In the original Houston Division case, 31 Federal actors in the United States District Court, United States Department of Justice, and United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, taken collectively, committed over 10,000 felonies while perpetrating the theft of Petitioner’s house in Montgomery County, Texas.
This is known as “Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity” (Texas Penal Code Sec. 71.02).
Presently, United States District Courts located throughout the Union purport to have territorial and personal jurisdiction, over property located and people residing there.
Success of such United States District Courts, in tandem with the United States Department of Justice, in defrauding and depriving the American People of life, liberty, and property, depends utterly on concealment of the fact that the Constitution authorizes Government to exercise territorial and personal jurisdiction only in geographic area in which Congress have power of territorial and personal legislation.
There is no provision of the Constitution that confers upon Congress the power of territorial or personal legislation anywhere within the Union.
Congress have power of territorial and personal legislation (two of the three aspects of exclusive legislation, the other being subject-matter) only as expressly provided in Articles 1 § 8(17) and 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution.
The geographic area in which the Constitution grants Congress power of territorial and personal legislation is “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2)), e.g., the District of Columbia and the territories.
There really is nothing more to the Federal con than that simple fact.
Government is usurping exercise of territorial and personal jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area throughout the Union, and engaging in organized criminal activity in doing so.
Petitioner is in the process of effectuating remedy in the Houston Division case, for the unlawful taking of Petitioner’s home without constitutional authority (theft), and the below-hyperlinked instruments represent the first step toward that end.
The below-hyperlinked Affidavit of Information was filed with the same 65 senior officers in military authority as previous criminal complaints.
* * * *
 We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. . . . Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).