Special Appearance, Jurisdictional Challenge

Special Appearance, Jurisdictional Challenge

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

The defendant, Georgia (State), refused to appear, claiming that, as a sovereign state, it could not be sued without granting its consent to the suit.

The state failed and was found subject to the court, yet the point is they tried to stay independent by refusing to appear.

>>

 

Posted in Jurisdiction, Special Appearance | Leave a comment

Marshal kicks me out and refuses to let me (acting 6th amendment counsel) back in even though judge said it was ok.

IRS Trial Chronology:

8-6-2016 – Mark Laskowski spends close to 2,000$ getting me, and various documents, and challenges, plus 3 days of hotel expenses, to the Federal court case (Federal Northern District Illinois 15 cr 267) in Chicago, and all are blocked, see the story below.

Monday 8:45 Pretrial Conference (Jury selection to begin at 9:00).

Only 4 people as observers.

Judge enters, all rise, calls the case, Two US Attorneys on right side, Marks “desired 6th Amendment counsel on the left side, acting as Representative Attorneys against Marks will, standing on left side.

Judge notices the record that Mark sent her a letter. (She did not disclose that the letter implied he he gave 50,000$ to one of her favorite charities and that he was not a US citizen and did not consent to the jurisdiction of the court.) She said she was much concerned that Mark is not in agreement with his bond release terms.

She then called Mark, Mark walked forward and remained silent even after the judge asked him several questions, then at about the fourth question Mark raised his right hand, Judge asked question again, Mack remained silent, raised his right hand, then judge announced that Mark is raising right hand but remaining silent, Mark then spoke saying; “you are you, I am Mark”, this mark did to the next ten, or so questions, eventually the judge said that Mark has chosen not to have counsel and trial will begin and she announced that they will now go into jury selection, I, Paul Hansen then rose and said: “As friend of the court, I am here as 6th Amendment counsel for Mark”, judge asked if I was an attorney, I said; “I am only here as 6th Amendment counsel for Mark”, judge said; “You can not represent Mark with out being a licensed attorney”, marshals rushed me threatening to use force to remove me if I did not go out in the hallway, there Mark was telling all that I am his 6th Amendment counsel, Marshals ignored. Mark asked his counsel to do something, he refused, the kicked me off the property to the center of the street and said I will be arrested if I come back.

I eventually got the head Court Security Marshal to come talk to me he said I must have state approved I.D. To come back on the property. I said the judge said she had no problem with my attendance provided I remain quite in the public gallery as an observer only.

Recording > soon to be added.

During the proceedings Mark informed the judge that he needed me by saying; “Mr Hansen as 6th Amendment Counsel”, asking her to take judicial notice of the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution Bill of Rights, she refused, he asked for my aid on the record no less than five times during the proceeding, stating that I am outside the courtroom waiting for permission to enter, Judge said it is up to the Marshals.

Mark had no skill, Marks appointed counsel did not subpoena a single witness upon Mark’s demand that he subpoena the IRS agent, or any man that claimed he had a duty to file, or had funds due and owing, and his counsel even failed (refused) to notice Mark of the pretrial evidence hearing, ignoring Marks email to this licensed attorney that he does not wish to allow any evidence in from the Government (Plaintiff), that all must be objected to for grounds of foundation, thus forcing the IRS to supply a witness for all exhibits, to which they have no ability to provide for care, and chain of custody of all such documents is insufficient to qualify as evidence, if objected to as stated, and mark had about ½ inch of documents that he sent to the IRS asking for a 6203 assessment, and notices, and challenges that the IRS must respond to when evidenced . Thus Mark was deprived of a defense, of 6th Amendment Counsel of his choosing, and denied meaningful time, and access, to the court, essentially a fair trial.

Mark could have prevailed on all of the charged quite easily if he was allowed his right to have me guide him through the pretrial and trial proceedings. The Government knew of my abilities and made sure I was blocked. Mark now faces five (5) years in a Federal Prison, for not doing a single crime, Mark simply asked, in writing, for the last eight (8) years, that the IRS answer his valid assessment questions before he filed, primarily if he had a legal duty to self assess himself by way of a IRS 1040 tax form, and if not he always asked the IRS to provide him with a 6203 assessment, as the US written law requires (USC – Title 26-6203).

One sure thing is that the US marshals were instructed to get “HANSEN” out of there as soon as possible, anyway possible, legal or not.

So get this the judge said I was ok, the Marshal said no. Said I could go back in “if” an Attorney comes and gets me, or subpoenas me, to which Marks “appointed counsel” which he took saying; “being you are refuse Hansen to be my 6th Amendment counsel I have no choice but to take one of yours, but Hansen is my choice that you are denying me”, said he will not help him to get this Hansen guy in.

A common law court of record my be used to get damages from all who violated Mark’s, and Hansen’s rights.

Sentencing is set for 11-6-2016, Mark is out on bond.

Posted in 6th Amendment Counsel, IRS Cases | Leave a comment

Protected: OUTTODAY.com, TO-DOs when a friend is jailed. 15$ gets your own secure page. q371c

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Uncategorized | Enter your password to view comments.

Protected: Red Light Scam, never pay legally. M1Sp-41 5$

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Uncategorized | Enter your password to view comments.

Protected: ‘Case Law’ that evidences proof of ‘Common Law’ court of record.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Uncategorized | Enter your password to view comments.

Obama says people must waive their rights to all powerful sovereign. Crazy Man

All Powerful What?

Click on the above to hear Obama condoning complete control of the United Nations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The term Resident v. Non-Resident challenged won IRS case.

To read original format click > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yayt159zz34j4og/Linda%20Wall%202.doc?dl=0

Court admits that remedy for a “non-Resident”, one who has not elected to become a “US citizen” (note “c” is not capitalized) has remedy is common law based courts. United States Court is “federal”, united States District Court is common law.

The IRS Publication 5  states that the nonresident alien (dejure state Citizen) has no remedy before the United States District Court or the Tax Court. They must go to the U S. Court of Claims for the District of Columbia or the united States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Lynda Wall is not and has not intended to be a federal State citizen or Resident as set forth and defined in the Buck Act, Title 4 USC §105-110.

>>

Lynda got case dismissed > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/lawmen/IaUKZTHgLWs/HeqdkYIpGgIJ

Lynda Wall Challenge is below:

Mailing location:
To Postmaster: Long Beach. CA 90831-0300
for delivery to:
Lynda Wall
c/o One World Trade Ctr.. Ste. 300
Long Beach: California Republic
September 27: 2005
Proof of Service Rect. 8313 1481 8080
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
U S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20530-0001
RE: United States of America ‘. Lynda Wall, CV 04-5352-DDP* (MANx) in United States District Court. Central District of California. Western Division.
Subject: NOTICE OF COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES
1.      Counterfeit Security      Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04:
2.      Counterfeit Security      Declaration of Shereen Hawkins: 04/13/04;
3.      Counterfeit Security      Petition to Enforce Summons, 07/14/04;
4.      Counterfeit Security      Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed, no court seal);
5.      Counterfeit Security      Order of Civil Contempt 05/02/05; and
6.      Counterfeit Security      Warrant for Arrest, 05/16/2005
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
You are hereby put on NOTICE pursuant to Title 18 USC § 4 of the commission of crimes cognizable by a court of the United States under Title 18 USC §513 to wit: “513(a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both”.
See also Sections 2311, 2314 and 2320 for additional fines and sanctions. Among the securities defined at 18 USC § 2311 is included “evidence of indebtedness” which, in a broad sense, may mean anything that is due and owing which would include a duty, obligation or right of action.
The above referenced documents qualify as “counterfeited securities” in that the
makers have stated them to have been officially signed and sealed as valid claims of a duty, obligation or right of action owed by Lynda Wall to the United States of America by the following:
1.      Summons
2.      Declaration by Shereen Hawkins, Revenue Agent
3.      Petition to Enforce Summons by Debra W. Yang, United States Attorney, (acting through Thomas 0. Coker and Sandra R. Brown, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Gregory E. Van Hoe, Trial Attorney) and
4.      Order to Show Cause by Gregory E. Van Hoey, Trial Attorney and alleged Judge Dean O. Pregerson.
5.      Order to Civil Contempt by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson and Gregory Van Hoey, Trial Attorney;
6.      Warrant for Arrest by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson; Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court; and John Chambers, Deputy Clerk.
All the above referenced documents are counterfeit securities because they do not evidence both the Internal Revenue Code statutes(s) and the enforcement regulation(s) as required by law.
Congress has enacted five very specific mandatory protections to prevent the unlawful imposition of the Internal Revenue Code upon non-regulated activities, evens and commodities, to wit:
1.      All information gathering forms must have an approved Form Number;
2.      The Form Number must: display an approved and active OMB Control Number;
3.      The OMB Number must identify the CFR Part which is the specific type of tax;
4.      The type of tax must identify the Regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Treasury; and
5.      The Regulation must enforce (put into force) the specific statute of the IRC.
Since regulations may be directive (voluntary) or mandatory, the CFR Parallel Table of Authorities lists the enforcement (mandatory) federal regulation; all others are directory and may be ignored.
The IRS Notice 609 “Privacy Act Notice” states as follows:
“Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012 (a) and their regulation… and whether your response is voluntary (directory) or mandatory under the law.” (Emphasis added)
“That body of law which codifies all federal tax laws including income, estate, stamp, gift excise, etc, taxes. Such laws comprise Title 26 United States Code, and are implemented by Treasury Regulations and Revenue Rulings.” (Emphasis added) IRC Black’s 5Th Ed. Page 732.
Pursuant to Title 26 USC §7805(a), “regulations for the enforcement of this title”, and in the case of Lynda Wall, IRS has no authority of law, which would allow them to place into evidence a “Summons” Form 2039, pursuant to Tile 26 USC §7602. This procedure is only allowed under the excise tax law procedure where there exists a contract and registration by application for the special privilege of being allowed to operate in that special business, and therefore a summary judgment procedure is allowed. If one checks the manuals from the government printing office you will find under Title 26 CFR, “Federal Regulations” that every subject matter of tax has its own 26 IRC §6001, et seq., Sections for procedure. This cannot be mixed with any other subject tax matters of procedure because that would make law “arbitrary and capricious”.
Perhaps this point is more strongly made in CaliforniaBanker’s Assoc. v Schultz, 416 US 21; 38 L.Ed. 2d 820, where the government argued;
“We think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attached only violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary: if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone. And at 830 L.ED. 2d: “… the actual implementation of the statute by the Treasury Regulation. The Government urges that since only those whoviolate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties. It is the actual regulations issued by the Secretary of Treasu1y, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid”. And further at 831; “The Internal Revenue code, for example, contains general records to be kept by both business and individual taxpayers, 26 USC §6001, which have been implemented by the .Secretary in various regulations”.
Since the Government seems to be unfamiliar with the CFR’s, I am providing you with some of the Enforcement Regulations of the IRC, to wit:
FEDERAL REGISTER

CFR INDEX. STATUTE AND CFR TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statute      Description                                                    Enforcement Regulation
6020          Returns prepared by Secretary                 27 CFR Part 53 & 70
6201          Assessment Authority                                 27 CFR Part 53 & 70
6203          Method of Assessment                                27 CFR Part 70
6205          Special Rules for Employment Taxes        27 CFR Part 23
6301          Collection Authority                                     27 CFR Part 70
6303          Notice and Demand for Tax                        27 CFR Part 70
6321          Liens for Taxes                                             27 CFR Part 70
6331-43    Levy and Distraint                                       27 CFR Part 70
6601.02    Interest on Underpayments                       27 CFR Part 70
6651          Failure to File Tax Return or Pay Tax      27 CFR Part 70, 24, 25 194
6671-72     Penalty Assessed as Tax, Person Defined 27 CFR Part 70
6701          Penalties for Understatement of Tax        27 CFR Part 70
7207          Fraudulent Returns                                     27 CFR Part 70
7212           Interference with Adm. of LR, Laws         27 CFR Partl7O, 270, 275,285
7401          Judicial Proceedings Authorization            27 CFR Part 70
7403          Judicial Action to Enforce Lien                   27 CFR Part 70
7601          Canvass of District for Taxable Persons   27 CFR Part 70
7602          Examination of Books and Witnesses       27 CFR Part 70
7603          Service of Summons                                    27 CFR Part 70
7604          Enforcement of Summons                           27 CFR Part 70
7ô05          Time and Place for Examination                27 CFR Part 70
NOTE. 27 CFR is for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not income or employment taxes.
It is obvious that the whole action in the case of United States of America, Petitioner, vs. Lynda Wall, Respondent is predicated upon the use of the statute in Title 26 §7602 and the Treasury Regulations §301.7602-I and 26 FR 301.7602-1 as stated on page 2 of the Counterfeit Security Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons. Since the Federal Register 1993 CR Index, Statute and CFR Table of Authorities shows that the only Enforcement Regulations pursuant to Title 26 USC §7401, Judicial Proceedings Authorization, §7604, Enforcement of Summons, and §7602, Examination of Books and Records is predicated on Enforcement Regulations promulgated pursuant to the power and authority of 27 FR Part 70 (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), then it is clear that unless the acts and actions of the above named federal government officials, employees, agents, and public officers are predicated upon some material facts that show that Lynda Wall is engaged in federally taxable or federally regulated activities, commodities or events pursuant to 27 CFR  Part 70, the acts and actions of the above named Government agents and officials are based upon false premises and Counterfeit Securities.
Lynda Wall is NOT engaged in federally regulated activities, events or commodities under 27 FR Part 70 within reason and belief. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that Form 2039 Summons. 02/11/04; the Declaration of Shereen Hawkins, 04/13/04; the Petition to Enforce Summons, 07/14/04; the Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed by the alleged Judge, no court seal); Order of Civil Contempt, 05/02/05; and Warrant for Arrest (civil contempt), 05/16/05 are all Counterfeit Securities designed to perpetrate a constructive fraud upon Lynda Wall.
It is clear from the actions of the above named federal government officials, employees, agents, and public officers that they have acted above and beyond their scope of authority by placing into the public record unsubstantiated claims against Lynda Wall which they knew or should have known to be false because said claims were required by law to convey subject matter jurisdiction for the particular regulated activity that is being alleged to have created a duty, obligation or right of action to the United States of America.
The Summons signed by Ms. Shereen Hawkins on 02/11/04 is a fraud and counterfeit security claimed to be issued under the authority of the Internal Revenue Code. It does not list either the statutory or the regulatory authority even though both are required by law to identify the particular regulated activity that Lynda Wall is alleged to be engaged in, thus the instrument is counterfeit,
The Declaration signed by Ms. Shereen Hawkins on 04/13/04, under penalty of perjury, is totally false and a constructive fraud since none of the information constitutes prima fade evidence unless the enforcement regulations that identify the particular type of activity being reported is also placed into evidence. There simply are no evidentiary facts here. Ms. Hawkins has lied and perpetrated a constructive fraud under oath as she has not identified any regulated activity concerning Lynda Wall; her Declaration is a counterfeit security.
The Petition to Enforce Summons signed by Gregory E. Van Hoey on 07/14/04 and presumed to be under oath is also totally false and a constructive fraud. Mr. Van Hoey has made a very feeble attempt to justify his actions by placing into evidence 26 CFR 301.7602-1. This is a moot regulation because it also requires the evidence of the regulation for the particular type of tax (see 26 CFR §6001-1 and 301.6011-1). A check of the above listing of enforcement regulations will reveal that 26 USC §7402(b), 7602 and 7604(a) have nothing to do with Income Taxes,  Employment Taxes or Lynda Wall under Title 26 USC and 26 CFR. Mr. Van Hoey’s Petition is a counterfeit security.
The Order to Show Cause by Gregory E. Van Hoey is a counterfeit security and constructive fraud The Gregory E:. Van Hoey knew or should have known that the Petition did not contain both the statutes and the regulations required by law to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear by law to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear before a United States district Court and produce books and records pursuant to regulations promulgated under 27 CFR Part 70, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, when there is no foundational evidence to support: that Lynda Wall is engaged in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity pursuant to said statutes and regulations. Gregory E. Van Hoey knew or should have known that the Order to Show Cause was void and defective since it lacks the evidence of the court seal, is not dated by and not signed by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson
The Order of Civil Contempt by alleged Judge Dean D. Pragerson and Gregory E. Van Hoey on 05/02/05 is a counterfeit security and constructive fraud. The alleged Judge knew or should have known that the Order to Show Cause was defective since Lynda Wall’s Proof of Service regarding the Verified Notice of Missing or Defective Order to Show Cause was served on 04/23/2005. See Item #31 of the Docket Report. Mr. Van Hoey, who prepared the Order of Civil Contempt, has lied and perpetrated a constructive fraud as he perjured himself by stating on pace 2 that Lynda Wall not file any response to the motion prior to the hearing. See Item #28 of the Docket Report which clearly shows Lynda Wall did timely file a Notice of Reliance Upon Alibi Justification on 04/12/05 to the Order to Show Cause.
The Warrant for Arrest by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court; and John Chambers, Deputy Clerk on 05/16/05 is a counterfeit security and a constructive fraud since none of the information constitutes prima facie evidence unless the enforcement regulations that identify both the statutes and the regulations required by law to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear by law to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear before a United States district Court and produce books and records pursuant to regulations promulgated under 27 CFR Part 70, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, when there is no foundational evidence to support that Lynda Wall is engaged in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity pursuant to said statutes and regulations. The alleged Judge, the Clerk of Court and the Deputy Clerk knew or should have known that the Warrant for Arrest was void since it lacks the evidence of the specific Title violation and it lacks the evidence of the specific United States Code Section(s) violation.
It would be impossible for Lynda Wall to prove she did not engage in some federally regulated activity, event or commodity when the Government and the above named Government officials, agents, employees, and public officers have not alleged or produced evidence that Lynda Wall has engaged in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity under the statutes and CFR Regulations of 27 FR Part 70 associated with 26 USC §7401, 7602, 7603 and 7604.  One can not prove a negative. It is the duty and obligation for the Government to produce evidence of a positive. Therefore, the Order to Show Cause (absent a court seal, not dated by and not signed by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson) is a counterfeit security and constructive fraud in that Lynda Wall can not be made to show Cause as to why she did not violate CFR regulations which either do not exist or do not apply to Lynda Wall pursuant to the evidence and instruments before the court in action CV 04-05352-DDP (MANx) in the Central District of California District Court, Western Division.
The IRS Publication 5  states that the nonresident alien (dejure state Citizen) has no remedy before the United States District Court or the Tax Court. They must go to the U S. Court of Claims for the District of Columbia or the united States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Lynda Wall is not and has not intended to be a federal State citizen or Resident as set forth and defined in the Buck Act, Title 4 USC §105-110.

Lynda Wall does not support the federal international bankruptcy declared legislatively by HJR-192, passed by Congress in 1933 and declared judicially by the United States Supreme Court in Erie Railway v. Tompkins 1939. Lynda Wall does not support the federal 51 shadow States that have taken over the de jure state functions since the 1930’s.  Lynda Wall does not reside in, nor has been a citizen or resident of, the federal shadow State of California, Lynda Wall does not live in the federal territory of the Central District of California, a federal area created out of thin air by the Buck Act and other legislation that has usurped power and authority from de jure Government.
Before any agent, official, employee or public officer of the United States or one of the federal 51 shadow States created to impersonate the 50 de jure states (See definitions in 31 CFR Part. 1, Sections 51.2 and 52.2) acts upon the declared status of Lynda Wall, Su Juris, as that of ‘”non-resident alien” to the Corporate Federal “United States”, such agent, official, employee or public officer is directed to take Judicial Notice of St.Louis Park Medical Center v. Lethert,  286 F. Sup. 271 and 28 USC §2201.

All IRS agents and United States Courts are thus barred from making a “status determination” with regard to federal income taxes and federal income tax laws. Consequently, if IRS agents and Courts are barred from declaring Lynda Wall, Sui iuris, a “taxpayer”, this is prima fade evidence that the federal income tax is voluntary. Wherefore, both IRS agents and United States Courts lack jurisdiction and the declared status of the Accused must be accepted.

Lynda Wall is not a “person” as defined in Title 26 USC §7343 as one upon whom the District Court has jurisdiction to bring an enforcement action and a summons pursuant to 26 §7402(a) and (b).  26 USC §7343 defines the term “Person” to include “an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs”, The only mandatory duty and obligation under law is that promulgated pursuant to 27 FP Part 70. Lynda Wall has no nexus to that regulation shown in the counterfeit securities presented by the Government agents herein.
DEMAND is hereby made on you, Alberta Gonzales, United States Attorney General, to investigate the above named government officials, employees, agents, and public officers for creating, using and promoting fraudulent and counterfeit securities in a fraudulent scheme in order to solicit Lynda Wall by duress and coercion into participating in a scheme to produce books and records from her in excess than those authorized by law in violation of Title 26 USC §7433  for damages caused by agents, officers, and employees acting recklessly and intentionally in excess of statutory provisions and regulatory provisions of Title 26 USC.

Further DEMAND is made, pursuant to Title 26 USC §7401, for the production of the signed delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States which authorizes or sanctions the proceedings against me by the above named government officials, employees, agents, and public officers. Please send me a copy of the signed delegation of authority from you, the Attorney General of the United States or your delegate directing the action against me to be commenced.
The above demands are made pursuant to the statutes and regulations under Title 26 USC and the other laws and statutes of the United States, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial code, §3-501.

Attorney General !!   l am sure that if I were suspected of counterfeiting the securities of the United States, a full battle dressed SWAT team would invade my private dwelling, kidnap me into United States federal jurisdiction, arrest me, and prosecute me to the full extent of the law.
I hereby DEMAND that you honor your oath of office to defend and support the Constitution for the de jure united States of America (if you still are loyal to that entity). In so doing, I DEMAND that you investigate the illegal acts of the above named United States officials, employees, agents, and public officers and cause to issue indictments and prosecute all suspected parties for the counterfeiting of the securities of the United States, pursuant to 18 USC 4 and 18 USC 513;  and also to investigate, indict, and prosecute all violations by the above named United States officials, employees, agents, and public officers for violation of 26 USC statutes concerning their attempts to coerce me into producing books and records under threat of incarceration, but not allowed by statute and regulation.
In the alternative, if you are unwilling or unable to investigate, indict, or prosecute the above named individuals, identify the lawful reasons why and relate said reasons to me in writing within 20 days from receipt of this letter. When you need longer than 20 days to respond, send me a written request for an extension of time within the 20 days and it will be given to you.  Failure to respond to this request timely and upon the merits of this demand and inquiry will be prima facie evidence that the United States Government and its agents, employees and officials are engaged in an ongoing constructive fraud against me to deprive me of my unalienable rights from God.
I, Lynda Wall, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of these united States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, is made in good faith and is admitted  when not rebutted.
Lynda Wall, non-federal State citizen
Exhibits Attached hereto:
1.      Counterfeit Security Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04; (Exhibit “A”)
2.      Counterfeit Security Declaration of Shereen Hawkins, 04/13/04; (Exhibit “B”)
3.      Counterfeit Security Petition to Enforce Summons, 07/14/04; (Exhibit “C”)
4.      Counterfeit Security Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed, no court seal (Exhibit “D”)
5.      Counterfeit Security Order of Civil Contempt, 05/02/05; (Exhibit “E”)
6.      Counterfeit Security Warrant for Arrest, 05/16/2005 (Exhibit “F”)
7.      California Central District – Docket Report dated 05/21/05 (Exhibit “G”)
By way of service on a Judicial filing in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case Number CV O4-05352-DDP (MANx) with copies to:
Dean D. Pregerson, alkged Judge
Margaret A. Nagle, Maqistrate
Adam N. Tarres, U.S. Marshal
Debra W, Yang, US Attorney
Sandra R. Brawn, Assistant U.S. AttorneyThomas D. Coker, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Gregory E. Van Hoey, Trial Attorney
Shereen Hawkins, Revenue Agent
John Chambers, Deputy Clerk
Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court

Exhibit List
Exhibit A

Counterfeit Security:
Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04
by Shereen Hawkins. Revenue AgentExhibit BCounterfeit Security:
Declaration of 04/13/04
by Shereen Hawkins. Revenue AgentExhibit CCounterfeit Security:
Petition to Enforce Summons of 07/14/04by Gregory E. Van HoeyExhibit DCounterfeit Security:
Order to Show Cause (not dated)by Gregory E. Van Hoey, lacking alleged Judge Pregerson’s signature, date and court sealExhibit ECounterfeit Security:
Order of Civil Contempt of 05/02/05by Gregory E. Van Hocy and alleged Judge PregersonExhibit FCounterfeit Security:
Warrant for Arrest of 05/16/05by alleged Judge Pregerson; Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court; John Chambers, Deputy ClerkExhibit GDocket Report of 05/21/05 from California Central Districtby PACER Service Center
==============================================================
Pertinent Addition To Linda Wall Wins over IRS Excellent information thank you for sharing
Must Read!
STATUTES REPLACED WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW CIRCA 1933
December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad034.asp

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000288—-000-notes.html

GOVERNMENT AGENT ACTING AS AN [OFFSHORE] STATUTE MERCHANT
Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389. 409, 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666);
NEITHER THE FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENT NOR THE [FOREIGN] STATUTE MERCHANT/AGENT HAS ACCESS TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.); U.S. v. Georgia-Pacific Co., 421 F.2d 92, 101 (9th Cir. 1970) (Government may also be bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel if acting in proprietary [for profit nature] rather than sovereign capacity); the “Savings to Suitor Clause” is also available for addressing mercantile and admiralty matters aka “civil process” at the common law and within a state court.
THE REASON WHY THE LAW OF NECESSITY AND FULL DISCLOSURE GOING TO SPECIFICITY COMES INTO PLAY IN COMMERCIAL PROCEEDINGS ONCE YOU’RE SUMMONED INTO ANY OF THESE PRIVATE MERCANTILE CORPORATE COURTS
Title 8, 22 & 28 USC
Whereas defined pursuant to: December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under international law.
Whereas defined pursuant to: December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.
Whereas defined pursuant to: 22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court and that courts personnel is considered a separate foreign entity)
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.
Whereas defined pursuant to: The 11th Amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of an Foreign State.” (A foreign entity, agency, or state cannot bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding the following procedure.)
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 22 CFR 93.1-93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit, and in turn has to notify the United States citizen of said suit.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 28 USC 1608 I have Absolute Immunity as a Corporation
Whereas defined pursuant to: Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.
Whereas defined pursuant to: July 27th 1868 15 Statutes at Large Chapter 249 Section 1 “Acts Concerning American Citizens in a Foreign State”, expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded, and it is not met with an answer.
Whereas defined pursuant to: Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b 6 the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. I have provided ample proof that the prosecution and other agents are actually corporations.
CORPORATOR defined: One who is a member of a corporation.2. In general, a corporator is entitled to enjoy all the benefits and rights which belong to any other member of the corporation as such. But in some corporations, where the rights are of a pecuniary nature, each corporator is entitles to those rights in proportion to his interest; he will therefore be entitled to vote only in proportion to the amount of his stock, and be entitled to dividends in the same proportion. 3. A corporator is not in general liable personally for any act of the corporation, unless he has been made so by the charter creating the corporation. A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union by John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
BY-LAWS defined: Rules and ordinances made by a corporation for its own government. 2. The power to make by-laws is usually conferred by express terms of the charter creating the corporation, though, when not expressly granted, it is given by implication, and it is incident to the very existence of a corporation. When there is an express grant, limited to certain cases and for certain purposes, the corporate power of legislation is confined to the objects specified, all others being excluded by implication. 2 Kyd on Corp.   102; 2 P. Wms. 207; Ang. on Corp. 177. The power of making by-laws, is to be exercised by those persons in whom it is vested by the charter; but if that instrument is silent on that subject, it resides in the members of the   corporation at large. Harris & Gill’s R. 324; 4 Burr. 2515, 2521; 6 Bro. P.   C. 519. 3. The constitution of the United States, and acts of congress made in conformity to it the constitution of the state in which a corporation is located, and acts of the legislature, constitutionally made, together with the common-law as there accepted, are of superior force to any by-law; and such by-law, when contrary to either of them, is therefore void, whether the charter authorizes the making of such by-law or not; because no legislature can grant power larger than they themselves possess. 7 Cowen’s R. 585; Id.   604 5 Cowen’s R. 538. Vide, generally, Aug. on Corp. ch. 9; Willc. on Corp. ch. 2, s. 3; Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 301 Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t., Com. Dig. h. t.; and Id. vol. viii. h. t. A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union by John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
By-Laws, Regulations, ordinances, rules or laws adopted by an association or corporation or the like for its internal governance. Bylaws define the rights and obli­gations of various officers, persons or groups within the corporate structure and provide rules for routine mat­ters such as calling meetings and the like. Most state corporation statutes contemplate that every corporation will adopt bylaws. The word is also sometimes used to designate the local laws or municipal statutes of a city or town, though, more commonly the tendency is to employ the word “ordinance” exclusively for this class of enactments, reserving “by-law” for the rules adopted by corporations.
LAW OF NATIONS defined: The science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights. Vattel’s Law of Nat. Prelim. Sec. 3. Some complaints, perhaps not unfounded, have been made as to the want of exactness in the definition of this term. Mann. Comm. 1. The phrase “international law” has been proposed, in its stead. 1 Benth. on Morals and Legislation, 260, 262. It is a system of rules deducible by natural reason from the immutable principles of natural justice, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; Inst. lib. 1, t. 2, Sec. 1; Dig. lib. 1, t. 1, l. 9; in order to decide all disputes, and to insure the observance of good faith and justice in that intercourse which must frequently occur between them and the individuals belonging to each or it depends upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues and agreements between the separate, free, and independent communities. 2. International law is generally divided into two branches; 1. The natural law of nations, consisting of the rules of justice applicable to the conduct of states. 2. The positive law of nations, which consist of, 1. The voluntary law of nations, derived from the presumed consent of nations, arising out of their general usage. 2. The conventional law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts. 3. The customary law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts between themselves. Vattel, Law of Nat. Prel. 3. The various sources and evidence of the law of nations, are the following: 1. The rules of conduct, deducible by reason from the nature of society existing among independent states, which ought to be observed among nations. 2. The adjudication of international tribunals, such as prize courts and boards of arbitration. 3. Text writers of authority. 4. Ordinances or laws of particular states, prescribing rules for the conduct of their commissioned cruisers and prize tribunal’s. 5. The history of the wars, negotiations, treaties of peace, and other matters relating to the public intercourse of nations. 6. Treaties of peace, alliance and commerce, declaring, modifying, or defining the pre-existing international law. Wheat. Intern. Law, pt. 1, c. 1, Sec. 14. 4. The law of nations has been divided by writers into necessary and voluntary; or into absolute and arbitrary; by others into primary and secondary, which latter has been divided into customary and conventional. Another division, which is the one more usually employed, is that of the natural and positive law of nation’s. The natural law of nations consists of those rules, which, being universal, apply to all men and to all nations, and which may be deduced by the assistance of revelation or reason, as being of utility to nations, and inseparable from their existence. The positive law of nations consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention. 5. Among the Romans, there were two sorts of laws of nations, namely, the primitive, called primarium, and the other known by the name of secundarium. The primarium, that is to say, primitive or more ancient, is properly the only law of nations which human reason suggests to men; as the worship of God, the respect and submission which children have for their parents, the attachment which citizens have for their country, the good faith which ought to be the soul of every agreement, and the like. The law of nations called secundarium, are certain usages which have been established among men, from time to time, as they have been felt to be necessary. Ayl. Pand. B. 1, t. 2, p. 6. As to the law of, nations generally, see Vattel’s Law of Nations; Wheat. on Intern. Law; Marten’s Law of Nations; Chitty’s Law of Nations; Puffend. Law of Nature and of Nations, book 3; Burlamaqui’s Natural Law, part 2, c. 6; Principles of Penal Law, ch. 13; Mann. Comm. on the Law of Nations; Leibnitz, Codex Juris Gentium Diplomaticus; Binkershoek, Quaestionis Juris Publici, a translation of the first book of which, made by Mr. Duponceau, is published in the third volume of Hall’s Law Journal; Kuber, Droit des Gens Modeme de l’Europe; Dumont, Corps Diplomatique; Mably, Droit Public de l’Europe; Kent’s Comm. Lecture 1. A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union by John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

Posted in Jurisdiction / Personal / Subject Matter, Resident | Leave a comment

Lectures, Audio

Lectures / Audio:

1. Paul Hansen, We The People of Nebraska Law Class.

Voice00001        <Click to play, Hansen starts speaking at the 11 minutes mark and ends at the 38 minute mark. Speaking on Hovind / Hansen Federal case win, traffic win, etc.  It may take several minutes to start playing, depending on internet speed.

 

Posted in Lectures / Hansen's | Leave a comment

Protected: How to get up to 85% savings on most prescriptions. With just a picture.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in pharmaceuticals | Enter your password to view comments.

Recommended Expository & Topical Teaching Sources, Theology.

Recommended Expository & Topical Teaching Sources ‘Theology’

I highly recommend that you visit this site and follow the expository teachings of
Phillip G. Kayser, PhD, as he is the Senior Pastor of Dominion Covenant Church. Phil has degrees in theology and philosophy/ethics.

Sermons:

http://www.dominioncovenantchurch.com/?page_id=8

I down load these sermons and listen to them approximately one-half hour just before bed.

Just to give you an example of what my personal preferences are here are a few more of my favorite theologians:

RC Sproul
James Kennedy – excellent of showing God’s providence in history.
J Vernon McGee
Warren W Wiersbe
D. A. Carson
Charles Spurgeon
John F. MacArthur
John Piper
William Carey
R. J. Rushdoony
John Calvin
David Livingstone
Francis Schaeffer
George Whitefield
John Bunyan
John Fox
John Knox
Martin Luther

Another of my favorite on topical teaching is Bojidar Marinov, I think from Bulgaria.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154348192570582&set=a.98476280581.179537.869550581&type=1

Axe to the Root – Taking on the idols
http://www.bojidarmarinov.com/ March 18, 2016 Bojidar Marinov Leave a comment · withered_tree_of___hope_by_darkensilver-d3fko9p. I may not be as old as Pastor Tim Bayly, and therefore …
Bojidar Marinov, Author at Axe to the Root
http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/author/bojidar/ Author Archives: Bojidar Marinov. The Evangelical Establishment Got Trumped, Again · April 2, 2016 Bojidar Marinov 7 comments · pieter edited smaller.
Bojidar Marinov Sermons | SermonAudio.com
http://www.sermonaudio.com/speaker/Bojidar_Marinov SermonAudio.com – Bojidar Marinov Sermons. … Members Only. Bojidar Marinov Home | Sermons By Speaker Name RSS Send Photo. Podcast By Speaker | …
Christendom Restored |
http://www.christendomrestored.com/ Feb 19, 2016 … Bojidar Marinov / December 8, 2015 / Civilization, Culture, Government, Law, Missions, Politics / Permalink. You are not to say, “It is a …
Refuting Bojidar Marinov’s Dishonesty on National Identity and the …
http://faithandheritage.com/2014/02/refuting-bojidar-marinovs-dishonesty-on-national-identity-and-the-u-s-s-r/ Feb 25, 2014 … In a recent thread in a Facebook group called “Reconstructionist Theonomists,” Bojidar Marinov has made some astounding comments …
Bojidar Marinov | Fire Breathing Christian
http://www.firebreathingchristian.com/archives/tag/bojidar-marinov Tag: Bojidar Marinov. The State only “keeps us safe” by “protecting us” from freedom,… FireBreathingChristian -. December 15, 2015. What are you, some kind of …
Libertarianism: A Presuppositional Approach – The American Vision
http://americanvision.org/5615/libertarianism-a-presuppositional-approach/ Feb 29, 2012 … Feb 29, 2012 by Bojidar Marinov 42 Comments. In my libertarian activities in Bulgaria I often had to confront questions by secular libertarians …
Bojidar Marinov ~ Biblical Separation of Society and State~ Law …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaoZ4pbGp0Q Mar 25, 2014 … Bojidar Marinov’s second of two talks at the Houston area Chalcedon Foundation’s Law & Liberty Tour event, November 2013.
Immigration Series – Bojidar Marinov – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLklULHO3LnKrxPPdx_ONujWh7HBbExnJG Immigration Series – Bojidar Marinov. DatPostmil; 4 videos; 893 views; Last updated on Mar 26, 2015. Play all. Share. Loading… Save …
Immigration and The Sabbath – Bojidar Marinov – DatPostmil
http://www.datpostmil.com/immigration-and-the-sabbath-session-1-bojidar-marinov/ Mar 26, 2015 … This is the first lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in …

Google him he has more.

>>>

Aid in Downloading:
With My Apple Computer, yours may be different, I go to the site below and click on not “Sermons” but this title (Genesis & Revelation) and then it asked me to listen or down load, I down load and listen to it throughout the day.
Genesis & Revelation, April 26, 2015 Revelation, at > http://www.dominioncovenantchurch.com/?page_id=8&pagenum=4

Posted in Theology | Leave a comment