Hearing set in Houston IRS summons case; Lufkin judge confirms it is time to abolish the current form of government

Houston IRS summons case

There are two pending motions in the Houston IRS summons case, a motion to dismiss by reason of coram non judice (before a person not a judge), and a motion to withdraw the unwarranted order included in the order to show cause.

A hearing is set for May 30, 2017: Notice Setting Hearing.

Lufkin motion to vacate final judgment as void

The judge who entered final judgment in the Lufkin case March 3, 2016, Michael H. Schneider, retired seven months later, October 1, 2016, and Ron Clark took over.

Petitioner on January 23, 2017, filed a supplemental motion to vacate the final judgment as void for Michael H. Schneider’s failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The government responded February 6, 2017, with its opposition to Petitioner’s supplemental motion to vacate.

Petitioner on February 22, 2017, filed Petitioner’s reply to the government’s opposition to Petitioner’s supplemental motion to vacate.

Ron Clark on May 4, 2017, denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate (Clark’s denial hyperlinked below).

Nature of the situation that necessitated Petitioner’s motion to vacate

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution expressly prohibits the requirement of a religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The oath mandated by Congress in Section 453 of Title 28 of the United States Code and taken by Michael H. Schneider, however, requires a religious test as a qualification to the office of district judge; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

Ҥ 453. Oaths of justices and judges
     “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ‘I, ____ ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ____ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

In accordance with Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the religious test (“So help me God.”) required of the former judge in the Lufkin case, Michael H. Schneider, as a qualification to the office of district judge, bars Michael H. Schneider from assuming or holding any office under the United States.

But Michael H. Schneider (and every other district, magistrate, and circuit judge and Supreme Court justice) keeps rolling along—in blatant repudiation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

How do they justify this?

Congress create another kind of “United States” for use in the courts

The reason all the aforementioned judicial officers willfully repudiate and disregard Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution is that they are using a different “United States” created by Congress exclusively for use in the courts and withholding from the American People that they are pretending that the new statutory “United States” displaces / supersedes the organic “United States” of the Constitution.

All civil and criminal proceedings in all district courts of the United States are administered in accordance with Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the United States Code.

For purposes of all civil and criminal proceedings in all district courts of the United States, Congress have decreed in subsection 15 of Section 3002 of Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. that “United States” means “a Federal corporation”; to wit:

Ҥ 3002. Definitions
     “As used in this chapter:
         “. . . (15) ‘United States’ means—
         “(A) a Federal corporation;
         “(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of [a Federal  corporation] the United States; or
         “(C) an instrumentality of [a Federal corporation] the United States.”

This means that every appearance of “United States” in anything to do with any civil or criminal proceeding in any district court means “a Federal corporation.”

That the 28 U.S.C. § 453 oath of office requires a religious test as a qualification to every judicial office means that no taker of said oath may assume or hold any judicial office under the organic “United States” of the Constitution—but said religious test, however, does not preclude a taker from holding a judicial office under the statutory “United States” of 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15).

Every contemporary judge is an officer of the statutory “United States” of 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), i.e., a Federal corporation.

Every such judge throughout the Union is also impersonating a judicial officer of the organic “United States” of the Constitution.

Fraud and treason to the Constitution

This, of course, is wholesale fraud and treason to the Constitution on the part of Congress and connivance therewith on the part of every Supreme Court justice and district, magistrate, and circuit judge of the purported 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) “United States”—because no government official or officer is authorized to construe “United States” to mean anything other than what it means in the Constitution; to wit:

A provision of the Constitution, it is hardly necessary to say, does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time. . . .

“Chief Justice Taney, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, said that, while the Constitution remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption; that it is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.

“And in South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448-449, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brewer, this court quoted these words with approval, and said:

“‘The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it met when adopted, it means now. . . .’” [Underline emphasis added.]  Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 448-450 (1934).

The purported legislative act of Congress that says “United States” means “a Federal corporation,” i.e., 28 U.S.C. § 3002, is a hoax and bogus and void; to wit:

“It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it . . . 

“. . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void

“. . . If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he [sic] constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” [Underline emphasis added.] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177-178 (1803).

A municipal (not federal / constitutional) judicial system and government 

The 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) definition of “United States” also includes an agency, department, commission, board, instrumentality, or other entity of a Federal corporation.

The only Federal corporation that possesses agencies, departments, commissions, boards, instrumentalities, and other entities is the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation.[1]

The District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, 16 Stat. 419, was created by Congress under authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution—but that is where the relationship between said corporation and the Constitution begins and ends, as the selfsame provision confers upon Congress power of exclusive (territorial, personal, and subject-matter) legislation within (what will be) the District of Columbia, and therefore carte blanche to legislate whatever they want for that municipal corporation within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.

The problem is, district, magistrate, and circuit judges of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation are extending their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the charter of said Municipal Corporation’s existence at 16 Stat. 419, i.e., the District of Columbia, and usurping exercise of jurisdiction throughout the Union.

Courts constituted by Congress under authority of Article, I, Section 8, Clause 9 of the Constitution are courts of limited jurisdiction, exercising only personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, with no power of territorial jurisdiction over person or property anywhere in the Union; such jurisdiction being the exclusive domain of each respective member of the Union; to wit:

“[W]ithin any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government. . . . The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national goverment [sic].  Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894).

“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 possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. . . .”  Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).

As can be verified at any news outlet, however, the judges of today’s “United States” district courts usurp exercise of territorial jurisdiction over person and property throughout the Union on a daily basis.

There is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes any such act—and every one of Petitioner’s demands for constitutional authority in the nine cases in which Petitioner has been involved over the last three and a half years has been met with silence.

Because the oath of office of every executive and judicial officer and Member of Congress requires the same religious test, “So help me God,” as a qualification to his respective office or public trust, none are authorized to assume or hold such office or public trust under the organic “United States” of the Constitution, only the purported statutory “United States” of 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), i.e., the Federal corporation by the name of District of Columbia.

By reason of the oath of office mandated by Congress for justices and judges at 28 U.S.C. § 453 and the repugnancy of the religious test therein to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, no such justice or judge is an officer under the organic “United States” of the Constitution, only a municipal officer under the statutory “United States” of 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), the Federal corporation by the name District of Columbia.

Whereas, there is nothing inherently wrong with a judicial officer of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation exercising general (territorial, personal, and subject-matter) jurisdiction within his territory (the District of Columbia), everything is wrong with such officer usurping exercise of general jurisdiction anywhere else, in places like Tyler County, Texas.

How the Lufkin judge disposed of Petitioner’s motion to vacate

The substance of Petitioner’s supplemental motion to vacate is laid out above.

As mentioned in the previous post (May 9, 2017), the M.O. of United States district, magistrate, and circuit judges when it comes to Petitioner’s proofs of lack of jurisdiction and the United States attorney’s inability / failure to prove jurisdiction, is to ignore all material facts and failures fatal to the cause of the “United States” (District of Columbia) and make false allegations and cherry-pick immaterial facts which will support the “United States'” (District of Columbia’s) position.

True to form, Ron Clark ignored all facts and failures relating to the religious test required of Michael H. Schneider as a qualification to the office of district judge under the organic “United States” of the Constitution and on May 4, 2017, repudiated the meaning of the 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) definition of “United States,” and entered his Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate.

Most of the content of Ron Clark’s Memorandum Opinion and Order is a regurgitation of immaterial facts; the ruling is based on allegation for which there is no evidentiary support.

The only portion that relates directly to the substance of Petitioner’s motion is in the second paragraph on page two, where Clark alleges that Petitioner argues that (a) the phrase “So help me God” violates the religious-test provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and (b) the oath is not valid and the final judgment therefore void.

Inspection of Petitioner’s motion to vacate shows that Petitioner never used any form of the word “violate” in respect of the oath of office taken by Michael H. Schneider in its relation to Article VI, Clause3 of the Constitution or stated that the oath was not valid.

Rather, that the subject oath of office is insufficient as authority for Michael H. Schneider to assume or hold an office under the organic “United States” of the Constitution, accede to “The judicial Power of the [organic] United States,” Constitution, Art. III, §1, or exercise the limited jurisdiction of an Article III court anywhere in the Union.

As stated in Petitioner’s motion and reply, the oath of office taken by Michael H. Schneider is benign and wholly valid for a territorial or municipal judge, but insufficient for a federal / constitutional judge by reason of requirement of a religious test as a qualification to the office of district judge under the organic “United States” of the Constitution.

Having falsely attributed to Petitioner the aforesaid arguments fabricated by himself, Ron Clark then summarily dismissed Petitioner’s motion by slyly destructively declaring that “His arguments are meritless and not relevant to the judgment.”

Institutionalized piracy

The behavior exhibited by Ron Clark is systemic among all executive and judicial officers of what most people falsely believe are the executive and judicial branches of the government of the organic “United States” of the Constitution.

Because of the religious test required in the oath of office for every executive and judicial officer and the fraudulent “United States” of 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) for which they all work and to which they are all beholden for a paycheck, all aforesaid officers are municipal employees ensconced in the legislative branch under the exclusive control of Congress and there is no de jure executive or judicial branch of the government as contemplated in the Constitution, no separation of powers, and no due process of law or remedy in any so-called United States district court anywhere in the Union.

All challenges of authority / jurisdiction are stonewalled via application of their general policy “Never respond, confirm, or deny.”

They are usurpers.

They are incorrigible.

And the current municipal form of government is destructive of the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is why the only civilized short-term remedy for such institutionalized piracy is pre-judicial, i.e., commercial, under common-law rules, as outlined in the previous post, i.e., before matters arrive in the courts.

The American People are “joint tenants in the sovereignty,” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471–472 (1793), and the Founding Fathers long ago provided them with the long-term remedy in the Preamble to The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, 1776: Abolish the current municipal form of government and institute a federal / constitutional form of government, with separation of powers, as contemplated by the Framers and established in the Constitution.

[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 (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)).

Standard

DOJ attorney in Houston IRS summons case floundering; Lufkin court silent on motion to vacate final judgment

Petitioner has frozen United States Department of Justice attorneys and United States district and magistrate judges in their tracks numerous times.

When cornered and beaten at their own game, their general policy is “Never respond, confirm, or deny.”

The United States attorney has failed to prove jurisdiction in any of Petitioner’s nine related cases (defendant in three, plaintiff in six) despite the legal duty to do so upon Petitioner’s challenge thereof; to wit:

“Generally, a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 1936, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Welsh v. American Surety Co., 5 Cir. 1951, 186 F.2d 16; 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra Sec. 1363 at 653. . . .” Rosemound Sand and Gravel Co. v. Lambert Sand and Gravel Co., 469 F.2d 416 (1972).

“The above cited decisions [six Supreme Court cases] and authorities cited therein conclusively establish the rule that if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him who invokes it. . . .” Town of Lantana, Fla. v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188 (5th Cir.1989).

Whereas, United States Department of Justice attorneys are too terrified of exposure for fraud to tangle with Petitioner on the question of jurisdiction using actual evidence, they rely on their tag-team partners, United States district, magistrate, and circuit judges, to do the dirty work for them.

District, magistrate, and circuit judges, however, do not have the luxury of ignoring Petitioner; they must deal with unresolved motions and bring a case to a conclusion.

The M.O. of United States district, magistrate, and circuit judges when it comes to Petitioner’s proofs of lack of jurisdiction and the United States attorney’s inability / failure to prove jurisdiction is to ignore all material facts and failures fatal to the cause of the United States and cherry-pick and present immaterial facts which appear to support their position.

This is called lying by omission.

It is also constructive fraud.

It is the same reason no legal professional will execute an affidavit sworn to as true, correct, and complete; only a so-called declaration, which is sworn to only as “true and correct” (in some instances only “based on information and belief”).

This approach allows attorneys and judges to present a false picture of things without risking a charge of perjury; they simply leave out whatever works against them.

Since the United States district and magistrate judges control all the trial courts and the United States circuit judges the appeals courts, they figure no one is going to be able to penetrate their little coven or hold them accountable for the consequences of what they omitted to say.

This may be true legally, once things are in the court, but it is not true commercially, before matters arrive at a lawsuit.

Only municipal judges in United States district courts

Courtesy of a corrupt Congress, who fraudulently defined “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), i.e., the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, all municipal district, magistrate, and circuit judges rely for their existence exclusively on linguistic confusion and cognitive dissonance among the victims of the scheme, the American People, “joint tenants in the sovereignty, Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471–472 (1793), to perpetrate their fraud.

In civil actions, the primary job of attorneys of the United States Department of Justice is to get past the demand-letter stage (a common-law requirement before invoking the assistance of the court) and file suit and get the matter into the hands of a municipal co-worker, a United States (District of Columbia) district judge.

Once the United States (District of Columbia) attorney has done that, he can count on the United States (District of Columbia) district judge to usurp exercise of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and adopt and prosecute the cause sua sponte (of his own will), essentially guaranteeing the outcome; unless, of course, the case is too high-profile and the facts too clear and judgment for the United States (District of Columbia) would work against the appearance of impartiality and operate to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

The main outpoint in this and every other action at law in every United States (District of Columbia) district court in which the United States is plaintiff, is that the district judge takes territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) over the defendant and the defendant’s property—a measure which is not authorized by any provision of the Constitution and amounting to usurpation of exercise of territorial jurisdiction.

Municipal judges (every justice and judge of the United States is a District of Columbia municipal bench officer) have authority to exercise general jurisdiction, but only in the District of Columbia.

Today’s municipal district, magistrate, and circuit judges have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the charter of their corporate existence, 16 Stat. 419, to the exterior limits of the District of Columbia, into the Union.

As shown in most of Petitioner’s filings and particularly in the recent ones in the Houston IRS summons case hyperlinked below, they are all District of Columbia municipal judges impersonating Article III constitutional judges.

The foregoing is verifiable in the record of any of the recent nine cases in which Petitioner is involved.

A municipal (not federal per se) debt collection operation

What we know as the executive and judicial branches are a collective corporate commercial debt-collection operation of the District of Columbia (“United States”), operating under color of law and masquerading as the de jure executive and judicial branches established by the Constitution; to wit: Every so-called civil or criminal proceeding in every United States District Court is administered under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.

The jurisdiction of executive and judicial officers is co-extensive with the legislative powers of Congress (Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 435, (1793), Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., 738, 808 (1824)): If judicial officers do not have jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, such as the Union, the same is true for executive officers—and no United States attorney has presented evidence of constitutional authority despite being challenged for the same in every one of the nine cases in which Petitioner has been involved.

The remedy to the situation is commercial (not legal per se): by dealing with matters prior to the filing of a suit, before a District of Columbia municipal judge gets involved, by holding the District of Columbia Department of Justice municipal attorney personally accountable for knowing and willful usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction outside his territory (District of Columbia) under color of authority—a criminal offense for which he has no immunity and is personally liable.

Upon receipt of a demand letter from a United States (District of Columbia) attorney, by presenting him with a Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace requiring proof of jurisdiction and presenting evidence that he has no jurisdiction anywhere in the Union, if he proceeds with a lawsuit without first presenting constitutional authority to take jurisdiction and do so (impossibility), he acts on his own.

Thereafter, the next step is the filing with competent authority in the particular county / borough / parish in which one is a resident or one’s property is located or the court is located or the District of Columbia or more than one of the foregoing, of an Affidavit of Information (criminal complaint) sworn to as true, correct, and complete before two or three witnesses (do not use a notary public), swearing as to the entire commercial exchange with the United States attorney and attaching documentary evidence when appropriate.

Every such criminal act sworn to in the Affidavit of Information has a monetary (commercial) value—and, having warned the United States attorney beforehand in the Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace of everything you intend to do if he proceeds against you without constitutional authority, the next step is to do a verified accounting of the criminal offenses sworn to in the Affidavit of Information and invoice him for the commercial value thereof, due and payable in 15 days from the date the invoice is sent.

After 20 days of mailing (five days grace for payment to arrive if mailed on the fifteenth day), if the United States attorney has not discharged his debt to you, the next step is a commercial lien in the amount of unpaid debt, filed with (a) the county recorder against any real property held in his name, and (b) the Secretary of State of the particular Union member where the county is situate, against his name.

You can also do it in the District of Columbia or with the Secretary of State of any Union member where the United States attorney debtor is considered a resident.

Such liens are passive claims which can be sold to professional debt collectors—accompanied by indisputable documentary evidence of the entire commercial exchange with the United States attorney—at a discount. The commercial paperwork can even lead to a lawsuit against him by the debt collector.     

Houston IRS summons case

Petitioner’s below two Replies (third document in each of Set 1 and Set 2) are the most recent filings and demonstrate the judge’s lack of authority in simple terms.

Set 1:

Set 2:

Lufkin motion to vacate final judgment as void

Petitioner on January 23, 2017, filed a supplemental motion to vacate the final judgment as void for the judge’s failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The United States on February 6, 2017, filed United States’ opposition to Petitioner’s supplemental motion to vacate the final judgment as void.

Petitioner on February 22, 2017, filed a reply to United States’ opposition to Petitioner’s supplemental motion to vacate the final judgment as void.

Petitioner filed the original motion 106 days ago, the above reply 76 days ago; the judge remains silent.

Standard

Houston IRS summons case exposes linchpin of judicial-authority scam; Lufkin motion to vacate final judgment update

Houston IRS summons case

In response to a petition for an order to enforce an IRS summons, Petitioner on February 9, 2017, filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In opposition thereto, counsel for IRS on March 8, 2017, filed his IRS response to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Although he could not provide a legal explanation as to why, the judge at the March 27, 2017, hearing denied said Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (click here for transcript of hearing).

Thereafter, Petitioner on April 5, 2017, filed the following three separate documents: (1) Response to Petition, (2) Motion Dismiss by Reason of Coram Non Judice, and (3) Motion to Withdraw Tag-end Order of Order to Show Cause.

As the reader will discover in the three aforementioned filings, particularly in the Motion Dismiss by Reason of Coram Non Judice, the linchpin of the judicial-authority scam is the special statutory definition of “United States” created by Congress exclusively for use in the courts, and used sub silentio (under silence; without any notice) by every executive and judicial officer.

Whereas, the “United States” of the Constitution is the collective of the several commonwealths united by and under authority thereof and admitted into the Union; the “United States” of Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure in every civil or criminal proceeding in every United States District Court rather is “a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15).

The organic “United States” of the Constitution has no relation to the statutory “United States” of Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15).

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust (elected office) under the United States (of the Constitution).

Because the oath of office of every executive and judicial officer requires a religious test (“So help me God.”) as a qualification to each respective office (whether elected or appointed), none are officers under the organic “United States” of the Constitution, only the statutory “United States” of Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15), i.e., a Federal corporation.

The supreme Federal corporation, incorporated February 21, 1871, under authority of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution, is a municipal corporation: the District of Columbia.

Because of their oath of office and the Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15) definition of “United States,” all executive and judicial officers are municipal officers under the District of Columbia.

Executive and judicial officers under the “United States” of the Constitution, have the capacity to take limited jurisdiction (personal and subject-matter jurisdiction) all over the Union (Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 1–16).

The problem is there are no such executive or judicial officers and never have been because, in accordance with Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the oath of office taken by every one of them disqualifies him from holding an office under the “United States” of the Constitution.

Executive and judicial officers under the “United States” of Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15) have the capacity to take general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction), but only in the District of Columbia (16 Stat. 419).

All of today’s executive and judicial officers are municipal officers under the Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15) “United States” (the District of Columbia) impersonating federal officers under the “United States” of the Constitution—and rely on mass ignorance of the meaning of the fraudulent statutory definition of “United States” to justify usurpation of exercise of general jurisdiction outside their territory (the District of Columbia).

The most egregious usurpation is that of exercise of territorial jurisdiction over property located or Americans residing within the Union—something about which we hear every day in the news for which there is no constitutional authority.

The three short, above-numbered and -hyperlinked filings in the Houston IRS summons case lay out the judicial-authority scam in simple terms.

Although counsel for IRS has no obligation to file a reply to the Response to Petition, the court-ordered deadline to do so expired April 10, 2017.

Lufkin motion to vacate final judgment as void

Ten and a half months after the March 3, 2016, final judgment in the Lufkin action at law against Petitioner’s ranch, Petitioner on January 23, 2017, filed a motion to vacate said final judgment as void for the judge’s failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

No judge who fails to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to both the mandate and express-prohibition provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 accedes to any office under the “United States” of the Constitution or “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1.

Out of legal ammo and nowhere to hide, counsel for plaintiff on February 6, 2017, filed his response in opposition to Petitioner’s motion to vacate the final judgment, making various ridiculous / frivolous arguments and factual contentions, with no evidentiary support, for which Petitioner, on February 22, 2017, in Petitioner’s reply to counsel for plaintiff’s response in opposition, recommended that said counsel be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(1)-(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Petitioner’s motion granted.

The magistrate judge in charge of the Lufkin case has remained silent since receiving Petitioner’s February 22, 2017, reply to plaintiff’s February 6, 2017, response to Petitioner’s January 23, 2017, motion to vacate the final judgment as void over seven weeks ago.

• Revision to previous post

Near the top of the previous post of February 11, 2017, there were two sets of bulleted items: the first a set of three bullets and the second a set of five.

The second set of five bulleted items has been reduced to three as follows:

“The totality of the limited or exclusive legislative power conferred upon Congress by a particular provision of the Constitution, and the respective geographic area in which such power obtains, consists of:

  • “power of personal and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union and upon the high seas at Art, I, § 8, cl. 1-16;
  • “power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation over (what will be) the District of Columbia at Art, I, § 8, cl. 17; and
  • “constructive (implied) power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation at Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 in the form of ‘Rules and Regulations,’ id., ‘respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,’ id., i.e., federal territories and enclaves.

“Please note that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power of territorial legislation over person or property anywhere in the Union.”

Standard

The “Great Mystery” solved: seminal act of congressional, executive, and judicial fraud and treason

This post reveals the ultimate reason why, when Petitioner on September 14, 2015, in the Lufkin action at law demanded the constitutional authority that gives the court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgment against Petitioner’s real property in Tyler County, Texas, the United States attorney went silent on the subject and remained so for the duration of the case (which ended five and half months later), the magistrate gave his adverse recommendation, and the court accepted the recommendation and entered judgment against Petitioner by pretending that Petitioner had never made such demand, thereby concealing by way of deliberate omission from court process the United States attorney’s failure to respond to said demand or prove jurisdiction (despite burden to do so) or oppose Petitioner’s subsequent motion to dismiss.

This post also gives a remedy for the situation it reveals, as well as an application thereof in a new case filed against Petitioner for failure to produce books and records for an IRS summons.

Legislative power determines executive and judicial jurisdiction

The executive and judicial power of the new government implemented by the Constitution March 4, 1789, is co-extensive with the legislative power established by that instrument; officers of the executive and judicial branches have jurisdiction to the same extent that Congress have legislative power in a particular geographic area; to wit:

“It [the judicial power] is indeed commensurate with the ordinary legislative and executive powers of the General Government . . .” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 435, (1793).  

“[I]t is an obvious maxim, ‘that the judicial power should be competent to give efficacy to the constitutional laws of the Legislature.’ The judicial authority, therefore, must be co-extensive with the legislative power. . . .” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., 738, 808 (1824).

The Constitution confers upon Congress either limited or exclusive (general) legislative power, depending upon the geographic area; to wit:

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. . . .” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 434 (1821).

Three kinds of legislative power and executive or judicial jurisdiction

“Jurisdiction” is synonymous with “authority” and means, essentially, the geographic area in which a particular officer is authorized by law to discharge or perform his duties.

There are three and only three kinds of legislative power and executive or judicial jurisdiction:

  • Territorial (over cases arising or those residing in a particular geographic area);
  • Personal (over someone’s rights); and
  • Subject-matter (over the nature of the case or type of relief sought).

Unilateral authority to exercise all three types of legislative power or executive or judicial jurisdiction in a particular geographic area is called “power of exclusive legislation” or “general jurisdiction”; anything less is called “limited legislative power” or “limited jurisdiction.”

The totality of the limited or exclusive legislative power conferred upon Congress by a particular provision of the Constitution, and the respective geographic area in which such power obtains, consists of:

  • power of personal and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union and upon the high seas at Art, I, § 8, cl. 1-16;
  • power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation over (what will be) the District of Columbia at Art, I, § 8, cl. 17; and
  • constructive (implied) power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation at Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 in the form of “Rules and Regulations,” id., “respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” id., i.e., federal territories and enclaves.

Please note that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power of territorial legislation over person or property anywhere in the Union.

This means executive and judicial officers of the United States have no territorial jurisdiction anywhere in the Union.

“Territorial jurisdiction” is defined as follows:

—Territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considered as limited to cases arising or persons residing within a defined territory, as a county, a judicial district, etc. The authority of any court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed.” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, Second Edition (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1910), p. 673.

Were Congress to be authorized to exercise territorial legislative power over the Union they would have absolute exclusive legislative control over the entire country and there would be no need for any Union-member legislature or the Constitution in its present form.

Blackletter law[1] confirms that no executive or judicial officer of the United States has territorial jurisdiction over property located or Americans residing anywhere in the Union; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

“[W]ithin any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government. . . . The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national goverment [sic].” Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894).

“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 possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. As a consequence, every State has the power to . . . regulate the manner and conditions upon which property situated within such territory, both personal and real, may be acquired, enjoyed, and transferred. . . .” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).

[95 U.S. 723] [T]he exercise of this jurisdiction [over those domiciled within its limits] in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.”

“Every State,” Pennoyer, supra, possesses supreme and “exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty,” id., over property located and Americans residing within its borders, and there is no provision of the Constitution that gives Congress power of territorial legislation anywhere in the Union or any executive or judicial officer of the United States the capacity to take territorial jurisdiction or direct the disposition of any property located or American residing there.

The “Great Mystery”

The “Great Mystery,” then, is how certain officers of the United States can—with a straight face and no hesitation, even when directly challenged—knowingly and willfully repudiate the provisions of the Constitution relating to the legislative power of Congress and the commensurate jurisdiction of executive and judicial officers of that certain government established by the Constitution March 4, 1789, and usurp exercise of territorial jurisdiction over property located or Americans residing within the Union.

Such officers include the attorney general of the United States, assistant attorneys general of the United States, United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, United States marshals and deputy marshals, and other officers of the United States Department of Justice, Supreme Court justices, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and United States magistrate judges, as well as personnel of the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.

A primary example of such usurpation of exercise of territorial jurisdiction within the Union by officers of the United States is the United States district judge in the Houston action at law ordering (a) Petitioner to vacate the premises of Petitioner’s home in Montgomery County, Texas, under threat of application of deadly force by the United States marshal, and (b) seizure and sale of said real property.

Other examples of usurpation of exercise of territorial jurisdiction within the Union by executive or judicial officers of the United States, as facilitated by congressional legislation, against property located or Americans residing there, are:

  • IRS summonses
  • Lawsuits for failure to respond to an IRS summons
  • Judicial orders to show cause why defendant should not be compelled to obey an IRS summons
  • Judicial orders to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to produce books and records in response to an IRS summons
  • Judicial reduction of tax liens to judgment for purposes of foreclosure on real property
  • IRS summons hearings and audits
  • IRS seizure of funds in bank accounts by levy
  • IRS seizure / garnishment of wages by levy
  • Executive seizure of real or personal property
  • Judicial or executive enforcement of the USA PATRIOT ACT
  • Judicial or executive enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
  • Judicial or executive enforcement of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (e.g., orders issued by Department of Homeland Security personnel to travelers at airports for non-immigration or non-customs reasons; detention of such travelers)
  • Judicial or executive enforcement of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
  • Judicial or executive enforcement of among others, the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution

Principal part of executive and judicial jurisdiction

Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est. The principal part of everything is the beginning.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2130.

The beginning of our tripartite system of government is the Constitution, ordained and established by the People September 17, 1787, and implemented March 4, 1789, where Articles I, II, and III thereof establish, respectively, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The beginning of the authority for any elected official or officer of the United States to exercise the legislative, executive, or judicial power of the United States is Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which provides:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The beginning of all congressional legislation is Section 1 of Statute I, Chapter I, “An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths,” 1 Stat. 23, June 1, 1789, which provides the oath of office for the president of the Senate and all members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States; to wit (Underline emphasis added):

“Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and [House of] [sic] Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit : ‘I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.’ The said oath or affirmation shall be administered within three days of the passing of this act . . .”

The beginning of authority for executive and judicial officers of the United States to exercise the executive or judicial power of the United States is Section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1789, 1 Stat. 24; which provides (Underline emphasis added):

“Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all officers appointed, or hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation [as provided in Section 1], which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office ; and such officers shall incur the same penalties, in case of failure, as shall be imposed by law in case of failure in taking their respective oaths of office.

Seminal act of congressional treason to the Constitution and American People

“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the servant of the lender.” Proverbs 22:7.

Congress always has had other loyalties, bought and paid for by the highest bidder—in 1789 the Rothschild-run private Bank of England, world’s first state-sanctioned fractional-reserve “lender”[2] and future parent bank[3] of today’s Rothschild-run[4] private Federal Reserve,[5] sole “lender” (creditor) to today’s financially insatiable “borrower,” Congress.

Notwithstanding the clarity of Sections 1 and 4 of the Act of June 1, 1789, supra, as to the oath of office to be taken by all executive and judicial “officers appointed, or hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United States,” supra, 1 Stat. 24, Congress 12 weeks later in “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, September 24, 1789 (the “Judiciary Act”), repudiate the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1789, at 76 in Section 8 thereof and create a special oath or affirmation exclusively for judicial officers of the United States; to wit (Underline emphasis added):

“Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit : ‘I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, a do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as                        , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

The above oath, taken by the original Supreme Court justices and district judges differs materially from the oath mandated at Section 1 of the Act of June 1, 1789, 1 Stat. 23, supra, and taken by the president of the Senate (vice president of the United States) and every member of the Senate and House of Representatives, in that it contains a religious test; to wit: “So help me God.”

Irrespective of how noble or virtuous said organic oath or affirmation for judicial officers may seem, said oath or affirmation and the ordinary act of Congress providing it are repugnant to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as such species of oath or affirmation is expressly prohibited by the provisions of said article and clause, supra, and therefore, for purposes of accession to “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, void; to wit:

“It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it . . .

“. . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

“. . . If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he [sic] constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177-178 (1803).

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution tells us that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

The religious test required as a qualification to the office of justice of the Supreme Court or district judge in the oath or affirmation at Section 8 of the Judiciary Act taken by every such judicial officer means that no such justice or judge is authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, anywhere within the Union for failure to have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

Every oath or affirmation taken by every justice or judge of the United States since September 24, 1789, requires a religious test as a qualification to the office of justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, circuit judge of the United States, United States district judge, or United States magistrate judge, the most modern of which is 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, December 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124, which provides (Underline emphasis added.):

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ‘I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

Whereas, any oath or affirmation that has a religious test as a qualification to any judicial office under the United States operates as an automatic bar to accession to authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, there has never been a justice or judge of the United States in the history of the Republic authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., for universal failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.[6]

No judge of the United States has taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution and no such judge has any business sitting on the bench of any United States district court anywhere in the Union—and each and every judge who does is a rogue judge.

Three species of court and judge

United States attorneys and district and magistrate judges and Supreme Court justices are constantly chirping about how federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; to wit:

“As we have repeatedly said: ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . .’” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 U. S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted)).

However true said statement may be, federal courts of limited jurisdiction are devoid of federal judges per se—because those who haunt the corridors and chambers of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union are not federal judges per se but judges of a different species.

It is essential that the reader understand the actual meaning of the word “federal”; to wit:

“federal . . . Of or pertaining to, or founded upon and organized by, a compact or act or union between separate sovereign states . . .” A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1903), p. 667.

In the case of the Republic, the compact is the Constitution and the “separate sovereign states” the members of the Union.[7]

As shown below, all official use of the term “federal judge” is specious and intended to deceive—because no such judge has ever existed.

The three kinds of courts brought into existence by Congress, and their respective judges, are:

  1. Federal: courts of limited jurisdiction ordained and established by Congress under express authority Article III 1 of the Constitution, and federal judges authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., in such courts throughout the Union for having taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution—of which there has never been any such judge in American history.
  1. Territorial: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, and territorial judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction in “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” id., i.e. United States territories and enclaves; between the Judiciary Act (September 24, 1789) and sometime after incorporation of the District of Columbia, 16 Stat. 419 (February 21, 1871).
  1. Municipal: courts of general jurisdiction created by Congress under implied authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution following incorporation of the District of Columbia February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, and municipal judges authorized to exercise general jurisdiction within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia; Congress on November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935, Congress in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15), in Chapter 176 of Title 28 U.S.C. (under which all civil or criminal proceedings are conducted), define “United States” to mean “a Federal corporation,” id., the object of which definition and meaning is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and omit to define “United States” in a geographical sense—and today every United States district and magistrate judge in every district court of limited jurisdiction throughout the Union is a District of Columbia municipal judge usurping exercise of general jurisdiction and declaring municipal law of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation throughout the Union with no authority to do so.

Bereft of authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, every justice of the Supreme Court and every United States district judge and magistrate judge is under the exclusive control of the legislative power (Congress), who manages the activities of such justices and judges by way of the laws of the “United States” (District of Columbia Municipal Corporation), i.e., municipal law of the District of Columbia known as, among others, the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations.

“Legal” tyranny

What distinguishes the Constitution from all other sovereign instruments of creation in the community of nations is the doctrine of separation of powers manifested in the tripartite system of government established by Articles I, II, and III thereof; to wit:

“separation of powers. The division of governmental authority into three branches of government — legislative, executive, and judicial — each with specified duties on which neither of the other branches can encroach; the constitutional doctrine of checks and balances by which the people are protected against tyranny.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (St. Paul Minn.: West Group, 1999) (hereinafter “Black’s”), pp. 1369-1370.  

The political opposite of tyranny is liberty; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

“LIBERTY (Lat. liber, free; libertas, freedom, liberty). Freedom from restraint. The faculty of willing, and the power of doing what has been willed, without influence from without.

“Civil liberty . . . . Under the Roman law, civil liberty was the affirmance of a general restraint, while in our law it is the negation of a general restraint . . .

Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men. . . .

“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law [*] . . . .” Bouvier’s, pp. 1964-1965.

* The essence of due course of law—also known as due process of law and the law of the land—is constitutional authority; to wit:

“Due process of law . . . refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed . . .” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111, 292 (1884).

The primary purpose of separation of powers in government is the preservation of liberty; to wit (Underline emphasis added in all citations.):

“The framers of our political system had a full appreciation of the necessity of keeping separate and distinct the primary departments of the government. Mr. Hamilton, in the seventy-eighth number of the Federalist, says that he agrees with the maxim of Montesquieu, that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’” Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866).

This Court [Supreme Court] consistently has given voice to, and has reaffirmed, the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty. See, e. g., Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 685 -696 (1988); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S., at 725 . Madison, in writing about the principle of separated powers, said: ‘No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.’ The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989).

[488 U.S. 380-381] Madison, defending the Constitution against charges that it established insufficiently separate Branches, addressed the point directly. Separation of powers, he wrote, ‘d[oes] not mean that these [three] departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no controul over the acts of each other,’ but rather ‘that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution, are subverted.’ The Federalist No. 47, pp. 325-326 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (emphasis in original). See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S., at 442 , n. 5. . . .”

[488 U.S. 394] [W]e recognize the continuing vitality of Montesquieu’s admonition: “‘Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul,’” The Federalist No. 47, p. 326 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (Madison), quoting Montesquieu . . .”

“[A]fter stating that the judiciary is the weakest of the three departments of the government, and that though oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, he [Hamilton, in Federalist 78] says: ‘The general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the executive. For I agree that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments . . .” McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 180-181 (1891).

Absent the faculty of liberty, as derived from Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution by way of institution of separation of the powers of government, there would be no substantial difference between the tyrannical sovereignty of Great Britain from which the American People originally freed themselves beginning in 1776, and the new government in America, with Congress as collective monarch and the People its subjects; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. . . . The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

“Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people. . . .” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471–472 (1793).

The judicial power’s jurisdictional equal: the executive power

We know that the judicial power is commensurate or co-extensive with the legislative power; the same is true for “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1.

Section 4 of Statute I, Chapter I cited supra, 1 Stat. 24, June 1, 1789, requires that all executive officers of the United States take the oath or affirmation provided in Section 1 thereof prior to exercising “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, supra, and Section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1789, supra, as to the requirement to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution free of a religious test, the organic act establishing the first “attorney-general for the United States,” 1 Stat. 93, i.e., the Judiciary Act, requires only that said executive officer be “sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office,” id.; no mention of the Constitution.

Today’s attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, and every other officer of the United States Department of Justice takes what is known as the Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavit part A Oath of Office, which provides (Underline emphasis added.):

“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Every officer of the United States Department of Justice who takes the above oath of office self-disqualifies himself from acceding to “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1—and now we have our answer as to why in the Lufkin action at law the United States attorney goes silent when Petitioner on September 14, 2015, demands the provision of the Constitution that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgment against property in Tyler County, Texas, and the magistrate and district judge pretend in their court process and judgment that Petitioner never asked the question: None are authorized to exercise “The executive Power,” id., or “The judicial Power of the United States,” id. at Art. III, § 1 anywhere within the Union for failure to have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

Every executive and judicial officer of the United States in the history of the Republic is a legislative-branch officer under the absolute exclusive legislative control of Congress, a political alien to the executive or judicial power, and bereft of authority without the boundaries of federal territory.

Beginning with the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, the People have been denied the “unalienable Rights,” The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, Preamble, of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” id., and deprived of life, liberty, and property[8] without due process of law by legislative-branch super-factotums ensconced in the so-called United States Department of Justice and district courts—courts where the power of judging is joined with that of legislating and executing and there is no separation of powers and there is no due process of law.

This means that in addition to the bulleted examples of usurpation of territorial jurisdiction cited supra, there is no authority for any such executive or judicial officer to exercise any form of jurisdiction anywhere in the Union, that every such act constitutes usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and is an act of tyranny, and that the entire legal system is a fraud and hoax, with every United States district court a kangaroo court; to wit:

“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, p. 359.

It also means that every single Supreme Court decision and district court judgment since September 24, 1789, is void for every participating executive and judicial officer’s failure to have taken an oath or affirmation that conforms with the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution and every such officer’s culpability for betrayal of public trust, usurpation of exercise of general jurisdiction within the Union, and treason to the Constitution; to wit:

“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, 404 (1821).

New lawsuit to enforce IRS summons; Petitioner’s response

In June of 2016 a certain IRS revenue agent issued and personally served on Petitioner an administrative summons, Internal Revenue Manual 25.5.6.3.1.1, deceitfully entitled “Summons,” tacitly representing to be authorized to exercise “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1, take territorial jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas, and issue the summons against Petitioner.

Petitioner responded with a “Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace” and heard nothing back for seven months when, on January 24, 2017, the same revenue agent personally served on Petitioner a petition instituted by the United States attorney in the local United States district court in behalf of the revenue agent and Internal Revenue Service, and accompanying Order to Show Cause, signed by the judge, as to why Petitioner “should not be ordered to comply with the Internal Revenue Service summons.

Notwithstanding that said petition only contemplates the need for an order for Petitioner to produce the documents described in the summons, which would be determined at the hearing, the Order to Show Cause nevertheless asserts its own preemptive order for Petitioner to bring to the hearing the documents enumerated in the IRS summons.

The judge wants Petitioner to suffer the object of the lawsuit—production of books and records—prior to having a fair hearing and determining the need for such an order, confirmation that there is no due process of law in any United States district court; to wit:

“due process. The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.” Black’s, p. 516.

Also, the docket in the previous case, the Houston action at equity, now includes a new reference to the current IRS summons case, noting “Related Case: 4:16-mc-02878” (the IRS summons case)—which is unusual because that case was closed two months ago (December 5, 2016) and the subject matter of the two cases is unrelated; to wit: The previous case is an action at equity concerning a prior void judgment; the new case is about failure to respond to an IRS summons.

Wherefore, it is reasonable to presume that the judge in the new summons case is prejudiced against Petitioner, likely for steps taken by Petitioner against his co-worker, the judge in the said Houston action at equity—where Petitioner sued 47 defendants, the judge ruled against Petitioner, and Petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the judge and then amended it (upon resolution of the “Great Mystery”)—and would be happy to be able to hold Petitioner in contempt and have Petitioner arrested and incarcerated and who knows what else.

In Petitioner’s response to the IRS summons petition, which incorporates the fruits of resolution of the “Great Mystery,” supra, Petitioner on February 8, 2017, sent to the court for filing February 9, 2017, and counsel for petitioner United States of America (and constructive petitioner Internal Revenue Service) a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be heard and decided before proceeding any further (Rule 12(i)).

Petitioner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion demonstrates that (a) the subject revenue agent has no authority to exercise “The executive Power,” Constitution, Art. II, § 1, cl. 1, or take territorial jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas, or issue said summons against Petitioner, for failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and (b) the summons is a legal nullity, thereby depriving the United States attorney of any evidence of any fact upon which a claim for relief could be granted.

The actual situation

As of September 24, 1789, the People have been denied the “unalienable Rights,” The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, Preamble, of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” id., and deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law by legislative-branch super-factotum executive and judicial officers—in courts where the power of judging is joined with that of legislating and executing and there is no separation of powers and the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are a fantasy—the essence of tyranny.

The raison d’être of the actors perpetrating the above organized treasonous conspiracy is the longevity of their sole “lender” (creditor), the Rothschild private Federal Reserve (see fns. 3-5)—for without wholesale extortion and retirement from circulation of a substantial amount of electronic digits in the paychecks and bank accounts of ordinary Americans the fraud of the banking system reveals itself through rampant inflation and higher and higher prices with no commensurate rise in wages.

Although Petitioner and those helping him, as well as the American People, are forced to cope in a legal context with the fraud and treason of those trusted with the custody of the law and its execution by the Framers and those who ratified the Constitution, the ultimate situation is not of a legal nature but rather political—a potential state of affairs for which the Founding Fathers presciently provided; to wit:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Id.

Same family of bankers pulling the strings today as in 1776

“[T]he policies of the monarch are always those of his creditors.” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, p. 1261.

The ultimate source of the policies of today’s stealth congressional, executive, and judicial tyranny is the same usurious family of fractional-reserve bankers and exclusive creditors to borrower-servant King George III: Rothschild.

Sen. Robert Latham Owen (D-Okla.), former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency and Senate sponsor of the Glass-Owen Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, tries to make amends for supporting the Federal Reserve and on January 24, 1939, places into the Congressional Record the following historical account of Benjamin Franklin’s visit to England and events shortly thereafter (Benjamin Franklin’s words underlined); to wit:

“Benjamin Franklin, on being asked in Great Britain how he accounted for the prosperous condition of the Colonies, said:

“‘That is simple. It is only because in the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called colonial scrip[9], and we issue it in the proper proportion to the demand of trade and industry.’

“It was not very long until this information was brought to the Rothschilds’ bank, and they saw that here was a nation that was ready to be exploited; here was a nation that had been setting up an example that they could issue their own money in place of the money coming through the banks. So the Rothschild Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament which provided that no colony of England could issue their own money. They had to use English money. Consequently the Colonies were compelled to discard their scrip and mortgage themselves to the Bank of England in order to get money. For the first time in the history . . . our money began to be based on debt.

“Benjamin Franklin stated that in 1 year from that date the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed, because when England exchanged with them, she gave the Colonies only half as many units of payment in borrowed money from the Rothschild Bank as they had in scrip. In other words, their circulating medium was reduced 50 percent, and everyone became unemployed. The poor houses became filled, according to Benjamin Franklin’s own statement. . . .

“He said that this was the original cause of the Revolutionary War. In his own language:

“‘The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matter had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.’” Benjamin Franklin, quoted in John R. Elsom, Lightning over the Treasury Building (Boston: Forum Press, 1941), pp. 29-30, quoted in Robert Latham Owen, National Economy and the Banking System of the United States: An Exposition of the Principles of Modern Monetary Science in their Relation to the National Economy and the Banking System of the United States, Senate Document No. 23, January 24, 1939, 76th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 98-99.

It took only about one percent of the American Colonists to defeat the Bank of England-financed British army and navy and 30,000 paid killers (Hessian mercenaries) and break free of Rothschild policies enforced by King George III.

There are today not near so many Rothschild quislings[[10]], grunts, or white-collar mercenaries in the District of Columbia or scattered around the Union (and globe).

PDF version (sans hyperlinks) of today’s post

______________________

[1] “blackletter law. One or more legal principles that are old, fundamental, and well settled. ● The term refers to the law printed in books set in Gothic type, which is very bold and black. — Also termed hornbook law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (St. Paul Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 163.

[2] “[T]he Bank [of England] had the power to issue [i.e., create from thin-air and loan into circulation its own promissory] notes.

“It issued [created from thin-air and loaned] these [promissory notes] to an amount equal to the sum [of gold] advanced [loaned] to the Government [thereby doubling its wealth as to the value of the loan, every time it made a loan of gold to the government]. . . .” A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint), Christabel Meredith, Translator (London: Frank Cass & Co., Ltd., 1966), p. 85.

“It [Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.” Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England (Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès, supra, p. 82.

[3] The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, is the creation of Baron Alfred Charles de Rothschild (1842–1918), director of the Bank of England (Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Staunton, Va.: Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1992), p. 102), implemented via his straw author, Paul Moritz Warburg (id. at 128), a German banker and Rothschild confederate awarded United States citizenship in 1911 specifically for this purpose; later dubbed “Father of the Federal Reserve” by the New York Times. The private Federal Reserve, incorporated under aegis of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, is modeled by its architect, Baron Rothschild, after the private Bank of England.

[4] An extremely rare public disclosure (Rothschild proxies own 96% of all media worldwide) reveals unilateral Rothschild control of the American economy (via controlling interest in each of the New York Fed’s nominal-stockholder banks, which, collectively, own controlling interest in the stock of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks; thereby securing Rothschild control of the entire private Federal Reserve System and documenting the reality of unilateral, alien domination of the Fed’s primary borrower-servant, Congress, and Congress’ employer, the U.S. Government, and, by virtue of the Fed’s private ownership of the currency, Federal Reserve Notes, the American economy); to wit, in pertinent part:

“This said Rothschild [i.e., the Rothschild Dubai office, institutional proxy of Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild] is not getting directly involved but will act through commercial banks in which it has equity or has connections with, like JP Morgan and other ones. Moreover, through the same commercial banks, Rothschild has a say, and a powerful one, over the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY).

“By law the latter plays a key role in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and thus has a crucial role in making key decisions about interest rates and the US money supply.

“Through the FRBNY Rothschild is in a privileged position to influence US monetary policy and shaping US monetary supply, crucially important since the US dollar remains the main reserve currency in the world.”   AsiaNews, “Signs of a new financial storm for September coming from Dubai and Saudi Arabia,” June 1, 2009, http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15402&size=A.

[5] “Federal Reserve Banks . . . are not federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir.1982).

“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.

[6] It will come as a shock for every officer of the uniformed services who has taken the oath at 5 U.S.C. § 3331 to learn that he or she and his or her compatriots are serving something other than the Republic or “their country”: the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation (infra, under “Three species of court and judge”).

[7] These facts are acknowledged by Congress in but a single obscure provision of Title 28 U.S.C., which admits of members of the Union as actual countries; to wit (Underline emphasis added.):

Ҥ 297 Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states

“(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit, district, magistrate, or territorial judge of a court of the Ninth Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the respective court.

“(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount received pursuant to this subsection.”

[8] “Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. . . .” Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 116 (1872).

[9] “scrip. . . . [U. S.] paper currency of a denomination less than a dollar: not now issued.” A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1903), p. 1606.

[10] “quisling , , , noun . . . a traitorous national who aids the invader of his country and often serves as chief agent or puppet governor.” Webster’s New Third International Dictionary, Unabridged (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1993), s.v. “Quisling.”

Standard

Errors in previous post and Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition of August 16, 2016

The post of January 16, 2017, and Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition (posted September 14, 2016) contain certain errors.

Error in previous post of January 16, 2017

That Congress in the Act of December 1, 1990, Public Law 101–650, at section 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124 alter materially by way of amendment the oath of office at 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907 and relieve justices and judges of the United States of any duty of fidelity to the Constitution.

The amended oath of December 1, 1990, at 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States had no material effect on the activities of justices or judges of the United States and should not have been the subject of a post.

Errors in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition

That none of the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service, Department of the Treasury, or Internal Revenue Service are bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.

Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit take the oath at 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States and bind themselves by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.

Officers of United States Department of Justice and United States Marshals Service bind themselves by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution by what is called the Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavit, such as that taken by the current Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Elizabeth Lynch.

The Secretary of the Treasury’s webpage says the Secretary of the Treasury takes the oath of office provided therein. The oath is identical in substance to the 5 U.S.C. § 3331 Oath of office, but not identical in form. Said webpage cites no source authority for said oath.

President Barrack Obama’s Executive Order of August 12, 2016, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession within the Department of the Treasury,” specifies that Under Secretaries of the Treasury, Deputy Under Secretaries of the Treasury, and Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury shall have taken an oath, but omits to identify which particular oath.

Though not mandated by act of Congress, it is believed that the oath taken by Under Secretaries of the Treasury and such others of the Department of the Treasury is the same oath as that taken by the Secretary of the Treasury (no source authority cited).

Internal Revenue Manual 6.300.1.4 (11-06-2009) Appointment Documents, Determinations, and Entitlements provides, in pertinent part of subsection 1: “OPM’s GPPA, Chapter 3, Subchapter 4, and the Job Aid specifies the required appointment documents. . . .”

The United States Office of Personnel Management’s “The Guide to Processing Personnel Actions,” Chapter 3, Subchapter 4, section 4-3, subsection c, implies that Internal Revenue Service employees take the Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavit part A Oath of Office; to wit:

“As part of the entry-on-duty process, the employee takes the oath of office. The Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavit, contains the oath of office (part A) required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 . . .”

Motions withdrawn and amended

Petitioner has withdrawn the three motions hyperlinked in the previous post of January 16, 2017, and replaced two of them with an amended version and filed with the Harris and Montgomery County, Texas, District Attorneys an Amended Affidavit of Information: Criminal Complaint for Public Notice Filing.

There are no errors in the amended versions.

Standard

Fatal defect in every federal case since March 1, 1991; all such decisions and judgments void

As shown herein below with conclusive evidence, the above headline is not an exaggeration but an accurate assessment of the situation.

“The judicial Power of the United States”

That certain constitution ordained and established September 17, 1787, and implemented March 4, 1789, Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the “Constitution”), at Art. III, § 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” and at § 2, cl. 1 thereof the limited types of cases and controversies to which the judicial power shall extend.

The Constitution at Art. VI, cl. 3 provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or abuse of “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., by way of requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution; to wit:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; . . .”

Justices and Judges’ Oath of Office

In respect of the above requirement of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution, Congress on September 24, 1789, in “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” 1 Stat. 73 (the “Judiciary Act”), at 76 supply the oath or affirmation needed for federal justices and judges to be authorized to exercise the judicial power of the United States; to wit:

“Sec. 8.  And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit : ‘I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as                 , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

Congress 159 years later on June 25, 1948, at 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 62 Stat. 907, amend the language of the preamble to the oath provided in Section 8 of the Judiciary Act and, cosmetically, the text of said oath; to wit:

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office : ‘I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____ according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

For the next 42+ years justices and judges of the United States who take the 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907, oath are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” Judiciary Act at 76 (just like all other federal jurists who came before them), and therefore authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, and discharge and perform the duties of their respective offices.

Congress Alter Materially the Oath of Justices and Judges

Congress on December 1, 1990, however, in Public Law 101–650, at section 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124—effective 90 days later, March 1, 1991 (104 Stat. 5124 at § 407)—alter materially by way of amendment, the oath at 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907, so as to relieve all justices and judges of the United States of any duty of fidelity to the Constitution; to wit:

Sec. 404. Amendment to Oath of Justices and Judges.
“Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out ‘according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to’ and inserting ‘under’”. Pub. L. 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990.

Upon amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 104 Stat. 5124, provides:

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ‘I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’
“(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)”

The only duties incumbent upon justices and judges of the United States to discharge or perform are provided in the statutes of Congress, i.e., the laws of the United States; the Constitution provides none.

Because there is no provision of the Constitution that requires a justice or judge of the United States to discharge or perform any duties, there are no duties under the Constitution incumbent upon any such justice or judge to discharge or perform; meaning: Mention of the Constitution in the 1990 amended oath, 28 U.S.C. § 453, 104 Stat. 5124, supra, is superfluous and may be omitted from said oath without changing its meaning.

This is why, in the Lufkin Action at Law (infra), the United States Attorney went silent for the duration of the case (five and half months) when Petitioner demanded the provision of the Constitution that gives the Court (judge) the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgment in Tyler County, Texas: There is no such constitutional authority and neither the Court nor the United States Attorney is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution (for the United States Attorney’s oath of office, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 80 Stat. 618; no mention of the word “Constitution,” contrary to the requirements of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution).

To prevent the fracturing of the federal judicial system were one set of justices and judges to discharge and perform their respective duties agreeably to the Constitution and the other not: Between December 1, 1990, and February 28, 1991, all sitting and newly commissioned justices and judges of the United States take the new oath of office, 104 Stat. 5124, leaving, on March 1, 1991, no justice or judge of the United States bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution—only the laws of the United States, i.e., the statutes of Congress.

“The emperor has no clothes”

The 1990 oath, 104 Stat. 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: As of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices “agreeably to the Constitution” (62 Stat. 907), and the former judicial-branch officers are now legislative-branch officers under the exclusive control of Congress.

“Plus peccat auctor quam actor. The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetrates it” (John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2153)—and the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by municipal judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.

The jurisdiction of federal courts of limited jurisdiction and the original (de jure) Department of Justice, 16 Stat. 162, is co-extensive with the legislative powers of Congress; to wit:

“Those who framed the constitution [sic], intended to establish a government complete for its own purposes, supreme within its sphere, and capable of acting by its own proper powers. They intended it to consist of three co-ordinate branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. In the construction of such a government, it is an obvious maxim, ‘that the judicial power should be competent to give efficacy to the constitutional laws of the Legislature.’ [Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. Rep. 414] The judicial authority, therefore, must be co-extensive with the legislative power. . . . [The Federalist, No. 80; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. Rep. 384]” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., 738, 808 (1824).

Because Congress enjoy only limited legislative power (subject-matter legislative power only) throughout the Union, the federal courts and Department of Justice are authorized to exercise only limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only) throughout the Union; to wit:

“As we have repeatedly said: ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . .’” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 U. S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted)).

The above is why Petitioner is so persistent: Justices and judges ensconced in federal courts of limited jurisdiction are usurping exercise of territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) and entering judgment against, directing the disposition of, and committing theft under color of authority of, Petitioner’s property in Montgomery and Tyler County, Texas—geographic area in which Texas possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over property located there; to wit:

“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 possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. . . .” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).

Notwithstanding that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Rasul, supra, they are populated by municipal judges of the so-called “United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), “a Federal corporation,” id., by the name of District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, who are usurping exercise of general jurisdiction in Montgomery and Tyler County, Texas, and elsewhere throughout the Union.

Justices and judges of the United States have used their position of trust to betray their creators, the American People, by overriding their will as declared at Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, that all judicial officers of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and thereby legislating the Constitution out of the legal process; to wit:

“The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

Bearing of the 1990 Oath on Every Federal Case since March 1, 1991

Whereas, as of March 1, 1991, no federal justice or judge is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution: As of that date, every justice and judge of the United States is barred by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution from exercising “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, or entering a decision or judgment in any federal court case.

There being no constitutional authority for any Supreme Court decision or civil or criminal judgment in any federal court: Every such decision or judgment since March 1, 1991, is void.

Due Process of Law and Void Judgments

The essence of due process of law is constitutional authority; to wit:

“Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. . . .      “. . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution] refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law. . . .” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).

Any justice or judge of the United States who enters a decision or judgment in a federal case without the authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1—and this includes every Supreme Court decision and United States District Court judgment since March 1, 1991—does so without the authority of the Constitution and thereby denies the litigants due process of law and manufactures a void judgment.

A void judgment is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who is concerned with the execution of a void judgment is considered in law as a trespasser; to wit:

“A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which . . . lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment . . . can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally . . .” Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

“Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.” Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 328, 329 (1828).

“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 502 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). Mere error does not render the judgment void unless the error is of constitutional dimension. Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United States, 456 U.S. 917, 102 S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177 (1982).” Klugh v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 892 (1985).

“We believe that a judgment, whether in a civil or criminal case, reached without due process of law is without jurisdiction and void . . . because the United States is forbidden by the fundamental law to take either life, liberty or property without due process of law, and its courts are included in this prohibition. . . .” Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 816, 70 S.Ct. 57, 94 L.Ed. 494 (1949).

“[I]f a ‘judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s motion to vacate the judgment.’ United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995). A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if ‘the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.’ Id. at 1316 (citations omitted) . . .” Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624 (7th Cir., 2007).

“[D]enying a motion to vacate a void judgment is a per se abuse of discretion.” Burrell v. Henderson, et al, 434 F.3d, 826, 831 (6th Cir., 2006).

Ironically, the above post-March 1, 1991, judgments addressing the subject of void judgments, are themselves void for failure of the judge entering his respective judgment to bind himself by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, as required by the Constitution at Art. III, § 1, a denial of due process of law.

Update on Three Cases Since Previous Post, September 14, 2016

  1. Action at equity: Petitioner sues 46 government-type defendants (trespassers) and one civilian defendant in a Texas court to recover Petitioner’s home stolen under color of authority by way of a previous void judgment in a federal court

Petitioner on August 11, 2016, files Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition in an action at equity in 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, Case No. 16-08-09232, for a constructive trust based on constructive fraud in a previous void judgment, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-0027 (the “Houston Action at Law”), which defendant United States of America on September 12, 2016, removes and files as United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-2747 (the “Houston Action at Equity”); the court on December 5, 2016, enters judgment against Petitioner (the plaintiff).

This was a high-intensity pre-trial proceeding, with 70 substantial docket entries over an 84-day span, which, combined with Petitioner’s two other ongoing federal cases, prevented Petitioner from being able to post anything until now.

Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace

Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition on pages iii–iv gives an extra-judicial (commercial) Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace to every actor concerned with the execution of the void judgment in the Houston Action at Law, as to the penalties should said case be removed to federal court and Petitioner be denied due process of law or foreclosed from adequate remedy.

Petitioner has been denied due process of law.

Irrespective of whether Petitioner realizes adequate remedy in this case or not: Every actor concerned with the void judgment in the Houston Action at Law (before, during, or after), which now also comprehends every actor involved in the Houston Action at Equity void judgment, is a trespasser and personally liable to Petitioner.

Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition evidently set off numerous alarms—because the deputy clerks, USDOJ attorneys, and judge, in concert, pulled every dirty (contrary to law or good morals) trick in the book to try to defeat Petitioner.

Any reader who tries to digest the docket or record (hyperlinked below) of this case, however, may have trouble understanding because there is contradictory data throughout, and seemingly two different proceedings underway—one prosecuted by Petitioner with factual contentions supported by conclusive evidence, and another being “defended” by counsel for defendants with factual contentions and denials of Petitioner’s allegations and claims, but with no or immaterial evidentiary support; a situation exacerbated by wholesale confusion in the docket intentionally manufactured by the deputy clerks, evidently in the hope of befuddling Petitioner (and anyone else who tries to make sense of things) and preventing Petitioner from keeping track of counsel for defendants’ multiple filings and possibly failing to respond timely to one or more and thereby losing by default.

The deputy clerks routinely and deliberately (a) so-misnamed filings or excluded part or all of the titles thereof, that Petitioner had to file in the record requests for the deputy clerks to correct the titles of docket entries, (b) withheld entering filings on the docket for days at a time (to give counsel for defendants an advantage), (c) split up a key filing into two separate docket numbers, 36 and 37, (d) entered items on the docket out of sequence, and (e) refused to enter on the docket seven of Petitioner’s filings, requiring that Petitioner file special requests of the clerk to enter on the docket the filings previously received.

Counsel for defendant United States (“a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)) and United States of America (a sovereign republic, Constitution)—the same attorney—filed a Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice, but failed to present evidence that proved a single one of his allegations or claims, and likewise failed to disprove a single allegation or claim in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition.

Petitioner from time to time established on the record with evidence, certain facts and failures of defendants, and thereafter counsel for defendant United States and United States of America (same attorney) would file a document asserting other facts contradicting those established by Petitioner with evidence and treat of said failures as though they had never happened, but for which assertions said counsel provided no evidence in support.

For example, if a government-type defendant fails to answer or otherwise respond to a petition / complaint as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., within the statutory 60-day period, said defendant is in default and foreclosed from participating in the proceeding.

When Petitioner in Docket Nos. 36 and 37 (filing split up by deputy clerks for no reason) filed the return of service (process server’s certificate of service of summons and complaint on a defendant) for 44 defendants, establishing that 41 government-type defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition within 60 days of service and were in default, counsel for defendant United States of America—with no evidentiary support—thereafter filed in Docket Nos. 41, 42, and 58, a purported notice of “entry of appearance and joinder” in the case for the same 41 defendants, a procedural impossibility.

Counsel for defendant United States and United States of America and the attorney representing the one civilian defendant collectively committed hundreds of violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for which, in any other case, they would have been subjected to an immediate order-to-show-cause hearing as to why they should not be sanctioned for such egregious acts.

Because everything in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition is true and supported with conclusive evidence, counsel for defendants could only present immaterial arguments and evidence propounding the supremacy of the Federal corporation known as the “United States” (28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)), falsely representing that it is the same thing as the sovereign republic of the United States of America (Constitution), and touting the “immunity” of all its corporate employees (judges of the United States, USDOJ attorneys, etc.) and private-sector workers of the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.

The record of the Houston Action at Equity is hyperlinked below, but Petitioner admonishes the reader that there is no meaningful knowledge to be gained from reading it; the filings of counsel for defendants are crafted to deceive; everything Petitioner has to say is presented in coherent form, supported by evidence, in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition.

The M.O. of United States Department of Justice attorneys is to ignore material facts and evidence presented by an adversary that work against their objective, and fabricate another scenario, irrespective of lack of evidence of facts and their failures to respond, that supports their position, which their co-worker municipal tag-team partner, the judge, then uses to paint a negative picture of the adversary and enter judgment against him.

False denigrations of a particular litigant by one judge are then repeated at every opportunity by subsequent judges and United States Department of Justice attorneys who happen to come in contact with the same litigant, building up by repetition a “history” of negative reports against the litigant which an innocent reader would be inclined to take as factual and conclusive.

“The judge doth protest too much, methinks”

“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.” Bouvier’s, p. 2157.

In this instance, the judge’s Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70) paints an extremely nasty picture of Petitioner—evidently for having the audacity to exercise Petitioner’s right to property and report organized criminal activity among judges of the United States and officers of the United States Department of Justice—and purports to enjoin Petitioner from ever taking up the subject matter of the Houston Action at Law again in any other court, state or federal—unless, of course, Petitioner wants to file an appeal with the same appeal judges who conspired with another judge in the same courthouse in the Houston Action at Law and stole Petitioner’s home under color of authority, all of whom are defendants in this suit!

The judge in the Houston Action at Equity evidently apparently is terrified of taking the rap for letting Petitioner expose the ultimate Achilles’ heel of the organized criminal activity of justices and judges of the United States and attorneys of the United States Department of Justice (no authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 3) and hopes to silence Petitioner with his Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70).

Bottom line: The judge is a municipal judge of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, “a Federal corporation, ” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), doing business as “United States,” id., and under the exclusive control of Congress and knowingly and willfully usurping exercise of general jurisdiction outside his territory (the District of Columbia) and culpable for treason to the Constitution; to wit:

“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given [by the Constitution], 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, 434 (1821).

The Final Judgment and Preclusion Order is a void judgment.

Knowing that his Final Judgment and Preclusion Order is a void judgment, that Petitioner is authorized by law to move to have it vacated, and that it is an abuse of discretion for him to refuse to vacate a void judgment upon motion: The judge sought to prevent Petitioner from filing a motion to vacate the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order as void by ordering the clerk on page 7 of the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70), to return to Petitioner, unfiled, any further motions received from Petitioner.

In respect of the judge’s usurpation, by way of the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order, of “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, Petitioner on January 10, 2017, filed with the Montgomery County District Attorney and January 11, 2017, with the Harris County District Attorney, an Affidavit of Information: Criminal Complaint for Public Notice Filing, the subject of which is said judge.

Petitioner then on January 12, 2017, sent a note to the deputy clerk requesting delivery to said judge of a copy of the filed Affidavit of Information (criminal complaint) and the original of Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Dkt. #70) as Void for Ewing Werlein, Jr.’s Lack of Authority to exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or enter Judgment in this Case,” hyperlinked infra.

Docket, Houston Action at Equity

Record, Houston Action at Equity (97 MB)

Note to Deputy Clerk, copy of Criminal Complaint (January 10, 2017), and Motion to Vacate Final Judgment and Preclusion Order as Void (January 12, 2017) (3 MB)

  1. Action at law: Plaintiff United States of America sues Petitioner in Lufkin action at law to foreclose tax liens against Petitioner’s property in Tyler County, Texas

Plaintiff United States of America on July 1, 2014 (two and a half years ago), files an action at law against Petitioner in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Civil Action No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Action at Law”) to foreclose on federal tax liens against Petitioner’s ranch in Tyler County, Texas; judge rules against Petitioner March 3, 2016.

When Petitioner (the defendant in this particular case) on September 15, 2015, demands the provision of the Constitution that gives plaintiff United States of America to capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt in the geographic area occupied by the body politic of Tyler County, Texas (where Petitioner’s real property is located and Petitioner is a resident), counsel for plaintiff United States of America go silent (see post of October 28, 2015, infra) and remain so for the duration of the case, which ends March 3, 2016, five and half months thereafter.

Following entry of final judgment against Petitioner (the defendant), United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on April 21, 2016, enters his “Order of Sale and to Vacate Property (April 21, 2016)”; whereupon Petitioner on June 13, 2016, serves Petitioner’s extra-judicial (commercial) Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace on Keith F. Giblin and the other two federal judges and two United States Department of Justice attorneys involved in the Lufkin Action at Law.

After seven months of silence since his original Order of Sale and to Vacate Property, United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on November 28, 2016, enters his “Amended Order of Sale and to Vacate Property.”

Petitioner’s ranch apparently is for sale at this writing—but Petitioner on January 13, 2017, files Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment (Dkt. #67-1) as Void for Michael H. Schneider’s Lack of Authority to Exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or Enter Judgment in this Case,” hyperlinked infra.

Motion to Vacate Final Judgment as Void (January 13, 2017)

  1. Action at equity: Petitioner sues Lufkin Division judge who enters “Order of Sale and to Vacate Property” in Tyler County, Texas court to quiet title

Shortly after United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on April 21, 2016, enters his Order of Sale and to Vacate Property in the above Lufkin Action at Law, Petitioner on May 12, 2016, files an action at equity in 88th District Court of Tyler County, Texas, Case No. 23,967, against United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin, to quiet title to the real property that is the object of the Order of Sale and to Vacate Property in the Lufkin Action at Law, and defendant Keith F. Giblin on June 6, 2016, removes and files said case as United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Civil Action No. 9:16-cv-00086 (the “Lufkin Action at Equity”).

With almost nothing happening for the last seven months, Petitioner on January 13, 2017, files in the Lufkin Action at Equity “Plaintiff’s Objection to this Proceeding for Marcia A. Crone’s Lack of Authority to Exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or Enter Judgment in this Case; and Motion to Remand,” hyperlinked infra.

Docket, Lufkin Action at Equity

Record, Lufkin Action at Equity (13 MB)

Objection to Proceeding and Motion to Remand (January 13, 2017)


Conclusion

The judicial system of the United States is populated by justices and judges who despise or would prefer to eliminate the Constitution from their brand of jurisprudence (municipal law); e.g.:

“‘I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),’ he wrote. . . .” The Washington Times, quoting United States Circuit Judge Richard Posner in “Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution,” June 27, 2016, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/ (accessed August 4, 2016).

The reason Judge Posner can get away with such apparently treasonous remarks about the Constitution without risking impeachment is that he neither is bound by oath or affirmation to support it nor has any duties under it to discharge or perform nor has any duty to preserve, protect, support, or defend it—only to carry out the duties assigned to him by his for-profit corporate employer, the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, “a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), doing business as “United States,” id., and managed by the Congress of the (corporate) “United States.”

Anyone who has taken an oath or affirmation to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 1, or “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” 5 U.S.C. § 3331, has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies who, not being bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, usurp exercise of “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, in a federal court of limited jurisdiction.

Irrespective of the myriad other discrepancies with justices and judges of the United States documented by Petitioner in the above-referenced cases over the last 35 months, the most fundamental of all is the lack of authority of any such justice or judge to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., or enter a decision or judgment in any case in any federal court of limited jurisdiction for failure to have bound himself by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, as required by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The task before the American People is to demand and bring about restoration of an exclusively republican, not municipal, form of government throughout the Union, where Texas and every other member thereof is free from usurpation of exercise of territorial or personal jurisdiction within its territory by municipal justices or judges of the United States or officers of the United States Department of Justice, as contemplated by the Framers and established at Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Standard

Petitioner sues six Federal judges and 41 others to recover home stolen two years ago under color of authority

The subject of this post is a comprehensive suit at equity (see post of March 18, 2016, infra, for the principles of equity) for a constructive trust based on constructive fraud, filed with the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, August 11, 2016, and amended August 16, 2016.

The root word of “constructive” is construe (not construct):

“con׳strue . . . to determine the meaning of ; interpret ; explain, as to construe a foreign language (into English) ; to construe one’s conduct ; to construe a clause or a law.”  A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903) (hereinafter “Funk & Wagnalls”), p. 404.

“constructive, adj. Legally imputed; having an effect in law though not necessarily in fact. ● Courts usu. give something a constructive effect for equitable reasons <the court held that the shift supervisor had constructive knowledge of the machine’s failure even though he did not actually know until two days later>.”  Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (West Group: St. Paul Minn., 1999), p. 309.

A constructive trust is not an actual trust per se but an equitable remedy imposed by the court to redress wrongs and prevent unjust enrichment resulting from, among other things, constructive fraud; to wit:

“constructive trust . . . a trust set up by a court to deal with property that has been acquired by fraud or by inequitable means; specifically : a trust so formed to distribute property where distribution and enjoyment under the original transaction was against the principles of equity.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: Unabridged, (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated: Springfield, Mass., 2000), s.v. “Constructive trust.”

“Constructive fraud occurs when there is a breach of a legal or equitable duty that, irrespective of guilt, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate confidence, or to injure public interests . . . . An example of constructive, as opposed to actual, fraud involves the failure to disclose facts when there is a duty to make a disclosure. . . .” William V. Dorsaneo III, Texas Litigation Guide, Vol. 4, Ch. 55 (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.: New York, 2016) (“Dorsaneo”), p. 55-5.

“The most important and common type of constructive fraud supporting the imposition of constructive trusts involves the breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship . . . . When an abuse of a confidential or fiduciary relationship is alleged, the burden of proof is on the fiduciary to establish the fairness of the transaction, that there was full disclosure of all facts and circumstances, and that there was good faith and the absence of pressure or influence on the part of the fiduciary . . . .”  Id. at 55-8.

“Fiduciary relationships are those that, as a matter of law, are relationships of trust and confidence. . . .”  Id. at 55-9.

Every judge is a fiduciary toward the public, of which Petitioner is a part; to wit:

“  ‘Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. . . .’ ” McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 371–372 (1987), quoting Judge Posner in United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (1987).

United States District Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division had an equitable duty to disclose certain material facts and information to Petitioner, but failed to do so, even when expressly requested of him.

Further, Defendant Hughes failed to discharge / perform a certain legal duty imposed by law (this same legal duty applies in every Federal civil case in every Federal court throughout the Union), which resulted in Petitioner’s loss of, among other things, beneficial use of Petitioner’s real property (Petitioner’s home) for the last 27 months and permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal property (in law, called “personalty”). 

“A constructive trust may be imposed on anyone who knowingly participates in another’s breach of a fiduciary duty or knowingly benefits from the breach. The remedy ‘reaches all those who are actually concerned in the fraud, all who directly and knowingly participate in its fruits, and all those who derive title from them voluntarily or with notice.’ ”  Dorsaneo, p. 55-14.

There are 46 other Defendants who knowingly participated in Defendant Hughes’ breach of fiduciary duty, one of whom is JPMRRE, LLC, who acquired title to Petitioner’s home in Porter, Texas (the “Porter Property”)—not at a public auction as ordered by Defendant Hughes in his May 23, 2014, Order of Sale and Vacature, but privately and secretly and at less than 75 percent of its fair market value on date of sale, August 25, 2014.

Defendant JPMRRE, LLC is not entitled to retain the Porter Property; to wit:

“A third party who obtains property as a result of the defendant’s [Defendant Hughes’] fraud or other wrongdoing is not entitled to retain that property . . . . The key is whether the recipient is unjustly enriched. A bona fide purchaser for full value would not be unjustly enriched by being allowed to retain the property; instead, the constructive trust is imposed on the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the wrongdoer . . . . In contrast, those who benefit from another’s wrongdoing and do not pay full value for the property may be forced to accept a constructive trust on the property they have received. . . .”  Dorsaneo, p. 55-21.  

Normal Federal solution: Remove case to Federal court

What normally happens in cases like this when someone sues the Federal government or a Federal officer in a state court, is that an officer of the United States Department of Justice simply gives notice to the state court that he is removing the case to a Federal court under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 or 1442 and thereafter opens a new case in the closest United States District Court.

Any application to remove this Texas case to a Federal court is unauthorized, fraudulent, and willful—because the only species of court to which the aforementioned statutes authorize removal—a limited-jurisdiction District Court of the United Statesno longer exists, rendering lawful removal impossible.

Typically, Federal actors just bulldoze over anyone and everyone in their path to achieve their objective; in this instance, removal of the Texas case to a Federal court.

The commercial liability that accrues to each defendant personally / organizationally for unlawful removal of this case, however, is far more extreme than the few millions of dollars in damages owed as a consequence of Defendant Hughes’ constructive fraud and theft of Petitioner’s home under color of authority and the 46 other defendants’ participation therein.

The penalty for such removal is spelled out in Petitioner’s “Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace,”  which appears at the top of Plaintiff’s Amended Original Petition (hyperlinked below).

Petitioner on (a) August 11, 2016, filed the original petition; (b) August 15, 2016, a “Notice of Lis Pendens”  (lis means controversy or dispute or suit at law or equity; pendens means pending) against Petitioner’s stolen home; and (c) August 16, 2016, an amended original petition.

The amended original petition was served on Defendants either by personal delivery or USPS Certified Mail, return receipt requested, beginning August 25, 2016.

In the process of conspiring criminally and committing theft of Petitioner’s home under color of authority, Defendants committed collectively between 10,000 and 15,000 felonies—each of which has a substantial monetary value and for which every Defendant, beginning as of his respective initial date of participation in the purported case employed to defraud Petitioner of his home, would be personally liable to Petitioner should any Defendant purport to remove said Montgomery County, Texas, case to a purported United States District Court without statutory or constitutional authority.

A description of the two files hyperlinked below:

  • “Plaintiff’s Amended Original Petition, August 16, 2016 (18.6 MB)”  (a) dissolves any confusion the reader may have developed over his life as to the exact nature of what he mistakenly believes is the United States, Department of the Treasury, Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Internal Revenue Service, United States Department of Justice, Office of the Clerk of Court (of any Federal court), United States District Courts, United States Marshals Service, United States Courts of Appeals, United States Treasury, and Federal Reserve—intentionally manufactured by Congress (and actors within the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation and these organizations) over the last 152 years, in order to defraud Americans of their birthright and deprive them of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, (b) documents the constructive fraud of the trial-court judge, Defendant Lynn Nettleton Hughes, and connivance with Defendant Hughes on the part of the five circuit judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, (c) demonstrates that (i) no Defendant individual is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, (ii) every United States District Court is a municipal court of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; and (iii) other than Defendant United States of America, no Defendant organization is part of the organic general government of the de jure Republic of March 4, 1789, (d) itemizes the dollar-value of the constructive fraud and various types of damages resulting therefrom, and (e) demands judgment decreeing, among other things, a constructive trust on the Porter Property, with Defendant JPMRRE, LLC as constructive trustee for the benefit of Petitioner, and ordering Defendant JPMRRE, LLC to convey to Petitioner within 20 days free and clear of all encumbrances the entire interest held by Defendant JPMRRE, LLC in the Porter Property;
  • The “Notice of Lis Pendens, August 15, 2016,”  filed four days after the original petition, one day before the amended original petition, in the Official Public Records of Montgomery County, Texas, against the Porter Property warns potential buyers that the title thereto presently held in the name of Defendant JPMRRE, LLC is in litigation and that, should someone purchase Defendant JPMRRE, LLC’s claim to the Porter Property, he is in danger of being bound by an adverse judgment.

Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition, August 16, 2016 (18.6 MB) *

Notice of Lis Pendens, August 15, 2016

* Note: This document has numerous references to the United States Statutes at Large. In this context, the phrase “at large”  means “Not included within particular limitations; in general; for all; as, a Congressman at large (Funk & Wagnalls, p. 1003, s.v. “Large”). For example, 104 Stat. 4935 means the 104th volume of the Statutes at Large, page 4935. Using the following link the reader can verify for himself the accuracy of any reference herein to the Statutes at Large: http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=104&page=4935#. When the page comes up, simply insert the number of the desired volume and page in the appropriate box and click “Get Document”  and that particular page of that particular volume of the Statutes at Large will appear. From there the reader can click to go to the next sequential page or prior page or insert new numbers and go to an entirely different volume or page.

Standard