((Dr. Kent Hovind the World recognized Christian expert on the fallacy of evolution.))
To: Pastor Chuck Smith
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa
3800 S Fairview St, Santa Ana, Ca 92704, 6-17-2011
To: Chuck Missler
c/o Koinonia House
P.O. Box D
Coeur d’Alene, ID 83816-0347
Re: Our brother has been kidnapped, raped, and killed â€“ (12 tribes – Judges 19:29)
From: Christian Science Evangelism (CSE) Ministries (DR. Kent Hovind)
Kent Hovind has been maliciously attacked and framed by the US Court System with the aid of his Attorney.
Kent did not do one thing in violation of the US written Law, the said law was misapplied, Kent as a ‘free inhabitant’ as clearly recognized, in the first two constitutions of, Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of 1777 and Declaration of Independence 1776. To listen to a presentation on the law basis of â€œfree inhabitant independence, contact me, and Iâ€™ll send you the PowerPoint audio/text 35-minute package. Â A fact in law every Christian attorney has told me that should be taught to the Church.
Our brother needs a hand, the US government, which is only â€œaâ€ government, not â€œtheâ€ government in Florida, has kidnapped Kent.Â Kent has been prosecuted for various written laws that do not even have a semblance of force and effect on Kent or his Ministry.Â He was singled out, just as wolves attack and fatigue a water-buffalo to his death as a 1000 other powerful water-buffalo watch, without the natural instinct that they could easily overpower the wolves.
We the Church, Americans, have lost our natural instinct to defend the individual being attacked. As Thomas Jefferson said; “they piecemeal us until there is nothing left to defend.” Those who have the ability to understand should have marched by the thousands to stop this attack.Â They pick us off one by one as the herd runs without even looking back.
Is there not a cause, dose not an affliction on one touch all. Many are called to help, few are chosen. Be of the men of great valor and say here I am Lord chose me.
As legal counsel for Kent we have some powerful argument, more fully explained in the said presentation, before the Court, an argument that they have no defense to, the written law is the very chain upon government that keeps the beast from attacking its master. See attached Brief.
Email me if the lord lays a burden on you of prayer that leads to action. Exposing their violation of their written constraints is paramount, yes the US government is forbidden to do to Kent, His Family, and His (The Lords) Ministry, what they have been doing for the last ten years.
Must we cut the remains into twelve pieces to get a response?
If believers do not stand together the world will insure we hang together.
The freedom that Kent stood for is against the goals of the powers that be, to the extent, to warrant his assassination.Â History does repeat upon many innocent men.
Exposure is what is needed NOW:
- TV, (The producer of EXPELLED is working on a movie script of Kents experience presently.)
- Pulpit announcements,
- Media, Radio-Talk Shows-News Papers-etc.
- Word of mouth,
- Internet blogs,
- Write the Prosecutor, Judge, etc. (I can give recommendation of who/what to write.)
- Letters to Governors, Senators and Congress.
I can put a legal presentation together that is specific for Kent’s defense provided we have a family of supporters that are interested in distributing the material.
Rally as if it were you, though innocent, confined for ten years. Kent has even been forbidden to lead bible studied one on one. If now one says anything Kent will be held, in violation of God’s law and mans written law, for another 4.5 years.
Paul John Hansen, as CSE Trustee, and Kent’s Legal Counsel
Kent needs us to rally now.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Case No.Â 3:06cr83/MCR
VS SUPPORTING Amicus BRIEF
) NOTICE of Written Law.
Kent E Hovind)
Brief in support of the 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 set forth by the written law of the United States. These organic laws are positive law and can be found listed as such in Volume 1 (One) of the United States Code as follows: 1. Declaration of Independence 2. Articles of Confederation 3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory Government 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: 1. Declaration of Independence
2. Articles of Confederation
3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory Government
4. Constitution of the United States and Amendments
I, Kent Hovind have openly declared myself as a 'free inhabitant' according to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, November 15, 1777.Â Pursuant to these Articles of Confederation;
Article IV. The 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. 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 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 to majority vote and rule. Unalienable rights are not subject to majority 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. 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 ‘Constitution United States of America’ 1787, 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 preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 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. 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 Constitution of the United States of America 1787, confirms it is a revision of the Articles of Confederation. 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 accuracy of the pleadings placed before it by the moving party. 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. To the contrary, of all practical efforts, Kent Hovind has openly declared himself an Article IV â€œfree inhabitant 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 agents of the United States, 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 common law (common law 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. Then firmly establishing Kent’s right of independence from the United States Legislation that is established in the United States Constitution and it’s relationship with the Land called the Northwest ordinance and like land as found in the following written law:
DISTRICT COURTS “ Title 28 USC, CHAPTER 5 – DISTRICT COURTS -MISC1-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. When analyzed, that sentence reveals that the territorial composition of each judicial district of 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 exclusive Legislation 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 an inseparable subdivision of the United States which is a corporation as proven by referencing the following: 28 U.S.C. PART VI CHAPTER 176 SUBCHAPTER A § 3002(14) (15)(A): (15) United States means (A) a Federal corporation; the local District Attorney is limited to crimes committed on federal territory within the county.
Needless to say that the District of Columbia is indisputably known as USA owned land, then so must be the like District 89. as listed above as Florida. The question shall never dissipate as to-does the Plaintiff have factual evidence and does the record show, that the acts that Kent Hovind was accused of doing, where they have 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? 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. 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. In addition, all trial jurors in Florida must be U.S. citizens and â€œresidents of the State of Florida, which I also have discovered was never established by the PLAINTIFF’S in my trial. The State of Florida is both the name of the government and the federal territory in Florida. The written law in the State of Florida clearly states:
CRIMINAL STATUTES 913.03 Grounds for a challenge to individual jurors for cause. A challenge for cause to an individual juror may be made only on the following grounds: (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 land 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:
To 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; And 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 exclusive Legislation of it’s written charter. 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. 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. As the Pharo’s of old say; So it is written so it shall be.
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), cannot 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 ever proven 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 surely no lawful validity. 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. 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. 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.