{"id":274,"date":"2011-03-29T20:09:28","date_gmt":"2011-03-29T20:09:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=274"},"modified":"2011-03-29T20:09:28","modified_gmt":"2011-03-29T20:09:28","slug":"territorial-jurisdiction-for-kent-hovind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=274","title":{"rendered":"Territorial Jurisdiction, for Kent Hovind"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brief<\/span><\/strong>, USA v. Kent Hovind, Territorial Jurisdiction:<\/p>\n

Attorney Karl, my research shows that the USA (the Confederation) only has permission of jurisdiction \u00e2\u20ac\u0153only\u00e2\u20ac\u009d exclusively<\/span><\/strong> on land<\/strong> owned or ceded to it.<\/p>\n

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17:\u00c2\u00a0 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153To exercise exclusive<\/span> 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<\/span> purchased<\/span> 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\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/h3>\n

They can not extend it further. They are bared. Any further claim must be done with a court that does<\/span> have jurisdiction on land that they do not<\/span> own.<\/p>\n

There is only two types of land in America between the borders of Canada and Mexico, that is: 1. land owned by the USA, \u00c2\u00a02. land not owned by the USA.\u00c2\u00a0 All jurisdiction is proprietary.<\/p>\n

Such a trespass can be challenged in a civil court setting.\u00c2\u00a0 Where there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s damage – there must be a remedy.<\/p>\n

The people have forbid jurisdiction of the USA to any land they do not own.<\/p>\n

What one must make clear the following:<\/p>\n

a. A civil hearing, common law, will be called some day in the future, Hovind v. USA.<\/p>\n

b. Witnesses shall be subpoenaed with duces tecum.<\/p>\n

c. Witnesses will be asked if they are well trained and are qualified to do their job.<\/p>\n

d. Witnesses then shall be called to testify and present evidence of what is in the USA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s possession as to fact evidence that they have jurisdiction on the land that Kent was raided on.<\/p>\n

e. When and how was the land that the charges where claimed to have taken place on, where purchased, making them a constitutional \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Places purchased<\/span><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d?<\/strong><\/p>\n

[They always submit a deed, but deeds are only presumptive evidence, they must have a witness in the stand that will testify that the <\/strong>USA<\/strong> owns such and such land that the subject acts took place on.\u00c2\u00a0 Just because a attorney created deed says it is in city, county, state, does not change the fact that the property is not<\/span> owned by the <\/strong>USA<\/strong>. ]<\/strong><\/p>\n

f. They will have none.<\/p>\n

g. The jury will be left with calculating damages.<\/p>\n

The USA government has no place to hide.<\/p>\n

But without that US agent subpoenaed in the stand you have little chance of winning, or getting the fatal record against them.<\/p>\n

Every case that I have followed is failing distinction of land owned and land not owned.<\/p>\n

The cases start talking of; in the city, in the state, in the county, all of which are possessions of the USA.<\/p>\n

There is only one government of\/in the USA of legal entities, that is the USA \/ US.<\/p>\n

The other government is of\/on land not owned by the USA, and only associated with non-legal entities, such as man, family, church, free inhabitants = non-citizen of the USA, etc.<\/p>\n

Motion to vacate judgment due to no place in the record that Plaintiff gives evidence to territorial jurisdiction as constitutionally required.<\/p>\n

We can even bring in some type of document from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), they know if the USA owns any given piece of land.<\/p>\n

Exculpatory, or evidence that was not then known, or evidence that if would have been presented would change the outcome of the trial, acquittal.<\/p>\n

If argued correctly with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153another<\/span>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/strong> reason to give the court an escape route, I suspect they will vacate for fear of exposure.\u00c2\u00a0 (We must give them a way out, they will not expose the truth of territorial jurisdiction with out a sudo-civil war.)<\/p>\n

Congress could, eventually, be called to answer the jurisdictional question.<\/p>\n

Paul\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 3-25-11<\/p>\n

>><\/p>\n

Kent:<\/p>\n

I have heard that if a magistrate did your arraignment that is simulating judicial process and is a due process violation, all act after that violation is a nullity.\u00c2\u00a0 I do not want to be a cloud without rain, but maybe we can seed this one and get a down poor.\u00c2\u00a0 We are working on it.<\/p>\n

>><\/p>\n

Briefing on promulgation of proprietary authority.<\/p>\n

Declaration of Independence 1776\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Separation from King George = Power<\/strong>. Proprietary<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The word constitution does not appear.<\/p>\n

Articles of Confederation 1777 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0 Article I. The stile of this confederacy shall be, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The United States of<\/span><\/strong> America.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 [one court mentioned \u00e2\u20ac\u201c disputes between states (not people).]\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Consent<\/strong>, Agreement<\/strong>, a more perfect Union.<\/p>\n

The word constitution does not appear.<\/p>\n

Northwest Ordinance 1787-<\/p>\n

Are\/is the people\/land of those States of the Northwest Territory, which have not been admitted into the perpetual Union.<\/p>\n

The Constitution of<\/span><\/strong> the United States<\/p>\n

Preamble -\u00c2\u00a0 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153do ordain<\/a> and establish this Constitution<\/span><\/em> for<\/span><\/strong> the United States of America\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (The Confederacy).\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Not changing or creating but \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Aid\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to the Confederacy. <\/strong>Not directly for the people but for the Confederacy.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153this Union,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Union.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153do ordain<\/a> and establish Land<\/span><\/em>, People<\/span>, Laws<\/span><\/em>, for<\/span><\/strong> the United States of America.<\/p>\n

So in Kent\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s case, and in all territorial jurisdiction challenges, there must be fact evidence on the record, or produced when challenged, at [a]ny time, of ownership of the subject land by the USA for it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s USA laws to have force and effect of law.<\/p>\n

Even with the Kent\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s pulling $9500.00 out structurally, they must prove that the structurally related \u00e2\u20ac\u0153money laundering\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was committed on a USA possession.\u00c2\u00a0 When\/if challenged by Kent, such evidence must be factually on the record, or be brought before the judge ASAP.\u00c2\u00a0 If we have proof that the USA does not own the subject land, such offered proof must be controverter for the court to maintain that jurisdiction is\/has been present.<\/p>\n

Any claim of income must be proven to have develop on USA land, or a resident of USA land.<\/p>\n

All claims of the USA must have an admiralty claim- \u00e2\u20ac\u0153PORT\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of entry.\u00c2\u00a0 (Territory includes water and land.)\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Resident of USA, or done on USA land.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153In\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as to > City, County, State of Nebraska, Federal Territory, District.<\/p>\n

Incorporated \/ Chartered City<\/span><\/strong> of Omaha;<\/p>\n

Douglas County<\/span><\/strong>;<\/p>\n

District<\/span><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c US District, School District, Municipal District, Federal District;<\/p>\n

State<\/span><\/strong> of Nebraska is one of the states of the United States;<\/p>\n

Federal lands;<\/p>\n

all the above are possessions of the USA.<\/p>\n

Resident of the above.<\/p>\n

Live in = live on.<\/p>\n

National, National Citizen, National Bank.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (Some tax cases state- \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Defendant never rebutted he was not a national citizen.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d)<\/p>\n

My mailing address styled as: Paul John Hansen, 1548 N 19, Omaha, Nebraska, not a resident address.<\/p>\n

A TAX PAYER must\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 – Socialism can be imposed by the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d on<\/span><\/strong> the People of the United States, but not on<\/span><\/strong> the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153one People\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n

>>>>>><\/p>\n

The sentence: “Sections 81 – 131 of this chapter shows the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,” was added to Title 28 by the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, so it would conform to the statute law on the judiciary and judicial procedure of the United States.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (Essentially gave scope of jurisdiction, promulgation.)<\/p>\n

The sole appearance of the word “district” in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 confirms the meaning it was given in the Declaration of Independence and Northwest Ordinance.\u00c2\u00a0 “To exercise exclusive<\/span><\/strong> 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<\/span><\/strong> 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.”<\/p>\n

Sections 81 through 131 of Title 28 consist of, in alphabetical order, \u00c2\u00a0the 48 States, the two Territories, Alaska and Hawaii, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as of \u00c2\u00a0January1, 1945.\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0Section 81a is Alaska.\u00c2\u00a0 Section 88 is the District of Columbia.\u00c2\u00a0 Section 91 is Hawaii and Section 119 is Puerto Rico.<\/p>\n

No territorial investigation beyond Section 88 should be needed, however, to put to rest any question that the territorial composition of the districts and divisions is only<\/span> the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America, let us examine Title 1 of the United States Code, General Procedures, for its definition of “County<\/span><\/strong>,” which we find encrypted in Section 2: The word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153county\u00e2\u20ac\u009d includes a parish, or any other equivalent subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States<\/span><\/strong>.”\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Translated into plain English, the word “county” of \u00c2\u00a0Section 2 of Title 1 of the United States Code means the\/a kind <\/span><\/strong>of county (land) found in Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on January1, 1945, which is subject to the exclusive<\/span><\/strong> jurisdiction of the United States of America.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

81.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Alabama.<\/p>\n

81A.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Alaska.<\/p>\n

82.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Arizona.<\/p>\n

83.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Arkansas.<\/p>\n

84.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 California.<\/p>\n

85.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Colorado.<\/p>\n

86.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Connecticut.<\/p>\n

87.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Delaware.<\/p>\n

88.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 District of Columbia<\/span><\/strong>. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

89.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Florida.<\/p>\n

90.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Georgia.<\/p>\n

91.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Hawaii.<\/p>\n

92.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Idaho.<\/p>\n

93.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Illinois.<\/p>\n

94.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Indiana.<\/p>\n

95.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Iowa.<\/p>\n

96.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Kansas.<\/p>\n

97.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Kentucky.<\/p>\n

98.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Louisiana.<\/p>\n

99.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Maine.<\/p>\n

100.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Maryland.<\/p>\n

101.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Massachusetts.<\/p>\n

102.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Michigan.<\/p>\n

103.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Minnesota.<\/p>\n

104.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Mississippi.<\/p>\n

105.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Missouri.<\/p>\n

106.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Montana.<\/p>\n

107.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Nebraska.<\/strong><\/p>\n

108.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Nevada.<\/p>\n

109.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 New Hampshire.<\/p>\n

110.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 New Jersey.<\/p>\n

111.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 New Mexico.<\/p>\n

112.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 New York.<\/p>\n

113.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 North Carolina.<\/p>\n

114.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 North Dakota.<\/p>\n

115.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Ohio.<\/p>\n

116.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Oklahoma.<\/p>\n

117.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Oregon.<\/p>\n

118.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n

119.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Puerto Rico<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

120.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Rhode Island.<\/p>\n

121.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 South Carolina.<\/p>\n

122.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 South Dakota.<\/p>\n

123.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Tennessee.<\/p>\n

124.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Texas.<\/p>\n

125.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Utah.<\/p>\n

126.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Vermont.<\/p>\n

127.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Virginia.<\/p>\n

128.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Washington.<\/p>\n

129.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 West Virginia.<\/p>\n

130.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Wisconsin.<\/p>\n

131.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Wyoming.<\/p>\n

_________<\/p>\n

52 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 < total, so we have 50 states and 2 possessions.<\/p>\n

If no port of entry upon USA possession = only common law proceeding, the written law of the USA does not apply.<\/p>\n

>><\/p>\n

The Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and the first clause in Article VII of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153this Constitution\u00e2\u20ac\u009d will provide the solution to a runaway federal government, yet Note- the Preamble is not an officially part of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Here\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s how to make the constitutional connection between, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153We the People of the United States\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153We the People of the United States\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Conventions of nine States\u00e2\u20ac\u009d are the same.<\/p>\n

>><\/p>\n

USA District Court Judge must reside on a possession (US District) of the USA to have standing as a USA District Court Judge.\u00c2\u00a0 If we can find that any of Kent\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s judges did\/does not reside on land owned by the USA their orders are possibly void.<\/p>\n

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and the weakest link is the federal jury selection process.\u00c2\u00a0 No one can be prosecuted for a serious federal crime without a qualified federal grand jury, a federal trial jury and a federal judge of the State and judicial district “wherein the crime shall have been committed.”<\/p>\n

The 1812 federal law, which is **attached, making it a misdemeanor for a district court judge not to reside in the district has not been repealed.<\/p>\n

The Law:<\/strong> The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. In\u00c2\u00a0United States<\/span> v. Collins<\/span>, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),<\/p>\n

United States v. Ward<\/span>, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987),\u00c2\u00a0cert. denied<\/span>, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the court rejected as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153twisted conclusion\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the contention \u00e2\u20ac\u0153that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States,<\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and affirmed a tax evasion conviction.<\/p>\n

Barcroft v. Commissioner<\/span>, T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667,\u00c2\u00a0appeal dismissed<\/span>, 134 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1997) \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Barcroft claimed that he was not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcU.S. citizen,\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 subject to federal jurisdiction, such as \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcofficers, employees, and elected officials of the United States,\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and did not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153reside within a federal territory such as Washington D.C., or a federal enclave within a State, or a U.S. possession.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The court noted that Barcroft\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s statements \u00e2\u20ac\u0153contain protester-type contentions that have been rejected by the courts as groundless,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the court sustained penalties for failure to file returns and failure to pay estimated income taxes.<\/p>\n

The above cases are losses due to the fact that the Defendant <\/span><\/strong>made the claims, could not prove a negative therefore lost support of such unsupported claims.\u00c2\u00a0 The Defendant failed to subpoena-duces tecum an IRS agent (his accuser) and demand answer the same support. \u00c2\u00a0Must keep the burden on the USA at all times.<\/p>\n

Definition of US citizen is > Persons who are citizens of the United States are qualified to be prospective jurors.\u00c2\u00a0 The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines \u00e2\u20ac\u0153citizens of the United States\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all persons born or naturalized in the United States and<\/span> subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 So one can be born in the US and yet become a non-citizen of the US.\u00c2\u00a0 Such born type can expatriate to the free inhabitant standing. (\u00e2\u20ac\u0153In\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is as saying on land owned by the USA.)<\/p>\n

The type of people of the Declaration of Independence are foreign to the land owned by the USA, and the US citizen is foreign to the said free inhabitants land.<\/p>\n

Kent Hovind is foreign to the US lands.<\/p>\n

Hit them hard, give them a way out that they can save face, get Kent out.<\/p>\n

A walk in the park, aJ<\/p>\n

If you comprehend all this you are now a legal-genies.<\/p>\n

Brief written by Paul John Hansen, pauljjhansen.com<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

** STATUTE II.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dec:. I8, 1812. <\/strong>CHAP. V. An Act concerning the District and Territorial Judges of the <\/em>United States<\/strong><\/em>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Be it enacted by the \u00c2\u00a0Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <\/em>That hereafter it shall be incumbent upon the district and territorial judges of the United States, to reside within the districts and territories<\/span><\/strong> respectively for which they are appointed, and that it shall not be lawful for any judge appointed under the authority of the United States, to exercise the profession: or employment of counsel or attorney, or to be engaged in the practice of the law. And any person offending against the injunction or prohibition of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.<\/p>\n

APPROVED, December 18, 1812. \u00c2\u00b7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brief, USA v. Kent Hovind, Territorial Jurisdiction: Attorney Karl, my research shows that the USA (the Confederation) only has permission of jurisdiction \u00e2\u20ac\u0153only\u00e2\u20ac\u009d exclusively on land owned or ceded to it. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17:\u00c2\u00a0 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153To exercise … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[57],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}