Territorial Jurisdiction Evidence of Law:
(1.) Catha v United States , 152 US , at 215
U.S. Code, Title 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, (Chapter 176) Section 3002 (15) (a, b, & c) THINK ART1, SEC.8, CL17. “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters 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.”
(2.)
What the IRS refused the Jury to see, would completely proven ‘no intent‘ for Defendant Hird.
Denial of a fair trial.
Denial of a defense.
Denial of placing your evidence before the jury.
They also denied Paul John Hansen as a witness as to what Thomas Hird relied upon as 10 years of notice upon the IRS as to his request if he is required to file a 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for any given year.
See court filed document below that was bared from the jury, and the questions and testimony of Paul John Hansen, that was also barred.
#71 XXX DEFENCE DISCOVERY ENTRY
(Comment by Hansen – the below was sent me by a friend, I have not reviewed all of it but it looks of value.)
“In 1887, Congress passed the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505), which further restricted the claims that could be submitted directly to Congress and required the claims instead to be submitted to the Court of Claims. It broadened the court’s jurisdiction so that “claims founded upon the Constitution” could be heard. In particular, this meant that monetary claims based on takings under the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment could be brought before the Court of Claims. The Tucker Act also opened the Court to tax refund suits.
Depredations against American shipping committed by the French during the Quasi-War of 1793 to 1800 led to claims against France that were relinquished by the terms of the Treaty of 1800. Since the claims against France were no longer valid, claimants continually petitioned Congress for the relief that had been waived by the treaty. Only on January 20, 1885, a law was passed, 23 Stat. 283, to provide for consideration of the matter before the Court of Claims. The lead case, Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, written by Judge John Davis, includes a complete discussion of the historical and political circumstances that led to the hostilities between the United States and France and their resolution by treaty. The cases, termed “French Spoliation Claims”, continued in the court until 1915.
In 1925, Congress changed the structure of the Court of Claims by authorizing the Court to appoint seven commissioners who were empowered to hear evidence in judicial proceedings and report on findings of fact. The judges of the Court of Claims would then serve as a board of review for the commissioners.
In 1932, Congress reduced the salary of the judges of the Court of Claims as part of the Legislative Appropriation Act of 1932. Thomas Sutler Williams was one of the judges of the Court, and he sued the federal government by claiming that his salary could not be cut because the Constitution had specified that judicial salaries could not be reduced. The Supreme Court ruled on Williams v. United States in 1933, deciding that the Court of Claims was an Article I or legislative court and so Congress had the authority to reduce the salaries of the judges of the Court of Claims.[6]
Beginning in 1948, Congress directed that when directed by the court, the commissioner could make recommendations for conclusions of law (62 Stat. 976). Chief Judge Wilson Cowen made that mandatory under the court rules in 1964.”
And that ACT opened the doors for what now exists as the United States Court of Claims.
[The United States Court of Federal Claims (in case citations, Fed. Cl. or C.F.C.) is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It is the direct successor to the United States Court of Claims, which was founded in 1855, and is therefore a revised version of one of the oldest federal courts in the country].
One of THE oldest federal courts. Hmmmm
[Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals (federal courts) as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal’s authority stems. The use of the term “tribunal” in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.]
It clearly states that the Federal Court of Claims exists under “Article 1” constitutional authority. Above you will note it is NOT considered to be a COURT. Instead, it is termed “other adjudicative entities…” See section 8 of Article 1. This so called Claims Court is obviously meant to serve NCUSN’s that have been affected by state citizens under an INDIVIDUAL contract (State issued ID) as well as a contract to be paid wages for working under a contract that affords the person(s) very limited authority that is ONLY applicable when dealing with other citizens that are aboard that CITIZEN-SHIP. If you’re a citizen of the U.S., then all you set is THIS:
[The Federal Tort Claims Act (August 2, 1946, ch.646, Title IV, 60 Stat. 812, 28 U.S.C. Part VI, Chapter 171 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346) (“FTCA”) is a 1946 federal statute that permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Historically, citizens have not been able to sue their state—a doctrine referred to as sovereign immunity. The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, permitting citizens to pursue some tort claims against the government.]
AND, the citizenry is limited to a CAP…
[This cap is only increased in cases of catastrophic loss or injury, and even then the injured party is limited to $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. The FTCA prohibits punitive damages from being awarded against the government. … Instead, only compensatory damages can be awarded in an FTCA case.]
The % of wins for the citizenry is very low in my estimation. In fact, I bet no one really wins there except the federal employees of the courts and doj along with all the BAR licensed attorneys that have their hands in that cookie jar. I SEE the deception so clearly now, y tu?
Whats even clearer now is THE REMEDY we now have as NCUSN status holders…amazing how well THE COURT CLERKS are cooperating with the Nevada Open Records Act DEMANDS that were sent about 3 weeks ago. They’re running out of time. Punitive AND compensatory damages are payable to NCUSN’s with VALID CLAIMS…now
Contact us, we can formulate actions that may make you tens of thousands by forcing the any city, county, or state, in the United States, to admit they are depriving you of a right.
Congress has never authorized the operation of the IRS as a matter of law, some state that it is as a matter of necessity, and not specific law.
Click on the image to enlarge.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-001-001#idm139964655721888
(a)In General.—The following definitions apply in this title:
(5)
The term “full-time National Guard duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States in the member’s status as a member of the National Guard of a State or territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32 for which the member is entitled to pay from the United States or for which the member has waived pay from the United States.
(2)The term “Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that—
Fill the form out like the above with the proper affidavit and the court is unable to charge you for your remedy for there damage done you.
Contact Hansen for the proper arguments and averments.
pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com Cell 251.362.8231 CDTime.
I have used it personally to save me over tens of thousand of dollars over the years. One case saved me more than five thousand dollars alone.
Administrator v. Judge, code
“There are no judicial courts in America and there have not been any since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. FRC v. GE 282 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
Fraud Upon The Court
–Judges Disqualification–
“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm
A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court“. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”
“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Traffic, show me the law.
One of my associates (Bob) lived in a military camp and the neighboring small town cops were constantly using the new recruits as easy picking for the smallest traffic issues.
The officer claimed Bob was driving recklessly when the truth is his car was running poorly and he had to pump the accelerator just to limp it home which caused the tires to act jerky.
He gets the ticket then notices that no violation statute number was on the citation, it just said ‘reckless driving’.
Bob, age 18, went to his arraignment and told the judge before he pleas that he wishes to see the written law he is charged under.
The judge pretended to act like he was seeing a written law in the book before him.
Bod asked to personally see it.
Then after a long search the judge admitted he could not find a specific ‘reckless driving’ statute and the case was dismissed.
Comment – Go to the original ‘Floor Bill‘ debate records where the specific statute you are charged with, it is likely that your activity does not exist in the texts.
Example – failure to use a turn-signal in my jurisdiction 300 feet before you turn does not apply on roads with a speed limit under 55 MPH, yet they use it to write tickets daily in city traffic where the speed limit is under 45MPH.
Always challenge all elements of the crime, personal, subject matter, and territorial, jurisdiction. Lawyer Hansen – pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com
