((Dr. Kent Hovind the World recognized Christian expert on the fallacy of evolution.))
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAÂ Â Â ) Â Â Â Â Â Case No.Â 3:06cr83/MCR
)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3:10cv487/MCR/EMT
VSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â )Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SUPPORTING Amicus BRIEF
)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NOTICE of Written Law.
Kent E HovindÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â )
Brief in support of theÂ Motion to Vacate, dated /filed on April 18, 2011, by Hovind, pursuant to the Organic Laws of the United States of America and the territorial limitations setÂ forth by the written law of the United States.Â These organic laws are positive law and can be found listed as such in Volume 1 (One) of the United States Code as follows:Â Â Â 1. Declaration of Independence 2. Articles of ConfederationÂ Â Â Â 3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory GovernmentÂ Â Â 4. Constitution of the United States and Amendments
The organic laws of the land that the acts took place on, or type/owner of the land that is the subject of this case, is found in the United States Code, under the title of â€œORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAâ€, and these organic laws are:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 1. Declaration of Independence
2. Articles of Confederation
3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory Government
4. Constitution of the United States and Amendments
Â Â Â I, Kent Hovind have openly declared myself as a â€œfree inhabitantâ€ according to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, November 15, 1777. Â Pursuant to these Articles of Confederation;
Article IV. â€œThe better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.â€
Â Â Â The following from the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 requires no proof:
â€œWE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.â€
Â Â Â Â The equality of men and the unalienable nature of their rights precludes, Â for example, the unlawful taking of the life of one man by all of the other Â men.Â No unlawful act is made lawful by the complicity of the entire society. Â The logic of a completely righteous society rests on a supernatural Creator, which is the premise of the First and Second Organic Laws, the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. Â Article IV of the Articles of Confederation actually requires the States of the United States of America to grant privileges and immunities without requiring allegiance from those within the state who will not submit Â to majority vote and rule. Unalienable rights are not subject to majority Â vote, so they are secured in the Articles of Confederation by imposing duties on government without a direct means of raising revenue.
The Third Organic Law establishes a temporary government for the Northwest Territory owned by the United States of America.Â The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 establishes majority rule subject to the supervision of the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation.
The Fourth Organic Law, the â€œConstitution United States of Americaâ€”1787,â€ is the official title given, in volume one of the United States Code, for the Constitution of the United States, which results when nine States ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and George Washington takes an oral oath to â€œpreserve, protect and defendÂ the Constitution of the United States.â€Â Â Â This Constitution makes permanent the House of Representatives established by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.
Although the House of Representatives consists of Representatives elected by the majority vote of citizens of all the States, that vote can still have no effect on the unalienable rights of the free inhabitants of the states.Â The legislative power of the House of Representatives is limited to the territory owned by or ceded to the United States of America, hence, the title â€œConstitution ofÂ the United States of Americaâ€”1787,â€ confirms it is a revision ofÂ the Articles of Confederation.Â Â That nomenclature alone should be sufficient to dispel the unfounded claim that the Constitution of the United States replaced or superseded the Articles of Confederation.
The Legislative jurisdiction of the United States must be established, on the face of the record, by the accuser, shown as PLAINTIFF, before any of the written laws contained therein may be properly applied, for the Court has jurisdiction only by the â€œfactâ€ accuracy of the pleadings placed before it by the moving party.Â Essentially if the subject LandÂ was not owned by the United States of America, a United States court can not have exclusive Legislative authority / permission to prosecute Kent Hovind, such is forbidden.
In relation to the Defendant, there is no evidence on the record to support any claim that Kent Hovind is a citizen of the United States.Â Â To the contrary, of all practical efforts, Kent Hovind has openly declared himself an Article IV â€œfree inhabitantâ€ and reserves for himself all the privileges and immunities granted to him by virtue of the Articles of Confederation heretofore recognized as positive law of the United States of America.
Regardless of the deceptive practices of certain employees of government referred to herein as PLAINTIFFS and â€œagents of the United Statesâ€, the court must insist as I do that the territorial limitations of the United States be established with written proof of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States before any attempt may be made to prosecute, or detain, Kent Hovind in any court of the United States. Â An attempt to bypass the Defendants challenge, of exclusive LegislativeÂ jurisdiction, shall be deemed inconsistent with the Organic Laws of the United States of America, and every codification of written law that has followed.
Thus firmly establishing what any court of â€œcommon lawâ€ (â€œcommon lawâ€ defined as the English Common Law as it was used in the 13 American colonies in the year of 1780.), by like free inhabitants, would determine, if Kent was ever given his right as to a fair trial on land not owned/governed by the United States of America.Â Then firmly establishing Kentâ€™s right of independence from the United States Legislation that is established in the United States Constitution and itâ€™s relationship with the Land called the Northwest ordinance and like land as found in the following written law:
DISTRICT COURTS â€“ Title 28 USC, CHAPTER 5 – DISTRICT COURTS -MISC1-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Sec. 81. Alabama. 81A. Alaska. 82. Arizona. 83. Arkansas. 84. California. 85. Colorado. 86. Connecticut. 87. Delaware. 88. District of Columbia. 89. Florida. 90. Georgia. 91. Hawaii. 92. Idaho. 93. Illinois. 94. Indiana. 95. Iowa. 96. Kansas. 97. Kentucky. 98. Louisiana. 99. Maine. 100. Maryland. 101. Massachusetts. 102. Michigan. 103. Minnesota. 104. Mississippi. 105. Missouri. 106. Montana. 107. Nebraska. 108. Nevada. 109. New Hampshire. 110. New Jersey. 111. New Mexico. 112. New York. 113. North Carolina. 114. North Dakota. 115. Ohio. 116. Oklahoma. 117. Oregon. 118. Pennsylvania. 119. Puerto Rico. 120. Rhode Island. 121. South Carolina. 122. South Dakota. 123. Tennessee. 124. Texas. 125. Utah. 126. Vermont. 127. Virginia. 128. Washington. 129. West Virginia. 130. Wisconsin. 131. Wyoming.
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.
Ever since the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 the “district” in federal written law has referred to the territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States in Congress assembled, which was revised by the Constitution of September 17, 1787, to be the Congress of the United States.Â Â Â When analyzed, that sentence reveals that the territorial composition of each judicial district of Â the federal trial courts is the federal territory located within the outer perimeter of the federal counties that comprise the judicial districts of Â the United States district courts.
The above is what any graduating student of written law should know foremost, for is not foundational jurisdiction where every judgment has its force and effect of law, law as to a proprietary right, be it granted or held by force, and that is in this case the â€œexclusive Legislationâ€ that is reference below, for it only applies to land that is owned, within the exterior boundaries of the state called Florida, for example, being more specific one would say the 89th District in the state of Florida, which is called STATE OF FLORIDA, for it is a inseparable subdivision of the United States which is a corporation as proven by referencing the following: 28 U.S.C. PART VI CHAPTER 176Â SUBCHAPTER A Â§ 3002(14) (15)(A): (15) â€œUnited Statesâ€ meansâ€”Â Â Â â€œ(A) a Federal corporation;â€Â the local District Attorney is limited to crimes committed on federal territory within the county.
Needless to say that the District of Columbia is undisputable known as USA owned land, then so must be the like District 89. as listed above as Florida.Â The question shall never dissipate as to- â€œdoes the Plaintiff have fact evidence, and does the record show, that the acts that Kent Hovind was accused of doing, where they done in the said District 89. Florida?
Am I saying the local District Attorney that prosecuted Kent Hovind is limited to crimes committed on federal territory within the county?Â Â That is exactly what I am saying and also what I have proven with the Organic Laws of the United States of America and Title 28, Chapter 5 under Historical Revisions and Notes as specified in the United States Code as positive law.Â What better proof than the fact that all government in the United States is limited to the land owned by, ceded to and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.Â In addition, all trial jurors in Florida must be U.S. citizens and â€œresidents of the State of Floridaâ€, which I also have discovered was never established by the PLAINTIFF’S in my trial.Â The State of Florida is both the name of the government and the federal territory in Florida.Â The written law in the State of Florida clearly states:
CRIMINAL STATUTES 913.03 Grounds for challenge to individual jurors for cause.â€“A challenge for cause to an individual juror may be made only on the following grounds:Â (1) The juror does not have the qualifications required by law;
Now knowing that all corporations created by the United States of America and referenced in the USC, are also undisputable, an inseparable entity to its creator the United States of America, and that it is clearly limited by written authority, one can not deny that that limitation included what â€œlandâ€ such authority can it act on, as evidence in the written law below, for no person acting for the United States of America can rest in ignorance of the written law, and stay justified, but rather if such occurs it has a duty to correct immediately:
â€œTo exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; Andâ€Â Â Â Â Article I, Section 8, (par.17) USA Const. 1787
This is the beauty of the Land between Canada and Mexico for it is a land of written law as associated with all governance associated with the United States of America, a/the Confederacy, and its creation such as is called the UNITED STATES, a corporation, and in this captioned case the STATE OF FLORDIA, a like corporation.
Therefore ignorance of the law shall not stand, this captioned Administrative Court, calledÂ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION is herein noticed that it only has authority to enforce written law derived from the above stated â€œexclusive Legislationâ€ of itâ€™s written charter.Â For was it not Thomas Jefferson that said; â€œ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.â€Â Â This was in reference to the very Constitution articles presented in this Brief.Â How can any one argue with such a reference from the floor of the assembly that was/is deemed the founders of these great states united.Â Â Â As the Pharosâ€™s of old say; â€œSo it is written so it shall be.â€
Such is the captioned Court of this case, for it is not a free inhabitant judicial court but rather an administrative, statutorily governed, entity created only to administrate its subjects and acts on its owned Land, as a proprietary function, constrained by the aforementioned Organic Laws found in its own published written law, the USC.
Such limited exclusive Legislation (territorial, proprietary, jurisdiction),Â can not be enlarged or diminished by inadvertence, ignorance, mistake, claim, waiver, ordered estoppels, or force of arms.
If the record has no evidence, or more importantly, if fact evidence is â€œever provenâ€ that the United States of America did not own the Land that Kent Hovind was alleged as doing acts on in relation to the charges of this captioned case, all acts of this caption Court is a nullity, having no legal validity, and most surly no lawful validity.Â For truly the claim had to be brought into a court of jurisdiction in relationship to land not owned by the United States of America.
No court of the United States, a possession of the United States of America, can trick, or hold, any free inhabitant into being subject to its orders (administration), written law, law of the (USA) land, for if the acts in question did not occur on land that the administrator had permission to govern, branching from exclusive Legislation, of the United States of America, by the United States, it is highly demanded that that any such order be vacated upon such notice.Â Obey the gentle chains of the USA and US Constitutions and vacate all charges, against Kent Hovind, that this Brief clearly makes vacate-able.
Paul John Hansen, as Amicus Curiae,
Care Of – Paul John Hansen,
1548 N 19th Street,
Not a resident address.
Certificate of Mailing
I, the signed, Paul John Hansen to certify having, this same day of May 26, 2011, mailed the above ten (10) page Brief to the Court titled as IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION, 1 Palafox St. Pensacola Florida 32502, post paid, vi first-class, US Postal Service mailing. Mailed by Hansen as additional proof of Notice of the established written law.Â Â Â CC sent to US Atty 21 E Garden St Pensacola, Fl 32505 for Kent Hovind as additional mailing Notice/Brief.
Paul John Hansen
Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.