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

[Ares]

That's a very powerful weapon to use against them. I'll have to research that more to know how to respond if they dispute my affidavit.

[monty]

They were all gung-ho for commercial law. Maybe the day is coming it will bite them in the ass.

[monty]

That's a very powerful weapon to use against them. I'll have to research that more to know how to respond if they dispute my affidavit.

quoted for truth.

[monty]

Update June 7, USDOJ dismises Houston IRS summons case, IRS issues new summons, petitioner responds commercially

New post on supremecourtcase

http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png

http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/2fcf362...=identicon&r=G USDOJ dismisses Houston IRS summons case; IRS agent issues new summons; Petitioner responds commercially by supremecourtcase The previous post (May 28, 2017) mentions a hearing in the Houston IRS summons case scheduled for May 30, 2017, to hear Petitioner’s motion to dismiss by reason of coram non judice (before a person not a judge), and motion to withdraw the unwarranted order included in the order to show cause. At the hearing on May 30, 2017, the judge immediately announced that the United States Department of Justice attorney for the IRS had, that very morning, submitted a motion to dismiss and that the motion was granted and the case dismissed. The United States Department of Justice attorney's motion to dismiss, only half a page in length, states that the reason for the dismissal is that the original IRS summons listed “John B. Trowbridge” as the target of the investigation and that the actual target is “John Parks Trowbridge” [sic] even though the Social Security Account Number included in the summons is that of John Parks Trowbridge, Jr.’s. In such governmental legal matters, errors in the name typically are glossed over if the intended party appears; to wit: “Praesentia corporis tollit errorem nominis, et veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis. The presence of the body cures the error in the name ; the truth of the name cures an error in the description.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914), p. 2154. A possible explanation is that neither the source of the summons, the Internal Revenue Service, nor its parent organization, the Department of the Treasury, are part of the government that filed the lawsuit. The Department of the Treasury is a private organization, independent of government, 41 Stat. 654; to wit: Neither the senior executive of the Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service (the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respectively) is required by law to take an oath of office (meaning they are non-governmental, private-sector workers) and the sole beneficiary of all their collections of income tax[1] is a private bank, the Federal Reserve.[2] The IRS revenue agent who issued the summons that resulted in the lawsuit was present at the hearing and, following dismissal of the case, presented Petitioner with a new IRS administrative summons, dated that day, May 30, 2017, for an examination 15 days later, on June 14, 2017. The United States Department of Justice attorney (who had just dismissed the case) informed Petitioner that he would be attending the June 14, 2017, examination personally. Dismissal of the case and issuance and presentment of the new IRS summons means there is no court case and the entire cycle starts over from scratch. Remedy The previous post shows why there is no due process of law or remedy in any United States district court anywhere in the Union and that the immediate remedy[3] is not a legal one per se but commercial, under common-law rules, before the court gets involved. In response to the new summons, Petitioner on June 5, 2017, sent the IRS revenue agent, IRS group manager, and Secretary of the Treasury a Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace, and the United States Department of Justice attorney a courtesy copy thereof. The Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace is four pages in length and self-explanatory; it is intended to resolve things without the need for a lawsuit. That is not to say, however, that things will not end up in the courts again. Attorneys of the United States Department of Justice and United States district and magistrate judges are concerned in the face of Petitioner’s demands for a constitutional authority (because there is none) and scrambling to protect the secrets of the cabal—but recipients of the Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace may be inclined to move on to the next “customer” rather than seek the court’s assistance in enforcing the new summons, and thereby avoid non-judicial enforcement of the penalties in the Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace against them personally. This type of response is proper for any type of situation where an officer of the U.S. Government seeks to take territorial jurisdiction over person or property and enforce some statute against a Union-member resident or his property—because there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes it. The Constitution confers upon Congress only power of personal (regarding certain criminal offenses only) and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-16; thus, these provisions of the Constitution give executive and judicial officers the capacity to take only personal and subject-matter jurisdictionthroughout the Union, in respect of the statutes enacted by Congress regarding those things. The Constitution grants Congress no power of territorial legislation over person or property anywhere in the Union, thus depriving executive and judicial officers of the capacity to take territorial jurisdiction over person or property anywhere in the Union. An IRS summons issued against a resident of any member of the Union and the lawsuit filed to enforce it are examples of usurpation of exercise of territorial jurisdiction against person and property by United States Department of Justice personnel and district and magistrate judges of the United States—because there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes it. * * * * [1] “100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt . . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace, “President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President,” dated and approved January 12 and 15, 1984, p. 3. [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. [3] The long-term remedy is to abolish the current municipal form of government and institute a federal / constitutional form of government as provided in the Constitution. supremecourtcase | June 7, 2017 at 21:48 | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p6epB3-tZ Comment See all comments

[monty]

Judge Anna realizes what the Truman era Congress and Presidency did when the reorganized the federal government. They combined the judiciary and the legislative branches of government. This was completed by the new 1991 oath of office.

Edit: I believe the actual change was in 1948 when the Congress rewrote Title 28 of the USC and made the US District Courts administrative courts of Congress. The new oath binds the federal officers to federal statutory law and not to the Constitution. It lets the crooks sleep better at night knowing the didn't swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The Great Fraud of Today, Part One: Corruption of the Federal Judiciary

Posted on July 2, 2017by David Robinson

https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640
Judge Anna von Reitz

We’ve uncovered the Great Fraud of the so-called American Civil War, which was never a war but an illegal commercial mercenary action on our shores. We’ve dissected the Great Fraud of the 1930’s executed by FDR and his minions. And now, we need to face the Great Fraud of Today even as it is taking place.

The past few days have been rocked by disclosure after disclosure. Smoking guns abound. The extent of the travesty is now becoming clear — and along with it, the identities of those responsible and the nature of the current reality.

Out of Texas, we have the Lufkin Case, where the subversion of our federal judicial system has been unearthed. In 1991 the Congress entered a change in the Judicial Oath, altering the Oath required by the corporate Constitution in a subtle but devastating way which served to remove the judicial officers from the judicial branch of our government and place them solely under the control of the municipal legislative branch of government— that is, under the rule of the members of Congress acting as the oligarchic municipal government of the District of Columbia.

The new Oath of Office they imposed on the judicial officers may be seen at Volume 104 United States Statutes-at-Large Page 5124, otherwise shown as 104 Stat. 5124.

The new Oath of Office is very sly in that it appears to be a simple clean-up deletion of unnecessary verbiage in the old Oath of Office, but on closer examination it is clear that there are no “duties” assigned to member of the judiciary by the Constitution and as a result, this change in the Oath of Office releases the judicial officers from the obligation to “act agreeably” –that is, in conformance to the Constitution and leaves them subject only to the legislative acts of the Congress. This, in turn, removed the judicial officers from the judicial branch of government and placed them squarely and only under the auspices of the legislative branch.

Read that— since 1991, there has been no three-branched federal government. The judicial and legislative branches have been merged and the judicial has been made subservient to the legislative. Moreover, the municipal government of the United States has been acting in open treason against the actual Constitution since 1991, and absolutely no decisions undertaken by these federal judicial officers since then have been in compliance with the actual Constitution. They are all null and void for cause.

This has made the widespread personage committed against the American states and people possible and profitable. The Congress has been running the entire federal judiciary, which includes the “federated” — incorporated States of States and the STATES OF STATES courts — as an unconstitutional legislative enforcement racket.

Our agreement with the “federal” government, which is nothing more than a for-hire governmental services corporation, very clearly states what we are owed and also very clearly sets up the structure of the government and also very clearly limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts and also very clearly requires an Oath of Office in support of the Constitution and also very clearly limits the reach of the municipal United States government to the ten miles square of Washington, DC and which also limits the territorial United States controlled by Congress to actual federal properties, such as arsenals and military installations.

So how have they run rampant like this and pretended, as in the Lufkin case, to have jurisdiction never granted to them over people and property in places like Tyler County, Texas?

It’s simple. They unlawfully seized upon your copyright to your own name, registered it as properly belonging to their corporation, stole your identity as a living American, and pretended that you were either a Territorial Foreign Situs Trust or a Municipal ESTATE trust belonging to their corporations. If you convert a man into a thing, you can do as you please to him—at least until he realizes what you have done.

In this way, they pretended to control you and own your assets, and therefore, also assumed the right to subject you to their in-house court system and their foreign statutory law.

Make no mistake, the authors of the bill changing the judicial Oath of Office committed treason against the actual United States and our actual Constitution and the evidence of this is clear upon the public record. What remains to be seen is if these snakes will self-correct or require a garden hoe to set things straight.

Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
  22
• Google

[monty]

Dr. Trowbridge August 22 update

New post on supremecourtcase http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/2fcf362...=identicon&r=G Second IRS summons suit; Petitioner moves to dismiss; USDOJ goes silent; Petitioner moves for summary judgment by supremecourtcase When the United States Department of Justice attorney at the May 30, 2017, hearing voluntarily dismissed the previous IRS summons case for an error in the name used in the IRS summons and USDOJ petition to enforce IRS summons, the IRS agent who issued that IRS summons was also in the courtroom at the time and served on Petitioner a second IRS summons with the name corrected. Petitioner on June 5, 2017, responded commercially to the new IRS summons with a Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace to the IRS agent, IRS Group Manager, and Secretary of the Treasury and a courtesy copy to the USDOJ attorney who handled the aforementioned case. Following Petitioner’s failure to appear at the time and place appointed in the IRS summons the same USDOJ attorney filed in the court and on June 26, 2017, served on Petitioner a fresh petition to enforce the new IRS summons and an Order to Show Cause from the Court with a hearing date set for July 17, 2017. Petitioner on July 17 (the hearing date) filed in the court a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with an attached affidavit in support, and mailed a copy to the USDOJ attorney, but declined to attend the hearing. At the July 17 hearing the judge set another hearing for August 8 and, evidently, ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Petitioner with notice of the new hearing date. Petitioner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss documents for the first time how executive and judicial officers of the “modern” (statutory / non-constitutional) “United States” justify extending their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the charter[1] of their corporate employer’s existence to the District of Columbia, and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) throughout the Union and around the globe. Petitioner on August 3 (five days before the calendared hearing) received a phone call from the judge’s assistant inquiring of Petitioner if it would be OK to reschedule the hearing for a month later, to September 7. Petitioner responded that Petitioner would be out of town on September 7; whereupon the judge’s assistant suggested September 13 and Petitioner accepted the offer. Because Petitioner received from the USDOJ attorney representing the IRS, no response in opposition to Petitioner’s July 17, 2017, Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Petitioner yesterday, August 21, 2017, filed in the court a 2 ½–page motion for entry of summary judgment—to which summary judgment Petitioner is entitled as a matter of law, and mailed a copy to the USDOJ attorney. _____________________________________ [1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (retroactive to December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)). supremecourtcase | August 22, 2017 at 18:51 | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p6epB3-ul Comment See all comments

[monty]

Dr. Trowbridge's 20 page memorandum accompanying the motion to dismiss July 2017 explains how the courts usurp jurisdiction by claiming you are a United States Citizen

https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...be-granted.pdf

[monty]

Trowbridges Motion for summary judgement

https://s19.postimg.org/6tnt10ioz/IMG_2116.png

https://s19.postimg.org/enoemeqhv/IMG_2117.png


https://s19.postimg.org/ilbobtdb7/IMG_2118.png

https://s19.postimg.org/d62yaulr7/IMG_2119.png

https://s19.postimg.org/zad47q9wj/IMG_2120.png

https://s19.postimg.org/pr3fe9meb/IMG_2121.png

[Ares]

Judge denies motion, orders enforcement of IRS summons; Petitioner moves for relief from Order, as Order is void

At the September 13, 2017, hearing of Petitioner’s July 17, 2017, motion to dismiss, the United States Department of Justice attorney opened with the usual perversion of the facts and falsification of the record after finding himself in checkmate.

The Internal Revenue Service’s case depends 100 percent on the presumption that Petitioner is a 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(1) “person,” but presents no evidence of said presumption (“[A] presumption is not evidence and may not be given weight as evidence.”[1]).

Rather than copping to failure and inability to produce such evidence upon challenge by Petitioner, said USDOJ attorney, as is typical, pretended Petitioner never raised the issue and went off on a tangent, accusing Petitioner of arguing that Petitioner was not a person—which Petitioner did not do.

The USDOJ attorney’s tag-team partner, the judge, then began accusing Petitioner of arguing things which Petitioner never did (nor are reflected in the record of the case) and asking for case citations in support of the false arguments he falsely attributed to Petitioner.

Thereafter, the judge entered his Order Compelling Compliance with Summons.

As the transcript of the September 13, 2017, hearing and record of the case evince, the court is a kangaroo court:

“kangaroo court. 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p, 359.

There literally is nothing about what people believe is the federal judicial system throughout the Union that is legitimate; when exposed for fraud or treason, executive and judicial officers thereof pretend nothing was said, ignore material facts and failures harmful to their objective, and instead attribute to those proving the fraud and treason, events which said officers fabricate from whole cloth and never happened and of which there is no evidence.

This is possible—and their M.O.—only because they enjoy a monopoly over what appears to be the judicial system of the national government of the Republic but in actuality is the judicial system of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation,[2] usurping exercise of jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by its corporate charter, 16 Stat. 419, to the District of Columbia.

Achilles’ heel of executive and judicial officers of the United States

Except for the “President of the United States of America” (Constitution, Article II, Section 1), the Achilles’ heel of every other executive and judicial officer of the 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) “United States” (“a Federal corporation” by the name of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation) is that none have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the requirements of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The oath of office of the “President of the United States of America” (Constitution, Article II, Section 1) is the only such oath or affirmation that is provided by the Constitution (see Article II, Section 8 thereof) and therefore not subject to alteration by Congress.

This is a critical defect for all other executive and judicial officers—as none have acceded to, or are authorized to exercise, the executive or judicial power of that certain “United States” of the Constitution (wherein “United States” is a proper noun and not a contrived statutory term with an opposite constitutional meaning) anywhere in the Union.

This is just more proof that all courts of the “United States” (the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation) throughout the Union are kangaroo courts.

The same deficiency is true for all Senators and Representatives of Congress—as none have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the requirements of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution or acceded to the legislative power conferred in Article I of the Constitution.

Republican versus municipal form of government

Said congressmen and executive and judicial officers of the statutory “United States” (the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation) have betrayed the trust vested in them by the American People and foisted on each member of the Union by way of stealth legislation, a municipal form of government and denied each such member of the Union a republican form of government as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The transition from a republican to a municipal form of government was:

commenced June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 223, 306 (see 182), when Congress, with malice aforethought, transmuted the word “state” into a statutory term with a constitutionally opposite meaning that comprehends only the District of Columbia and the territories and excludes every commonwealth united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union;
secured when Congress on June 16, 1866, proposed, 14 Stat. 358, and on July 9, 1868, ratified the political Trojan horse known as the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, whose primary purpose was to create an artificial class of Americans, municipal citizen-residents of the new “State” of the new “United States,” i.e., the District of Columbia, called “citizens of the United States”;
augmented when Congress on February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, incorporated the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation;
facilitated by Congress’ creation August 14, 1935, of the Social Security retirement program (and Ponzi scheme) to provide justification for construing all participants thereof to be a resident, for legal purposes, of the District of Columbia (see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(13)); and
completed upon transmutation of every definition of the statutory terms “state,” “State,” and “United States” in all American law to include and mean the District of Columbia (a municipal corporation) and exclude every commonwealth united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union.
During and following the above and other related events, among numerous other things:

Government began treating of the supreme political power and sovereign authority in the Republic, the American People, also known as the “join tenants in the sovereignty” (Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 472 (1793)), as political subjects of Congress and so-called persons with rights and duties;
The focus shifted away from unalienable rights, which every man holds inherently and are guaranteed in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, to civil rights, which are bestowed by Congress on the new “citizens of the United States” and alleged subjects of Congress, the American People; and
Government began requiring a permission, in the form of a license (because of the fraudulent statutory definitions of “state,” “State,” and “United States” in all American law, every license in America—even the driver’s license—is the requirement of the payment of a certain sum by an alleged “person” for the privilege of pursuing his profession or calling for the general purpose of producing a reliable source of revenue within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation), to exercise the unalienable and constitutional right to liberty and property and the inseparable right to contract derived therefrom.
The entire modern legal apparatus throughout the Union and the entire United States Code is municipal law of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation—with alleged political subjects and persons with rights and duties.

The only provision of the Constitution to which the current oath of office of Congressmen and executive and judicial officers of the “United States” (the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation) have a duty to honor is Art. I, § 8, cl. 17—all shows of apparent fidelity to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is time to abolish the current municipal form of government which has been implanted in every member of the Union and establish in each a republican form of government as intended by the Framers and guaranteed in the Constitution.

Courts of the “United States”: Enforcers of municipal law

The situation with the courts (and United States Department of Justice) is that they refuse to follow or adhere to the definition or meaning of their own fraudulent statutory terms—meaning there is no basis for agreement and therefore no due process of law or remedy, and the situation, ultimately, is not a legal one per se but a political in nature, a predicament succinctly encapsulated in the following maxims of law:

“A verbis legis non est recedendum. From the words of the law there should be no departure.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 3rd rev. (8th ed.), rev. by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914), p. 2154.

“Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain.” Id. at 2145.

“Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum. Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.” Id. at 2165.

Notwithstanding that petitioner is facing “A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible” (see “kangaroo court,” supra): There being no other immediate remedy for the instant situation, Petitioner on September 25, 2017, filed Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Order—as the said Order is void for the issuer’s (the judge’s) lack of constitutional authority to discharge or perform the duties of a judge anywhere in the Union, in places like Texas, for failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to all provisions of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The contents of said motion are backed up with citations from Supreme Court cases and are conclusive and devastating and have direct application in every civil or criminal proceeding throughout the Union in every court of the 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) “United States”: “a Federal corporation” by the name of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation.

[1] “This court has never treated a presumption as any form of evidence. See, e.g., A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1037 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[A] presumption is not evidence.”); see also Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 286, 56 S.Ct. 190, 193, 80 L.Ed. 229 (1935) (“[A presumption] cannot acquire the attribute of evidence in the claimant’s favor.”); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Gamer, 303 U.S. 161, 171, 58 S.Ct. 500, 503, 82 L.Ed. 726 (1938) (“[A] presumption is not evidence and may not be given weight as evidence.”). Although a decision of this court, Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d 1413, 1415 (Fed.Cir.1994), dealing with presumptions in VA law is cited for the contrary proposition, the Jensen court did not so decide.” Routen v. West, 142 F.3d. 1434, 1439 C.A.Fed. (1998).

[2] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

[expat4ever]

Yes, all of the courts are kangaroo courts which many have known for some time. Numerous people have gone to jail because of these courts. As you can see you can spend years researching and fighting but in the end they win because they own the judges and prosecutors. Its wrong, it sucks but short of a revolution there will be no remedy.