• Home
  • Commentary/Survival
  • Edible/ Medicinal Plants

Freedom Documents

~ documents from sovereigns on how to attain freedom- Not legal advice-just what has worked for others

Freedom Documents

Tag Archives: Hagans v. Lavine

Declaration of Independence – Latter Day Declarant

28 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Banana Co. v. United Fruit, Articles of Confederation, Brooks v. Yawkey, citizenship, Declaration of Independence, Downes v. Bidwell, Foley Brothers v. Filardo, Hagans v. Lavine, Heath v. Alabama, Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, Maine v. Thiboutot, New Orleans v. United States, register to vote, remedy for voting, Standard v. Olesen, state citizenship, Stuck v. Board of Medical Examiners, U.S. Citizen, U.S. v. Dewitt, United States v. Lopez, United States v. Spelar, voting

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

LATTER DAY DECLARANT

 

THE LAW AND HISTORY OF FREEDOM

The Declaration of Independence set the People of the thirteen states free by dissolving the political bands which had connected the “one People” with the British monarchy and Parliament. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, American independence was formally recognized and complete. The People of the United States ceased to be subjects of the British monarchy or the Parliament of Britain. After Independence, the People could never again be subjects of government or the subjects of legislation, because their unalienable rights entitled them to freedom and so long as there was a Creator those rights were theirs.

After the Declaration of Independence, all written laws can apply only to government and those persons who consent or volunteer to be governed by legislation. Before Independence, Parliament exercised the legislative powers of a king, because government in the United Kingdom is the British monarchy. Prior to Independence, Parliament made law for both the People and the British bureaucracy.After the Declaration of Independence, there was no government that could impose additional legal duties on the People in the several states. The Creator has imposed all legal duties on the People that were possible up to the time of Independence. The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law.

The Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure the Rights endowed by the Creator. Government that “becomes destructive of these Ends” endows the People with the Right and Duty “to alter or abolish it.” The People’s Right and Duty to alter government makes certain the concept that written laws have exclusive application to government and not the People. The problem with believing in voting as a means of obtaining freedom in the kind of society created by the Declaration of Independence is the failure to understand that voting is a characteristic of government and after the Declaration of Independence the People are freed from participation in government. The right to be free of all government is possible after the Declaration of Independence and that right remains to this day. At the time the People won their freedom from Britain, the Creator had not imposed upon them a legal duty to obey British laws. An understanding of voting can be used to communicate to government employees the difference between voting and electing, but voting is not and cannot be mandatory. Voting is the right of the federal territorial citizen awaiting the admission into statehood of the federal territory where he is registered to vote. A voter who qualifies as an elector elects those officials, for instance, who manage and administer municipal government. This paper will explain how a citizen can register to vote as an elector using the federal voter apparatus, procedures and forms.

Just about anyone can vote for or against anything, that is the nature of the democracy. There are many things that cannot be put to a vote with any hope of accomplishing a change. If all men are created equal, re-instituting the British monarchy is an impossibility.  Voting simply allows frustration and anger to be dissipated in what has become a useless act. Voting acknowledges the legitimacy of the ruling political state. The numerical vote merely affects a change in the names of those in government. Real political power is held by those who can elect the tax assessor, the tax collector and the sheriff.

When you want to be free, you don’t want to be known as just a voter, you want to be an elector. The basic difference between an elector and a voter is the elector’s qualification to elect a candidate to public office and to be elected to public office. It is possible for a voter to be unqualified to hold a public office if that voter is a citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. When that voter is domiciled within federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress, that voter is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not free to hold a state or municipal public office. A state elector must always be domiciled outside territory subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States Congress and must reside inside territory not subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.

The commonly held assumption that anyone born in one of the United States is a citizen of the United States or a U.S. citizen is getting in the way of what people want most-freedom. Article IV of both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution affirm that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. Claiming to be a U.S. or United States citizen and putting yourself in a place subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States Congress will subject you to the jurisdiction of the United States in ways the Framers of the Constitution never thought possible. To be truly free, a person must go back to his or her roots. Generally, birth in a state confers the citizenship of that state, but today’s elections bureaucrat is looking for a statement that the registration applicant is a U.S. citizen and will seek to disqualify anyone who refuses to make that statement under penalties of perjury. The citizen of a state will state the fact of state citizenship under a testimonial oath that the matter is stated as the “Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me, God.”

Completing and making a federal voter registration form declaration subject to the penalty of perjury is an admission that the declarant is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Such an admission makes the declarant a Fourteenth Amendment citizen residing on federal territory and is to be avoided if the declarant is not domiciled on federal territory subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress. People want to be just as free as Americans were after the Treaty of Paris, but that is now impossible as a citizen of the United States or as a U.S. citizen. Such citizens are subject to the jurisdiction and legislation of Congress in much the same ways as Americans were the subjects of His Britannic Majesty before the Declaration of Independence. Such citizens will always be subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, but the amount and duration of that jurisdiction can be controlled by knowing the location of all federal territory.

For persons born in the several states and naturalized citizens, the remedy for the expansion of federal power is simple: Stop claiming citizenship in a government that doesn’t permit the full exercise of freedom, and stop pretending to be something you cannot prove. The name “United States” when appended to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court describes a government that administers the business of the several states of the Union and a confederacy known as the United States of America. Each branch, when acting for itself, is effective for government business, but it can have no effect on the individual members of the People. All that most of us can prove is that we were born in a state of the Union and that is all that is necessary to keep one or more branches of government from us. We should only claim what we can prove, because being a citizen of anyone of the free states of the most successful confederacy in the world is achievement of the highest form of citizenship. With that, we can elect to have nothing more to do with government.

State citizenship is the best form, but citizenship that is derived through citizen parents is, in my opinion, next best. Naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America almost as good as being born in a state. Members of Congress and the inferior federal judges (which include the United States district court judges and the judges of the courts of appeal and officers of the United States) subject themselves to individual federal income taxation and all applicable federal laws and regulations. Senators and Representatives must be citizens of the United States prior to taking office and they swear or affirm to support the Constitution upon taking office, as do members of the military. State officers, similarly, lose the freedom and protections offered by state citizenship when they take similar oaths and affirmations to obey the Constitution and obey the laws.

The states that make up the United States of America are republics, where the citizens hold all political power. The Congress of the United States is the national government. The citizens of the national government are citizens of the states who by election or appointment subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Congress; citizens of the United States born in certain territories and those who hold themselves out to be citizens of the United States or U.S. citizens.

The United States of America is a confederacy and perpetual Union of states formed by the Articles of Confederation. “People” born to the soil of those states are citizens and most importantly “Natives” of those states and this “Standing” goes to the paramount issue of “Nativity”. Persons born in federal territory within a state are citizens of that state, however persons born in certain possessions owned by the United States of America may be United States citizens or U.S. citizens by act of Congress but they cannot enjoy all the benefits of citizenship conferred on those born in a state of the Union unless and until they begin to reside outside of federal territory.  Aliens that immigrate to the United States may become permanent residents of the United States and then may become citizens of the United States of America. Status such as that entitles them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.

The Declaration of Independence instituted the nation of free People that were freed from the political bonds that connected them to the monarchy and Parliament of Britain, and they could be free today if they had not consented to United States jurisdiction. The Articles of Confederation however, created the United States of America, and the Constitution formed a more perfect Union by creating a federal national government of three branches.

The national government consists of the Congress of the United States constituted of members of Congress; the inferior federal judges of the district courts and courts of appeal; the President and the Supreme Court. To this day, the national government rules over the federal territories located in every state of the Union. However, the national government has no power over the People in the states. They were freed as subjects of government and the legislative power of government by the Declaration of Independence. Incidentally, Negro slaves remained property under the English common law.

The federal judges of the United States district courts are the citizen individuals of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. The judges are officially classed as federal employees and are to be distinguished from Article III judicial officers, such as members of the Supreme Court of the United States. These non-judicial officers of the legislative branch form the core of the individuals that have duties. Senators and Representatives may be elected by the people of the states, but the legislation the Congress produces is legislation for the national government and the government of the several states that make up the Union and those officers and employees that make up the federal bureaucracy. The Declaration of Independence freed the People from Britain and left them in a state where they can individually consent or not to be governed by legislation.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REGISTERING TO VOTE FOR FREEDOM

How can a person born in a state or a naturalized citizen register as an elector using the federal Voter Registration Form (VRF)? To properly register as a citizen of one of the several states or of the United States of America, the federal VRF must be altered. The federal form (found in Post Offices) is easily recognized by the question at the beginning of the form: “Are you a U.S. citizen?” When you are not, you can’t use the form, because it is created just for 14th Amendment citizens. Some alternative forms are available from the Secretary of State’s office, but this form just eliminates the question and changes little else. Some of these forms ask if you are a citizen of the United States of America and all of them want you to certify under penalty of perjury admitting residence in federal territory. This report explains how and why the federal form must be altered to permit registration as a non-citizen of the United States. A blank federal Voter Registration Form (VRF) for your county can be obtained at city halls, libraries, the secretary of state for your state and your county recorder. Strike all references to U.S. or United States and enter (where appropriate) that you are a citizen of your birth state. Enter your personal information on the form and mail it. You will receive a post card notifying you that you are registered to vote. Save this post card so you can easily obtain a certified copy of your registration as a citizen of a state or of the United States of America. You are able to request a certified copy of your VRF from the county recorder office for a nominal fee (approximately $7.00) Big government has made a mess of everything. The only way to fix it is to fix the way we register to vote. Unless you have corrected your Voter Registration Form (VRF), you have been affirming being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. every time you have voted. Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, which means that you “don’t have to take the democracy that is constantly being pushed.” We each live in a state of the Union that is guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, which means that real citizens, not 14th Amendment citizens determine who is elected. There are activities in our lives that can’t be put to a vote. These activities constitute our freedom. The Democracy the federal government has been working on since the Civil War wants everything put to a vote or at least a poll and they rig the vote and skew the poll. We must be able to break free of federal bureaucratic domination if real citizens are to govern themselves again. Special interests have left many states debt-ridden failures. The biggest operating special interest is the federal bureaucracy. How do we get rid of the feds? The simple act of registering to vote as a citizen of your birth state is a first step. The procedure is easy and provides immediate answers to any questions of its practical value that you might have.

A U.S. citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress because the Congress is a national government and the citizens of a state do not reside on or in federal territory. U.S. citizens living in the seat of government, Washington D. C., have no representation in Congress. U.S. citizens located within states of the Union who are residents of the federal territory within a state may vote in federal elections but not local ones. The only power these U.S. citizens have is to vote for Congress, the Electoral College and whatever state candidates are on the ballot. The people of the United States constitute the citizens and electors for the governments of the states but they are not the subjects of government or subject to its jurisdiction. The U.S. citizen Voter Registration Form (VRF) is the basis for the federal juries, so the reader should see immediately that correctly completing the Form is critical to confining the feds to the federal judicial districts. The feds are hiding the fact that federal judicial district consist only of the federal ceded territory within the state’s counties that comprise the districts. Federal judges in federal courts are not free to do justice because they have no judicial powers. The federal district court judges that populate those courts are not constitutional Article III jurists, they are Article I legislative officers of the United States.

Though these judges / administrative officers are appointed to life terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate they can only wield legislative power. Without the judicial power of the United States, these federal judges are mere administrative arbiters for those who submit administrative disputes for their disposition. Non-judicial courts invite more mistakes and more injustice. Federal administrative courts must charge a felony by a true bill of indictment brought by a federal grand jury and convict by a petit jury of U.S. citizens. These citizens would be extremely scarce if the feds were not able to create through the voting process another way to confuse the so-called U.S. citizen. The people of the states who can only prove birth in one of the several states are being told they can only vote if they declare themselves to be U.S. citizens. All the Voter Registration Forms (VRF) produced by state election officials are all written to proclaim that only U.S. citizens may vote, because these forms are for U.S. citizens State election officials must conduct elections for both state and federal offices and are entirely responsible for the manner in which those elections are conducted. Federal election officials direct federal money to the states and have demanded and obtained uniformity in which federal electors are identified. We do not have to accept the VRF as it is printed; in fact, it is our duty to correct it.

We cannot be prohibited from making corrections to the form, so it is appropriate and necessary that the VRF be corrected so that it can be signed by a testimonial oath of truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, rather than under a penalty of perjury by a citizen of a state or a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.

To avoid subjecting yourself, to U.S. jurisdiction, and thereby subjecting some Californian [or enter your state] to unwelcome jurisdiction of the federal bureaucracy, you can do what I do-register as a citizen of your birth state. Once registered, you become an elector of the state where you registered to vote. A person must be a qualified elector to hold public office, so acknowledgment of your successful registration a state citizen will confirm the legitimacy of your state citizenship status. What will registering as a state citizen do for you and California [enter your state]?

Substantial numbers of non-U.S. voter registrations will free Californians from bondage to the federal government, John Ashcroft, and George Bush. Who are U.S. citizens? This is not easy to answer because this is more a why question than a who question. When a citizen of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, why would you want to be a U.S. or United States citizen? When you finally and safely reach past the midpoint of life, you have learned some rules that you can freely share with those still making the climb through life. One of these important rules is: Do not claim what you cannot prove. A sound, good life is one that seeks truth and there is no better way to find truth that to live the truth.

On the VRF, you do not want to claim to be a U.S. citizen when you cannot prove it. Most people can claim to be a citizen of the state in which they were born because this is the law everywhere. Diplomats are not subject to this rule, so when you are the child of a diplomat, you may be a citizen of your parent’s country.   The United States describes 50 states united in a confederation called the United States of America, or it can be a government consisting of representatives from those 50 states. Whatever the United States or U.S. might be, it is difficult to be a citizen of the United States and so much easier to be a citizen of the state where you were born.

Registering to vote as a citizen of the state where you were born or a citizen of the United States of America is all you need to prove that you are NOT a U.S. citizen. You cannot prove you are a citizen of the U.S. or the United States, when all you have is a birth certificate showing birth in one of the several states. Citizens of Puerto Rico are made citizens of the United States by act of Congress and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There is a definite ambiguity related to being a U.S. citizen that can only be resolved by an investigation of how those who assert U.S. citizenship fare. U.S. Individuals are those who must contend with the onerous laws, rules and regulations of the Title 26 U.S.C., and the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Service. We know that members of Congress and the inferior federal judges of the United States district courts must make and file U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns Form 1040 because the oath prescribed by the Constitution in Article VI requires them. These individuals of the legislative branch fit the description of citizens of the United States who subject themselves to the supreme Law of the Land.   The Fourteenth Amendment does not describe the individual citizens of the states of the Union:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Registration as an elector based on the citizenship provided by your birth state precludes you being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or the U.S.  The individual citizens of the states constitute the electors of those states who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The VRF you use must be corrected if you are to claim citizenship of your birth state. Do not claim to be a United States citizen unless you are sure you are and never certify anything under penalties of perjury.

Federal Territorial Jurisdiction

& Related Authority

The Constitution does not establish the Federal government as the territorial legal authority over us, but rather it establishes the federal government as the legal authority around us and between us. The State governments remain as the representative of the sovereign (We the People) and retain their territorial jurisdiction over their own citizens and own affairs. The Federal government is given authority by the Constitution over affairs with foreign countries (around us), and over interstate commerce (between us), but not directly over us.

The Constitution, of course, gives the federal government complete authority over all foreign affairs and foreign persons in America. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 4 of the Constitution grant powers to the federal government over foreign affairs, agreements, and persons; and Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution prohibit the States from enacting agreements with foreign entities. This absolute federal jurisdiction over all agreements with foreign governments and over all foreign persons in America is part of the legal authority allowing for the passage of a tariff act authorizing the collection of an income tax from foreign persons on their activity in America.

To see that the income tax actually created by the tariff act is only imposed by law within this foreign jurisdiction that the federal government possesses under the constitution over all foreign matters, and is not actually imposed domestically beyond that foreign jurisdiction on citizens and residents within America, one only need examine the difference in the treatment under the law between non-resident aliens and resident aliens in regards to the withholding of tax at the source.

From the legal definition of the Withholding Agent we clearly see that non-resident aliens are subject to the withholding of income tax underSection 1441. However, as soon as a non-resident alien becomes a resident alien, then he/she is no longer subject to the withholding of income tax at the source by the Withholding Agent because he/she is no longer part of the definition of the Withholding Agent’s authority over subject persons. The statutory definition of the Withholding Agent, from Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(16), only specified that withholding was required under Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461, as we have seen. Once the non-resident alien become a resident alien they are no longer the subject of the tax, and it is no longer authorized to be withheld from them because they are no longer within its jurisdictional reach because as a resident of one of the fifty states the aliens’ activity is now recognized by the law as being domestic and not foreign, and therefore outside the federal territorial and subject matter jurisdictions.

The resident alien’s economic activity is no longer within the foreign jurisdictional authority of the federal government because they are now under the territorial jurisdictional authority of the state government that they are resident within. Tariffs are imposed on foreign activity, not domestic. As soon as the non-resident alien becomes a resident (“resident” is defined in the law) his activity is recognized by the law as being moved from the “foreign” category that is subject to a tariff, and into the “domestic” category, which is outside the subjectivity to any tariff, and the withholding of tax from their payments terminates. Domestic activity is not subject to any tariff because a tariff is a foreign tax. Even when the activity is conducted by a foreign person who has become a resident in the U.S. (but who is still foreign) the tax is not withheld at the source because the resident is not subject to the payment of a tariff, because a resident’s activity is not considered foreign, but domestic, and is therefore not lawfully subject to payment of a tariff on foreign activity. If resident aliens aren’t even subject to the income tax it is of course absurd to even suggest that American citizens are, or ever were the proper subjects of this income tax in the form of a foreign tariff – that is all government mythical fiction and propaganda, as we have exposed.

Additionally, the Federal government is the territorial authority in the U.S. territories and possessions, where it is the authority over the people in those places, but not in the fifty states.

And what does the Supreme Court say about Federal jurisdiction

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters {outside of Constitutionally delegated powers} 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 government. Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of land, enclaves, territories and possession over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the Federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.” New Orleans v. United States, 35 US (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)

“All legislation is prima facie territorial” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S.347, 357-358.

“There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” United States v. Spelar,  338 U.S. 217, 222

“the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed … The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted …” Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 221, 223.

“… the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government” Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82.

“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768.

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Board of Medical Examiners, 94 Cal2d 751

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)

“… Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown.” Brooks v. Yawkey,200 F.2d 633 (1st Cir.)(1953)

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528.

“If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed.” Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149.

“It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears” Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281.

“Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity..” [City Street Improv Co. v. Pearson, 181 C 640,185 P. (1962); O’Neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P2d 234]

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533]

“Failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to denial of due process: if regulations are required by Constitution or statute.” [Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52]

“Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal government has nothing approaching a police power.” United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995).

“…the commerce clause…has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states” U.S. v. Dewitt, 76 U.S. 41; 9 Wall 4; 19 L. Ed. 593

4 USC § 72. Public offices; at seat of government.

All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.

 

 

Advertisements

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Memorandum Asserting Rights

23 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Adickes v. Kress Co., American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, Anastasoff v. United States, Benziger v. US, Conley v. Gibson, Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, Davis v. Wechsler, Einhorn v. Dewitt, Elliot v. Piersol, Fritss v. Krugh Sup Ct Michigan, Frost and Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, Gonzales v. Buist, Gould v. Gould, Hagans v. Lavine, Holt v. United States, In re Marriage of Stefiniw, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt 158 F.R.D. 278, Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., National Exchange Bank v, National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, Old Waybe Life Ass'n v. McDonough, Pennoyer v. Neff, People v. Byrnes, Plaskey v. CIA, Shushan v. United States, Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, subject matter jurisdiction, The Telephone Cases 126 U.S. 1, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, U.S v. Hill - 123 U.S. 681 (1887), U.S. v. One 1972 Cadillac, U.S. v. Throckmorton, U.S. v. Twenty-Two Firearms, Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Insur. Co., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Wooson

 

(For Charles F. Conces) 
 
(His name was Charles F. Conces, and he died after giving this notice of rights to the US Justice Department and the IRS. He came out of a restaurant that he’d attended a meeting at and he died.  I personally believe he was poisoned, but what do I know since I was not there.
Charles headed a group called the Lawmen, that had about 5000 members, that worked to restore our unalienable rights.  I spent days helping him find case law though I was not a member and others spent much more time than I did. He encouraged and showed many how to defend themselves in court. He was jailed like most that have the courage to expose our corrupt judicial system and the IRS.)
 
(Blog Master’s Note: Jerry Stanton {Author of “Things Your Lawyer,  Attorney or Judge Won’t Tell You”} has given permission to reprint this court document.  NOTE: everything must be double spaced when presenting documents to a court.  I will provide links to court cases that are available on the internet.  I found two hidden Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Hill and United States v. Throckmorton, .  The Same was true for all F.R.D.  Federal Rules Decisions, only references.) 
 
  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                  Civil No. 1:05CV0713   

Plaintiff,                                                                     Judge Gordon J. Quist

Vs.

Defendant,

Charles Conces,

Individually,

D/b/a Chairman of the Lawmen, Public Interest Groups, an unincorporated organization

________________________________________________________________/

Charles F. Conces,                                                          USA Plaintiff,

Pro-se,                                          Chief Counsel of Internal Revenue Service,

9523 Pine Hill Dr.,                                                           Name Unknown

Battle Creek, Michigan                                                     Address Unknown

__________________________________________________________________/

Michael S. Raum, ND Bar No. 05676, Trial Attorney, Tax Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238, Washington, D.C. 20044,

_________________________________________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS

Now Comes The Defendant, Charles F. Conces, presenting this

 Memorandum and Assertion of Rights, to this Honorable Court.

The Defendant, Charles F. Conces, hereby declares and asserts the Rights to which he is entitled. Preliminary understanding of the Court’s authority is basic to the assertion of rights:

The Court is obliged to follow precedence decisions as stated in Faye Anastasoff vs. United States of America, 8th Circuit Court, 2000: “It is on this account that our law is deemed certain, and founded in permanent principles, and not dependant on the caprice or will of judges. A more alarming doctrine could not be promulgated by any American court, than that it was at liberty to disregard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference to the settled course of antecedent principles.”

The United States District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (see Black’s Law Dictionary – Seventh Edition) and their power is limited by precedent decisions.

“While in a court of general jurisdiction, there is a presumption that the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction, such is not the case in courts of limited jurisdiction. In all courts of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction.” State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986).

In Anastasoff v. United States,  (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

 “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are [254 U.S. 348, 354] not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340; Old Wayne Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 , 27 Sup. Ct. 236. (underline emphasis added)

1. Defendant asserts his right to reject the Magistrate Judge, Hugh Brenneman, as the presiding judge in this civil case. See Rules of Civil Procedure. Charles F. Conces has previously done so, and does, here and now, reject said Magistrate Judge as the presiding judge in this case.

2. Defendant is entitled to his Constitutional rights. Charles F. Conces does, hereby, assert his 4th Amendment rights to be secure in his person, property, papers, effects, etc. and further asserts that he will not violate any other person’s Constitutional rights to be secure in their person, property, papers, effects, etc.

Some precedent decisions affecting the assertion of Constitutional rights in court are:

“It is true that the constitutional claim would warrant convening a three-judge court and that if a single judge rejects the statutory claim, a three-judge court must be called to consider the constitutional issue.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 528 at 545, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S Ct, 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974).

“Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). “It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land.  Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Boyd v. US, 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

3. The record shows that DOJ attorneys violated Charles F. Conces’ due process rights by not obtaining the prerequisite authorization for the civil suit as per 26 USC 7401 and falsifying the record. Thomas Curteman and Michael Raum committed fraud thereafter by covering up the lie, stated by Michael Raum in the complaint and amended complaint that the authorizations had been obtained.

Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110 (CA5): “No trustee has more sacred duties than a public official and any scheme to obtain an advantage by corrupting such and one must in the federal law be considered a scheme to defraud.” 117 F.2d, at 115.

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): “Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth.”

Defendant hereby asserts his right to due process under the Constitution and precedence decisions. Defendant also asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge to make a ruling based on these facts and precedence. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

The Court in PAF, Inc. vs. BA Properties, Inc., N.D. Va. 1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 545, held: “Authorization required by section of Internal Revenue Code requiring government authorization for any civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture is jurisdictional; if claimant fails to show compliance with the statute either by the pleadings or, where the issue is joined, by proof, then the court must dismiss the case.”

This Court should have dismissed this case, as the jurisdictional authorization was challenged, and the DOJ refused to respond. Judge Quist is presumed to know the law. Conces repeatedly challenged the DOJ attorneys on that jurisdictional question and repeatedly asked if the DOJ attorneys had obtained the 7401 authorizations, and repeatedly they refused to answer until Conces was able to gather enough information to prove that they had not done so.

The Court in U.S. vs. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe Deville, 2-Door Hardtop, ID No. 6D47R2Q238129, E.D. Ky. 1973, 355 F. Supp. 513, held: “Provision of this section that civil actions may not be commenced unless Secretary of Treasury or his delegate authorizes or sanctions it and Attorney General or his delegate directs that it be commenced is jurisdictional.”

The Court in U.S. vs. Twenty-Two Firearms, D.C.Colo. 1979, 463 F. Supp. 730, held: “In absence of a denial, authorization of the Secretary or his delegate and the direction of the Attorney General or his delegate to commence forfeiture proceeding by means of which government sought to declare firearms forfeit could be presumed, however, allegations of authority to proceed and direction to commence the action are denied, issues are put to proof and conditions precedent shall not be presumed.”

The record was falsified by the DOJ attorneys.

“The record must show that the statute was complied with”; In re Marriage of Stefiniw, 253 Ill.App.3d 196, 625 N.E.2d 358 (1st Dist. 1993).

“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v Buist, (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.

The record of the case shows that the DOJ attorneys falsified the record.

“A judgment is characterized as void and may be collaterally attacked at any time where the record itself furnished the facts which establish that the court acted without jurisdiction.” People v. Byrnes, 34 Ill.App.3d 983, 341 N.E.2d 729 (2nd Dist. 1975).

The April 11, 2006, filing by Charles Conces, challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court disregarded those challenges, and in doing so, denied the rights of Charles Conces to a settlement of those jurisdictional challenges, in violation of Due Process.

“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”,Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

The DOJ attorneys committed fraud by falsifying the record.

“Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court”, People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994). (underline emphasis)

“A ‘void’ judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.” 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97. (underline emphasis)

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” United States v. Throckmorton,  98 U.S. 61. (underline emphasis)

“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.” State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998).

“Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.” State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W.2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998).

4. Charles Conces asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge. If Judge Quist does not follow the law, i.e. vacate the Orders issued in this case, due to fraud worked on 26 USC 7401, then it must be concluded that Quist is not following statutory procedure, and loses subject matter jurisdiction. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

28 U.S. Code 455:”Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned… He shall disqualify himself in the following circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

Subject matter jurisdiction fails: if a judge does not follow statutory procedure, and where the judge does not act impartially, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921), Bracy v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). (underline emphasis)

“Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse. When a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.”Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962). (underline emphasis)

“A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.” In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999). (underline emphasis)

“Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect” Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982). (underline emphasis)

Judge Quist violated precedence law and the rights of Charles Conces, when he stated that he would not tolerate jurisdictional challenges. It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Quist has not acted impartially and fairly, and must recuse himself. It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Quist has acted in an extremely biased and unfair way, and that Quist has no intention of acting impartially in future proceedings. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

“Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.” People v. Rolland 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

“Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.” People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).  Conces also finds that Judge Quist’s statements at the June 21, 2006, hearing, reveal that Judge Quist had not read nor understood the pleadings of Conces. Quist stated, “And I just rejected the most recent documents. It is the same stuff that I see all the time from people that believe for one reason or another they don’t have to pay their taxes.” None of Conces’ pleadings have ever stated or inferred that people should not pay their taxes. Then Quist listed a number of tax protester arguments, and Conces had to repeatedly state that he has never used those arguments. Quist had his mind made up before he had even looked at the Conces pleadings and court rulings that Conces had presented to the Court.

 

5. Conces asserts his right to the findings and conclusions on all matters of fact, law, and any discretionary matters. See April 11, 2006, Defendant filing which stated, “This Court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear this case. See Undisputed Facts, in particular numbers 8 through 18.” Judge Quist refused to present findings and conclusions, in violation of precedent decision:  South Carolina State Port Authority v. Federal Maritime Commission et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. Argued February 25, 2002–Decided May 28, 2002: “ The proceedings are adversary in nature. They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence. A party is entitled to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits together with the pleadings constitutes the exclusive record for decision. The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.” (underline emphasis)

Charles Conces hereby asserts his right to an impartial judge who will follow precedence law, from which the Court derives its powers. Anastoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

6. Charles Conces, hereby asserts his right to challenge jurisdiction and the right to have the Court follow precedence and stop all proceedings until the jurisdictional questions are settled. See April 11, 2006 filing for “undisputed facts”, numbered 8 through 18.

“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the question is, whether on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extra-judicial; with or without the authority of law, to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties.” State of Rhode Island v. Com. of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838). (underline emphasis)

The United States Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have ruled that when jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven, on the record, or the case must be dismissed.  See: Melo v. U.S. , 505 F 2d, 1026. “Once jurisdiction has been challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction.  The court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the case.” and see Joyce v. U.S. , 474 F2d 215.

 

7. Charles Conces asserts his right to have this Court of limited jurisdiction, adhere strictly to its statutory authority, and be presented with statutory authority for actions.

“Whereas a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have jurisdiction to render any judgment in a case arising under the common law, there is no such presumption of jurisdiction in cases arising under a specific statutory grant of authority. In the later cases the record must reveal the facts which authorize the court to act.” Zook v. Spannaus, 34 Ill.2d 612, 217 N.E.2d 789 (1966).

Subject matter jurisdiction fails: if a judge does not follow statutory procedure, and where the judge does not act impartially, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921), Bracy v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). (underline emphasis)

8. Charles Conces asserts his right to have all jurisdictional matters and questions on jurisdiction settled before the Court proceeds further. Judge Quist denied my request to settle jurisdictional questions and proceeded without even a pause or serious reflection on the jurisdiction matters.

“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.”STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838). (underline emphasis)

Anastasoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

9. Charles Conces asserts his right to be informed if any corrections are necessary. See Haines v. Kerner ,  404 U.S. 519 (1972) and Plaskey v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, “Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.”

Judge Quist and Judge Brenneman have denied every motion that Charles Conces has made, without providing opportunity for any corrections and without even stating that any corrections were necessary. Such violations of precedence, violates the rights of Charles Conces.

10. Charles Conces asserts his right to substantial justice. Substantial justice requires truth as to facts and law. The DOJ attorneys lied and made many false statements in the complaint and amended complaint, in violation of Rule 11 and Rule 8.

“Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
303 U.S. 197 .  Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957).

Charles Conces asserts his right to conclude that the precedence law, stated in the “factual Inquiry” and presented to the DOJ attorneys, is good case law and has not been overturned. Those precedence cases established that the requirement of “apportionment” is still operative in the U.S. Constitution, and that the 16th Amendment did not grant any additional taxing powers to the federal government, nor did it bring any new subjects under the federal government’s taxing powers. The DOJ attorneys remained silent on the factual inquiry.

11. Charles Conces asserts his right to know the cause of action that gave rise to the case. Without a cause of action listed, the case cannot be filed in District Court. The DOJ attorneys cited 28 USC section 1340, as the cause of action. “Einhorn” clearly states the fallacy of such a claim. The DOJ attorneys are presumed to know the law, and show incompetence or deceit, by making such a claim.

“District Court has no jurisdiction under 28 USCS § 1340 of action by taxpayers seeking injunctive and mandamus relief against Internal Revenue Service on basis of taxpayers’ interpretation of IRS regulation since § 1340 provides that District Court shall have jurisdiction of action arising under any Act of Congress and not actions arising under agency regulations which are without force of law.” Einhorn v. DeWitt,  (1980, CA5 Fla), 618 F.2d 347, 80-2 USTC P 9486, 46 AFTR 2d 5093. (underline emphasis)

Section 1340 does not give rise to a cause of action, because if it did so, then the United States would have a “cause of action” against every citizen of the United States. That is total and utter nonsense.

“A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958). (underline emphasis)

The cause of action listed no law. “…jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States means a law providing in terms of revenue; that is to say, a law which is directly traceable to the power granted to Congress by ‘8, Article I, of the Constitution, ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.'” US v Hill, 123 US 681, 686 (1887). (underline emphasis)

“Only by the filing of an information which complies with this mandatory statutory requirement can the district court obtain subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance which then empowers the court to adjudicate the matters presented to it.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 at 431, (Okl. Cr. 1990).

Charles Conces asserts his right to have the District Court adhere to precedence. There was no true plaintiff name on the complaint, and no verification by a complaining party. As such, no action has been commenced.

“Complaint must identify at least one plaintiff by true name; otherwise no action has been commenced.” Roe v New York (1970, SD NY) 49 F.R.D. 279, 14 FR Serv 2d 437, 8 ALR Fed 670.

12. Charles Conces asserts his right to confront witnesses against defendant. The DOJ never presented any witnesses.

“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245 at 250, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2.

“And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel.”DOLBEAR v. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY. CLAY COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. PEOPLE’S TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. OVERLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. (PART TWO THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1 , 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

“As we have said of other unsworn statements which were not part of the record and therefore could not have been considered by the trial court: “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” Adickes v. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144 – 158, n. 16

13. Charles Conces asserts his “Due Process” rights under the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Conces has the right to the conclusion that the judgments and orders of Judge Quist are null and void, because the DOJ attorneys did not obtain the required authorizations under 26 USC 7401. Additionally, Judge Quist, at the June 21, 2006, hearing made an unexplainable statement, “Well, we’re way past that now because you didn’t respond to the complaint. And so there was a default…” Contrary to Judge Quist’s statement, Conces did, in fact, respond to the complaint and also responded to the amended complaint, paragraph by paragraph, rebutting the many false statements by the DOJ attorney, Michael Raum. The complaint should have been dismissed right there and then, if for no other reason than the many provably false statements by the DOJ attorneys who had no witnesses or evidence for their allegations.

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 -733 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 US 286, 291 (1980); National Exchange Bank v. Wiley , 195 US 257 (1904); Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878).

“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

“Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered”, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).

 Anastoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

14. Charles Conces asserts his right to the truth, concerning 26 USC 7608 language, which states that (all) enforcement revenue agents, by whatever title, are authorized to enforce only subtitle E and the commodities subject to tax, and that only Criminal Investigators of the Intelligence Division are authorized to enforce the other subtitles. The DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist falsely stated that the whole of 26 USC 7608 was a criminal statute and did not apply to all Internal Revenue enforcement agents. This was a deliberate distortion of the truth by the DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist, and Quist did not explain his dismissal of Conces’ Motion, other than the use of that false statement.

Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917): “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ,  141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. U S , 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.” Also see Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 417 (1904).

“When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction – that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there – is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete.” Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 249, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

15. Charles Conces asserts his right to honest representations and authorized representatives of the Department of Justice. Michael Raum and Thomas Curteman have been actively engaged in the subversion of the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and under Amendment 14, section 3 of the Constitution, cannot hold Office, having committed perjury on their Oaths to defend and uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. The subversion of law and violation of Due Process under the 14th Amendment, were not mere oversights, nor mere neglect; they were deliberate, calculated, willful, and knowing acts of subversion and rebellion against the laws, i.e., 26 USC 7401, against the common law, and against the Due Process of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Wherefore, Defendant, Charles F. Conces, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court inform him of any errors in this pleading, as per Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972) and Plaskey v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, so that any needed corrections can be duly made.

Date: November 28, 2006

The above rights are asserted and all rights are preserved,

Signature: ___________________________

Printed Name: Charles F. Conces

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on November 28, 2006, I made service of these documents, “MEMORANDUM AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS“, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, case no. 1: 05 cv 0739 on the following attorney:

Michael S. Raum, Trial Attorney, Tax Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238,

Washington, D.C. 20044

Signed: ___________________________

Charles F. Conces

Dated: November 28, 2006

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Blogroll

  • 3 Wise Men Essentials
  • Chinese Health and Fitness – Home Health and Fitness for All
  • Chinese Health and Fitness/Maritime Law Deception
  • Henry Makow illuminati/ new world order
  • Montgomery County on the Mary-Land Republic
  • Solutions 4 The Innocent lots of good information
  • Sovereign Warriors
  • Winston Shrout Fort Collins Lectures

Recent Posts

  • Non Negotiable Private Bond For Set Off (Birth Certificate Bond)
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) Part 3
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) Part 2
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) (part1)
  • Traffic – Ratification Of Commencement of Action
  • An E-Mail From ‘Frank Austin England III’
  • The Declaration Of Seperate And Equal Stations
  • STATUTE (FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT)
  • Legalese (Government Manipulation of Language)
  • The Additional Legal Rights Otherwise Dormant
  • Administrative Law
  • Buck Act – The Jurisdiction Of The Land
  • The Initinere (Document)
  • The In Itinere Cover Sheet and Caveat (part 2)
  • The IN ITINERE Notice And Caveat (In Itinere – Cover Page)
  • Doctrine (The Constitution is an Express Trust)
  • Allocution (Declaration of Absolute Rights and Refusal to Except Sentence)
  • Not Burning Books Like ‘Farenheit 451’ – Altering Them
  • Affidavit of Abatement (No Such Corporation)
  • Jury Summons Response Letter
  • The Affidavit Of Natural Identity And Caveat
  • There Is No “State”
  • The Emergency Powers Of Martial Law (Historical Outline)
  • Court (Relation-Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) part 3
  • Court (Relation Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) Part 2
  • Court (Relation Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) Part 1
  • Refusing A Non-Substantive Offer (Nullify Commercial Law)
  • The Substantive Statute Or Regulation ?
  • Uniform Commercial Code (Application and Use of Commercial Law) part 3
  • Uniform Commercial Code (The Application of Commercial Law (part-2)
  • Uniform Commercial Code (The Application of Commercial Law) part 1
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 3)
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 2)
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 1)
  • Location of Debtor (District of Columbia)
  • Political Question Doctrine
  • Statutes (Never Argue The Second Amendment)
  • Treaty Cannot Infringe The Constitution
  • The Temples of Baal (Courts of Admiralty)
  • The Eternal Law Of Conquest
  • Trading With The Enemy Act (More On War Powers)
  • Declaration of Independence – Latter Day Declarant
  • Memorandum Asserting Rights
  • Uniform Bonding Code – part 3
  • Uniform Bonding Code Part – 2
  • Uniform Bonding Code – Part 1
  • Things Your Lawyer, Attorney, or Judge Won’t Tell You
  • The Law of Prize and Prize Courts
  • Oregon Department of Re-venue Letter (Pt 2)
  • Oregon Department Of Re-venue Letter (Part 1)

Archives

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com
Advertisements

All Past Post

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: