Ranch “armed” protest as a reason to deny them a pretrial release, now ask the Judge to not allow any reference to that case including the fact they were acquitted.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...91-300x217.jpg

Attorney Roger RootsAttorney from Rhode Island Roger Roots, who was instrumental in the Oregon case and acts as a paralegal for Ryan Bundy says, he is confident that “most” of this motion will be denied but that if even one point is granted it would be a travesty. They basically tried to use the same tactic in Oregon says Roots, and we all know how well they worked out for them.

Mr. Roots is more confident in the courts than others. It is worth noting that not one key motion filed by the defense has been granted and that the Judges assigned to this case almost always passed motions filed by the Prosecution, effectively shutting down any defense the defendants and their counsel try to use.

Chris Rasmussen, Attorney for Talk Show Host Pete Santilli, while erring on the side of caution to not give an in-depth comment on the motion said;

It is what it is and we will fight it. The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.

Former Nevada State Assembly Woman Michele Fiore who was and remains to be a staunch supporter of the Bundy family and protestors, reacted to the motion on Tuesday night by stating that it was just unbelievable to her the Government would try to stop the truth from being told in this case..

Do we or do we not still live in America? One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...to-300x300.jpg
Carol & Cliven Bundy

Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, says it is outrageous to think the Government would even try a stunt like this;

So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth? Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.

It appears the government is rightfully concerned about the reputation of lead agent Daniel P. Love who has been the center of controversy in almost every operation he has conducted in the Western States. The underlying language in this motion is really about keeping Daniel Love from being exposed, and his overly aggressive military operation – that carried the potential for death and violence – to be kept from a Jury’s scrutiny. If you read this the way it is written it is clear the Government fears it will lose this case if the evidence against the BLM is ever shown to a Jury.

If allowed, this motion will quash key testimony that is expected by people like Dr. Jay Redd a prominent and respected Dentist in St. George Utah, whose father Dr. James Redd committed suicide after a BLM operation headed by “Super” Agent Daniel P. Love in Blanding, Utah, went very wrong . In all, there were 3 suicides associated with that operation. Senator Orrin Hatch at the time pleaded with then – AG Eric Holder – to look into the matter, and it could be very problematic for the Prosecution if Senator Hatch’s “opinion” about the BLM is heard by a Jury.

The government would love to have full reign over this trial, says Pete Santilli who was caught up in the arrests after his coverage of The Malheur Refuge Adverse Possession in Oregon last winter and charged in both cases ;

Sure, they would love it if we all just went into this trial docile and defeated, not willing to fight them, but that just isn’t going to happen. The Bureau of Land Management went to Bundy Ranch with a clear disdain and lack of respect for the Bundy Family. Dan Loves Objective fell just short of scorched earth policy; We can prove it, they know it and they are very, very afraid of that. As I see it, we have them right where we want them, why would they file such a ludicrous Motion otherwise? This Motion has the “BLM is guilty” written all over it and I for one think that’s great news. If the Government gets it’s way and eliminates the fact that Daniel P Love gave agents the authority to beat up on Bundy Family members and was not acting in a rational way during the impoundment, if the Jury is not allowed to hear what elected officials told Love in response to his brutal actions, and if there was never any reason whatsoever for protestors to be in fear for their lives, then I believe any Jury worth it’s salt is going to be very suspect as to the validity of this case. I mean, if nobody did anything wrong, then why the hell are we having a trial?

http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...70603909_n.jpg

[monty]

More on the govt. motion to hide the illegal actions of the BLM from the jury

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...y-ranch-trial/

Government Fears Jury Nullification in Bundy Ranch Trial

Motions to shield relevant evidence of Government culpability from jury…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...hh-150x150.jpg

The US Attorneys motion the Court to preclude key evidence in the first Bundy Ranch trial. The sixteen (16) page filing seeks to block the introduction of certain evidence because it would act in favor of defendants. Subsequently, three full pages delineate a convoluted argument against any evidence that could introduce the possibility of jury nullification, referring to it as “a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court.” (Citing Merced v. McGrath, 2004). In short, the Government fears jury nullification and subsequently wishes the jury to be ignorant of any collateral evidence that might persuade them to acquit.

First Malheur Refuge Trial…

The Government motions that the Court block any and all references to the First Malheur Refuge Trial. They argue that because the case involved none of the Tier 3 defendants, that the outcome of that case is immaterial in Nevada. As a result, any attempt to reference the case, according to the Government, constitutes hearsay.

The Malheur Trial is very relevant in a couple of ways. First, and foremost, counts 2 and 3 of the Bundy Ranch indictment are identical to charges in the Malheur case. While the circumstances of the surrounding the charges are inherently different, one aspect is not. Specifically, District of Oregon dismissed the 924(c) enhancement of the conspiracy charge. The District of Nevada refuses to follow suit. Jurors will never know that other co-defendants in a different trial tier did not have to face the 924(c) enhancement in another district.

As a side note, there is a Second Malheur Refuge Trial about to soon begin. The second tier of defendants will not only face the same charges in which a jury acquitted their co-defendants, the Government added several misdemeanor charges that the first trial tier did not face.

The Government’s criminal activity…

Probably the most egregious claim in the filing is the motion to preclude “perceived misconduct” by Federal Agents. There is nothing more relevant to the defense of these men than the criminal aggressive posture of the Government on April 12th 2014. The Government wishes for the Court to suppress any testimony that might indicate that Bundy Ranch operation was excessive in nature. Additionally, they motion that the court block any references to agents being “excessively equipped or acting militaristically (sic)”.

The Bundy Ranch case arises in large part from the misconduct of the Government. They pointed weapons at unarmed people… over cows. Agents threw women to the ground. Lawful protesters received shots by tasers. Finally, after deciding to cease the roundup, they announced their intention to subject men, women, and minor children to lethal force.

Every detail related to the Government’s behavior is relevant. As such, the attempt to block this evidence means that the Government fears jury nullification. Consequently, the motion affirms what many of us already know; the Government has much to hide.

Other (non-Government) opinions…

The US Attorneys ask the court to block any reference to opinions contrary to their own set of embellished allegations. Specifically, any statement by a third party, referencing “hearsay statements of public officials”. Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval heavily criticized the Government’s use of “First Amendment Areas”. Additionally, then Sheriff Doug Gillespie (who was critical of Cliven Bundy as well) blamed the escalationon the Bureau of Land Management.

Gillespie said the BLM deserves blame for escalating the situation, ignoring his advice, dismissing his warnings and even lying about their operation. – Las Vegas Review Journal

Since the Government fears jury nullification, they asked the Court to shield from the jury any opinion contrary to their own construction of the unfolding of events.

Government Fears Jury Nullification

The Government essentially wishes to be able to prosecute any defendant without having to answer for its own behavior. This is Constitutionally abhorrent. Defendants in this case lawfully exercised 1st Amendment rights. Additionally, defendants in this case were in lawful possession of weapons on public property. No citizen has to provide to the Government a reason for lawfully exercising Constitutionally affirmed God-given rights. The Government, however, should have to answer for Daniel Love’s tactical deployment of militarized “land management” agents against lawful protesters. This is the essence of the escalation of events that day.

Should the Government succeed, they will ensure that their actions are inadmissible in court. They will gain judicial approval to act outside of the law. They will obtain affirmation that they operate with impunity in the dissemination of tyrannical governance.

The Government seeks for tyranny to become law.

To read the 16 page document on Scribd click the link, scroll to bottom: https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...y-ranch-trial/

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on January 25, 2017Categories UncategorizedLeave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[monty]

It is a strange coincidence that all 3 brands from Bundy Ranch, Hammond Ranch and Finicum Ranch have the letter V

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...e9&oe=58FDCEEE

[monty]

More on the govt. motion to hide the illegal actions of the BLM from the jury

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...y-ranch-trial/

Government Fears Jury Nullification in Bundy Ranch Trial

Motions to shield relevant evidence of Government culpability from jury…

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...hh-150x150.jpg

The US Attorneys motion the Court to preclude key evidence in the first Bundy Ranch trial. The sixteen (16) page filing seeks to block the introduction of certain evidence because it would act in favor of defendants. Subsequently, three full pages delineate a convoluted argument against any evidence that could introduce the possibility of jury nullification, referring to it as “a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court.” (Citing Merced v. McGrath, 2004). In short, the Government fears jury nullification and subsequently wishes the jury to be ignorant of any collateral evidence that might persuade them to acquit.

First Malheur Refuge Trial…

The Government motions that the Court block any and all references to the First Malheur Refuge Trial. They argue that because the case involved none of the Tier 3 defendants, that the outcome of that case is immaterial in Nevada. As a result, any attempt to reference the case, according to the Government, constitutes hearsay.

The Malheur Trial is very relevant in a couple of ways. First, and foremost, counts 2 and 3 of the Bundy Ranch indictment are identical to charges in the Malheur case. While the circumstances of the surrounding the charges are inherently different, one aspect is not. Specifically, District of Oregon dismissed the 924(c) enhancement of the conspiracy charge. The District of Nevada refuses to follow suit. Jurors will never know that other co-defendants in a different trial tier did not have to face the 924(c) enhancement in another district.

As a side note, there is a Second Malheur Refuge Trial about to soon begin. The second tier of defendants will not only face the same charges in which a jury acquitted their co-defendants, the Government added several misdemeanor charges that the first trial tier did not face.

The Government’s criminal activity…

Probably the most egregious claim in the filing is the motion to preclude “perceived misconduct” by Federal Agents. There is nothing more relevant to the defense of these men than the criminal aggressive posture of the Government on April 12th 2014. The Government wishes for the Court to suppress any testimony that might indicate that Bundy Ranch operation was excessive in nature. Additionally, they motion that the court block any references to agents being “excessively equipped or acting militaristically (sic)”.

The Bundy Ranch case arises in large part from the misconduct of the Government. They pointed weapons at unarmed people… over cows. Agents threw women to the ground. Lawful protesters received shots by tasers. Finally, after deciding to cease the roundup, they announced their intention to subject men, women, and minor children to lethal force.

Every detail related to the Government’s behavior is relevant. As such, the attempt to block this evidence means that the Government fears jury nullification. Consequently, the motion affirms what many of us already know; the Government has much to hide.

Other (non-Government) opinions…

The US Attorneys ask the court to block any reference to opinions contrary to their own set of embellished allegations. Specifically, any statement by a third party, referencing “hearsay statements of public officials”. Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval heavily criticized the Government’s use of “First Amendment Areas”. Additionally, then Sheriff Doug Gillespie (who was critical of Cliven Bundy as well) blamed the escalationon the Bureau of Land Management.

Gillespie said the BLM deserves blame for escalating the situation, ignoring his advice, dismissing his warnings and even lying about their operation. – Las Vegas Review Journal

Since the Government fears jury nullification, they asked the Court to shield from the jury any opinion contrary to their own construction of the unfolding of events.

Government Fears Jury Nullification

The Government essentially wishes to be able to prosecute any defendant without having to answer for its own behavior. This is Constitutionally abhorrent. Defendants in this case lawfully exercised 1st Amendment rights. Additionally, defendants in this case were in lawful possession of weapons on public property. No citizen has to provide to the Government a reason for lawfully exercising Constitutionally affirmed God-given rights. The Government, however, should have to answer for Daniel Love’s tactical deployment of militarized “land management” agents against lawful protesters. This is the essence of the escalation of events that day.

Should the Government succeed, they will ensure that their actions are inadmissible in court. They will gain judicial approval to act outside of the law. They will obtain affirmation that they operate with impunity in the dissemination of tyrannical governance.

The Government seeks for tyranny to become law.

To read the 16 page document on Scribd click the link, scroll to bottom: https://bundyranchstandoff.info/gove...y-ranch-trial/

https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on January 25, 2017Categories UncategorizedLeave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I find this woman's comment quite interesting and factual. I have read several of her commemts following these Bundy/Malheur cases. She seems quite knowledable but at times I think here thinking outruns her typing which makes her hard to follow. She drops a thought in mid sentence and contiues on withnthe next thought.

Yes, Nevada is still a Territory, We never have been a real state.

Vickey Gray This will be very interesting, the 9th Cir. Court, has been redesigned, the Federal Judges use what is called [SUBSTANTIVE AND REFLEXIVE ELEMENTS IN MODERN LAW].

Federal Judge Anna J.Brown, used this but also did have a little actual law, (jury instructions based on legal form). This next Oregon case she has refused to use "totality of circumstances", or even a semblance of Constitutional Law.

Federal Judges have absolute immunity; this is how they implement a "new evolutionary approach to law".

Remember Nevada is not a State it does not accept individual liberty or property, under the ("Treaty"), or The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, (9th Cir. 1997) in United States v Gardner, although the is was not announced that Calf., Nv., Az., N.M., Co., Tx., and Utah, the Treaty drew the new boundary line starting at the Gulf of Mexico, bla bla bla, the Court drowning on and on. What this did then the 9th and 10th Cir. Are the new Rulers no more representative government. Remember Mr. Bundy, said " I do not recognize my property being in the Court decision of a Territory", I live in State of Nevada in Clark County, under the laws of the United States. The court said no you do not. Mr. Bundy said "prove it", the court said "ok you are anti- government and you are a terrorist". Now the Courts have to prove the "Territory" the socio-legal standard of "Treaty", or "reflexive law", the outcome of social processes. "Socialist", territory.

Under the 5th amendment which is still alive and well in federal agency's "I plead the 5th", but the 5th requires federal Courts to acknowledge the 14th amendment which requires "due process under the United States Constitution. Sooo what will the lovely Navarro Federal Judge do??
Like

[palani]

I would suggest studying the documents presented on Adask's site concerning Dennis Craig: Bynum found here

https://adask.wordpress.com/category/dennis-craig/

You can order Dennis's documents from Indiana recorders office. Pay attention to his research on the unconstitutional acts of Harry S Truman in the summer of '48. After congress went on a major recess Truman enacted a bill into law that created the federal judicial districts. Since Truman's act was not within his powers as president then the act is null and void and there are no constitutional federal judicial districts in the United States.

You cannot let these courts proceed beyond this point. They are illegitimate and nothing any judge, congressman or sitting president can do can make them legitimate.

What you do is waltz into a federal building, go to the clerk of court and ask to open up a miscellaneous jacket for an evidence repository. Costs a few bucks. You place the certified recording from Indiana in that jacket and get a certified copy of your copy from that court. Anytime a fed shows up on your doorstep just hand them a certified copy and ask how they want you to proceed when there is no court to show up at.

[No legal advice ... just some good questions to ask in order to achieve DUE PROCESS ... aka 'THE LAW OF THE LAND']