Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power.

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power.

Post by iamfreeru2 » Tue May 19, 2015 6:23 pm

I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Thu May 21, 2015 1:56 pm

There are two kinds of power, inherent or derivative. The power federal courts exercise is derivative.

From Bouvier's 1856:
Derivative power, which is usually known, by the technical name of power, is an authority by which one person enables another to do an act for him. Powers of this kind were well known to the common law, and were divided into two sorts: naked powers or bare authorities, and powers coupled with an interest. There is a material difference between them. In the case of the former, if it be exceeded in the act done, it is entirely void; in the latter it is good for so much as is within the power, and void for the rest only.


Federal courts derive their powers from contacts that give state interest. Keep your contacts to a minimum to keep their power to a minimum regarding you.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Thu May 21, 2015 7:34 pm

All 'courts" are territorial. It matters not that the "court's" power is derivative or inherent. If you do not live on property upon which The United States of America has a proprietary interest, then no "court" of United States has jurisdiction. That is the simple truth.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Fri May 22, 2015 12:23 pm

Ok, maybe I'm missing something. If so, could you please cite any court cases where someone who did not reside in a federal area BUT did have contacts (i.e. contracts, agreements, licenses, commercial nexus, etc.) with the "United States" was immune from the jurisdiction of the "United States".

It is a matter of international law.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Sun May 24, 2015 12:53 pm

I've been looking for cases in which those foreign to the "United States" but with contacts with the "United States" were found to be immune to the jurisdiction of the "United States" with no success. They reach their long arms into every case and find a contact to claim jurisdictional power.

Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts from HERE:
Personal Jurisdiction, or in personam jurisdiction, refers to the power of a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant by virtue of the defendant’s having some contact with the place where the court is located.

Through its personal jurisdiction, a court exercises authority to make decisions binding on the persons involved in a civil case. Every state has personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. On the other hand, no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory unless such persons manifest some contact with the state.

The sovereign power of the government grants courts the authority to issue orders to persons present within its territory. The court’s authority to issue orders to person’s present within the territory, allows it to reach all residents of a state, including those who are outside the state for a short period and out-of-state residents who enter the state even for a short time.

Courts exercising jurisdiction over a state where a corporation is incorporated, shall exercise personal jurisdiction over such corporations as well. The concerned states may require corporations to file written consents to personal jurisdiction before they are allowed to conduct business within the state. States may also require the concerned corporations to designate an agent to accept legal process within the state or it can require all out-of-state corporations doing business within the state to authorize the state attorney general to accept process for them.

In 1945, a “minimum contacts” test was announced by the US Supreme court in the International Shoe Company v. Washington case to establish personal jurisdiction over a corporation.
The Court held that courts could constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant had sufficient contacts with the state. Jurisdiction shall be exercised in such a way that forcing the person to litigate in that forum did not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court stated that, with the advancement of modern communication and transportation, it is usually not unfair to require a party to defend itself in a state in which it conducts some business activity.

Determination of “minimum contacts” standards vary in each case. Where the action arises out of or is related to the defendant’s contacts with the state, the quantity of contacts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction may be minimal. In such circumstances the nature and quality of the contact become the determining factors. In the case of a nonresident motorist who causes an injury in the state of the court asserting jurisdiction (forum state), the state’s interest in providing a forum for its residents and regulating its highways, coupled with the defendant purposefully entering a state, permits the state to fairly assert personal jurisdiction.

A corporation or individual not physically present in a state may also invoke personal jurisdiction. A single contact with the state by telephone, mail, or facsimile transmission may establish the requisite contact. Such transactions trigger personal jurisdiction when the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum state and invokes the benefits and protection of state law.

Taking into account the “minimum contacts” rule, states enacted “long-arm statutes.” These statutes allowed states to reach out and obtain jurisdiction over anyone who is not present in the state but who transacts business within the state; and over anyone who commits a tort within the state, commits a tort outside the state that causes injury within the state, or owns, uses, or possesses real property within the state.

Personal jurisdiction in the federal courts is governed by rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 directs every federal district court to follow the law on personal jurisdiction that is in force in the state courts where the federal court is located. Federal courts may also use state long-arm statutes to reach defendants beyond the territory of their normal jurisdiction. In cases that may be brought only in a federal court, such as lawsuits involving federal securities and antitrust laws, federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant regardless of where the defendant is found.

When challenging a personal jurisdiction, by an appearance before the court in the forum state, the defendant waives the right to raise any jurisdictional defects. The court will take even such a general appearance as an unqualified submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court. A defendant can request a special appearance before the court to prevent this. This is a special appearance for the limited purpose of challenging the sufficiency of the service of process or the personal jurisdiction of the court. If any other issues are raised in special appearance, the proceeding becomes a general appearance. The court must then determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant. If the defendant is found to be within the personal jurisdiction of the court, the issue may be appealed.

http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app ... at%2520316 - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... zBWVT.dpuf


Without cloaking the "United States" or any of its agents with power or authority, it is prudent, imo, to know on what they act. And also to know:

Who are you? (What is your standing and what rights come with that standing?)
Where are you? (Do you live, work or travel in a federal area?)
What is their relation to you? (What contacts/contracts do you have with the "United States" or its agents that can give them power over you?)

It is true that being a serf living on land the "United States" claims an interest in will give them power, but it is not the only way they will claim it.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon May 25, 2015 8:28 pm

notmartha, thanks for the replies.

First let me say you won't find any "court" cases regarding what you asked above. All written law must identify the territory to which it applies. This is known as Territorial Jurisdiction, which is necessary and must be proven when interacting with any alleged governmental or quasi-governmental entity or employee when demanded.

This is NOT personal jurisdiction. Before personal jurisdiction is obtained, territorial jurisdiction must be proven. There are no other issues and one must stay on point or territorial jurisdiction is waived.

Also, residing outside a federal area does not mean you are "immune from the jurisdiction of the "United States". It is a good idea to not have any government issued ID that can be used against you. Just the admission of being a United States citizen is enough to waive territorial jurisdiction. Most people, if you ask them, will state they live in United States, thus giving United States territorial jurisdiction.

There are four different topics at Purged From The Matrix you should find informative. You will notice that in order to be a juror, first and foremost, you must be a citizen of the United States and reside "in this state" or "in the state" a/k/a State of California, State of Florida, State of Alaska, etc., to be eligible for jury duty.

No "court" under the territorial jurisdiction of United States has any applicability within the perpetual Union of The United States of America or the free inhabitants thereof.

Knowing truth is what makes us free, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." It is not looking to the "courts" or government for their stamp of approval. It is how you wield the truth that matters. The truth cannot be defeated, it is not theory, it is not hearsay, it is the remedy. Knowing enough truth, you will know how to avoid any potential pitfalls. Unfortunately, most people are very confused, not knowing who they are or even where they live.

The truth is simple, but most want to complicate matters because, to them, simple will never work. Most people lose in these territorial "courts" because of ignorance, and that is the sad truth.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon May 25, 2015 11:51 pm

First let me say you won't find any "court" cases regarding what you asked above. All written law must identify the territory to which it applies. This is known as Territorial Jurisdiction, which is necessary and must be proven when interacting with any alleged governmental or quasi-governmental entity or employee when demanded.
Agreed.
This is NOT personal jurisdiction. Before personal jurisdiction is obtained, territorial jurisdiction must be proven. There are no other issues and one must stay on point or territorial jurisdiction is waived.
They can and do claim personal jurisdiction without having territorial jurisdiction. That is what their title 28 sections 1602-1610ish are all about. Is it unlawful? Probably, but they do it nevertheless. What law/maxim/etc. says they can't claim personal jurisdiction without having territorial jurisdiction?
Also, residing outside a federal area does not mean you are "immune from the jurisdiction of the "United States". It is a good idea to not have any government issued ID that can be used against you. Just the admission of being a United States citizen is enough to waive territorial jurisdiction. Most people, if you ask them, will state they live in United States, thus giving United States territorial jurisdiction.
Agreed. When you said:
iamfreeru2 wrote:If you do not live on property upon which The United States of America has a proprietary interest, then no "court" of United States has jurisdiction. That is the simple truth.
I thought you meant they have no jurisdiction unless you live in a federal area/plane. That would not be true.
No "court" under the territorial jurisdiction of United States has any applicability within the perpetual Union of The United States of America or the free inhabitants thereof.
...unless the free inhabitant has contacts with the U.S.
Knowing truth is what makes us free, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." It is not looking to the "courts" or government for their stamp of approval. It is how you wield the truth that matters. The truth cannot be defeated, it is not theory, it is not hearsay, it is the remedy. Knowing enough truth, you will know how to avoid any potential pitfalls. Unfortunately, most people are very confused, not knowing who they are or even where they live.


Yep, I'm all about the truth. They, however, are of the devil and there is no truth in them. (John 8:44)
Last edited by notmartha on Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sun May 31, 2015 11:15 pm

notmartha wrote:They can and do claim personal jurisdiction without having territorial jurisdiction. That is what their title 28 sections 1602-1610ish are all about. Is it unlawful? Probably, but they do it nevertheless. What law/maxim/etc. says they can't claim personal jurisdiction without having territorial jurisdiction? Without territorial jurisdiction there is no personal jurisdiction. Let me ask you this, can the boy scouts come on girl scouts property and make their rules apply to the girls scouts? Does government have territorial jurisdiction to come on your land and make all the rules, like pay property taxes? If you say yes, you need to dig deeper. They do have force, but force does not equate to authority/jurisdiction.
Also, residing outside a federal area does not mean you are "immune from the jurisdiction of the "United States". It is a good idea to not have any government issued ID that can be used against you. Just the admission of being a United States citizen is enough to waive territorial jurisdiction. Most people, if you ask them, will state they live in United States, thus giving United States territorial jurisdiction.
Agreed. When you said:
iamfreeru2 wrote:If you do not live on property upon which The United States of America has a proprietary interest, then no "court" of United States has jurisdiction. That is the simple truth.
I thought you meant they have no jurisdiction unless you live in a federal area/plane. That would not be true. No, that is absolutely true. Are federal areas not places where government has a proprietary interest. They do not have jurisdiction on any property that does not belong to them. Unfortunately, most people are confused due to the government indoctrination mills called public schools.

Did you know that judges and juries are not qualified to be such unless they live in a federal district, whether federal or "State"?


http://www.purgedfromthematrix.com/foru ... ?f=23&t=59

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2014/40.01
40.01 Qualifications of jurors.—Jurors shall be taken from the male and female persons at least 18 years of age who are citizens of the United States and legal residents of this state and their respective counties and who possess a driver license or identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles pursuant to chapter 322 or who have executed the affidavit prescribed in s. 40.011.
No "court" under the territorial jurisdiction of United States has any applicability within the perpetual Union of The United States of America or the free inhabitants thereof.
...unless the free inhabitant has contacts with the U.S. Contact does not give *United States" jurisdiction, this is pure "patriot mythology". Minimum contacts only apply within United States with its citizens. Does the mere fact of using FRNs give government authority/jurisdiction? Now, if you have a driver license you just admitted to being a citizen and resident of United States. Under the Driver License Compact of any member State of XYZ, it is clearly stated that State means territories of United States. So, when you state you live in State of XYZ, you are actually stating you live on property that is owned by or ceded to United States.
Knowing truth is what makes us free, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." It is not looking to the "courts" or government for their stamp of approval. It is how you wield the truth that matters. The truth cannot be defeated, it is not theory, it is not hearsay, it is the remedy. Knowing enough truth, you will know how to avoid any potential pitfalls. Unfortunately, most people are very confused, not knowing who they are or even where they live.


Yep, I'm all about the truth. They, however, are of the devil and there is no truth in them. (John 8:44)
True, but they can not deny the truth. Truth is the only real remedy.

I have a couple of links to audios at the following link (front page), plus other info:

http://www.purgedfromthematrix.com/

I believe the audios to be very informative and answer many questions.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:00 am

I always mess up when trying to quote quotes, so I'll divide it up (and conquer!! :lol: )
iamfreeru2 wrote:Without territorial jurisdiction there is no personal jurisdiction. . . Let me ask you this, can the boy scouts come on girl scouts property and make their rules apply to the girls scouts? Does government have territorial jurisdiction to come on your land and make all the rules, like pay property taxes? If you say yes, you need to dig deeper. They do have force, but force does not equate to authority/jurisdiction.
You are making my point. Unless the boy scouts and girl scouts have a contract that says otherwise, the boy scouts acquiesce to the girl scouts' jurisdiction when they willingly went on their property. If the girl scouts made a compact of some sort, the boy scouts may share jurisdiction and rule making powers. If my land were in a "federal area" they would claim territorial jurisdiction.

4 U.S. CODE § 110
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State
No, that is absolutely true. Are federal areas not places where government has a proprietary interest. They do not have jurisdiction on any property that does not belong to them. Unfortunately, most people are confused due to the government indoctrination mills called public schools.

Where do they claim proprietary interest? What is it they have ownership of? They hold land and premises, and use land and premises.
Did you know that judges and juries are not qualified to be such unless they live in a federal district, whether federal or "State"? [/b][/color]
Yes, I'm aware.
Contact does not give *United States" jurisdiction, this is pure "patriot mythology". Minimum contacts only apply within United States with its citizens. .
Wrong. Here is their Title 28, claiming jurisdiction of the person residing outside of their territory, thus personal jurisdiction.
TITLE 28.pdf
(96.14 KiB) Downloaded 634 times
Does the mere fact of using FRNs give government authority/jurisdiction?
No, FRN's have a public and private side. It depends how you use them.
Now, if you have a driver license you just admitted to being a citizen and resident of United States. Under the Driver License Compact of any member State of XYZ, it is clearly stated that State means territories of United States. So, when you state you live in State of XYZ, you are actually stating you live on property that is owned by or ceded to United States.
Well...usually, but they do issue DL's to non-citizens and non-residents. And yes, you give them interest when claiming you live in "STATE of XYX," or when you pledge your property to their trust via registration.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:35 pm

notmartha wrote:I always mess up when trying to quote quotes, so I'll divide it up (and conquer!! :lol: )
iamfreeru2 wrote:Without territorial jurisdiction there is no personal jurisdiction. . . Let me ask you this, can the boy scouts come on girl scouts property and make their rules apply to the girls scouts? Does government have territorial jurisdiction to come on your land and make all the rules, like pay property taxes? If you say yes, you need to dig deeper. They do have force, but force does not equate to authority/jurisdiction.


You are making my point. Unless the boy scouts and girl scouts have a contract that says otherwise, the boy scouts acquiesce to the girl scouts' jurisdiction when they willingly went on their property. Not quite. What I asked is, can the boy scouts enter the girl scouts camp and make their rules apply to the girl scouts? I said nothing about the boy scouts acquiescing to the girl scouts. Do the boy scouts have territorial jurisdiction on girl scout property? The answer is NO they DO NOT!! Neither does United States have territorial jurisdiction on your land. If the girl scouts made a compact of some sort, the boy scouts may share jurisdiction and rule making powers. If my land were in a "federal area" they would claim territorial jurisdiction. I do not know about you, but my land is not located "in" a federal area or it would cease to be my land any longer. In order for that to happen United States would have to buy my land in order for it to be a federal area. Government does not have authority/jurisdiction to deem my private land a federal area.

4 U.S. CODE § 110
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State
No, that is absolutely true. Are federal areas not places where government has a proprietary interest. They do not have jurisdiction on any property that does not belong to them. Unfortunately, most people are confused due to the government indoctrination mills called public schools.

Where do they claim proprietary interest? What is it they have ownership of? They hold land and premises, and use land and premises. Any territory of United States is where The United States of America has a proprietary (ownership) interest. Of course that territory, should the government not exist, would revert back to the people. Are you familiar with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787? Did it create a temporary district under United States jurisdiction or was it to be permanent?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp
Section 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.
Did you know that judges and juries are not qualified to be such unless they live in a federal district, whether federal or "State"? [/b][/color]
Yes, I'm aware.
Contact does not give *United States" jurisdiction, this is pure "patriot mythology". Minimum contacts only apply within United States with its citizens. .
Wrong. Here is their Title 28, claiming jurisdiction of the person residing outside of their territory, thus personal jurisdiction. Sorry, but Title 28 only applies in United States (Federal territory).
TITLE 28.pdf
Does the mere fact of using FRNs give government authority/jurisdiction?
No, FRN's have a public and private side. It depends how you use them. There is no public or private side in the perpetual Union. Government has no jurisdiction over the free inhabitants thereof, period.
Now, if you have a driver license you just admitted to being a citizen and resident of United States. Under the Driver License Compact of any member State of XYZ, it is clearly stated that State means territories of United States. So, when you state you live in State of XYZ, you are actually stating you live on property that is owned by or ceded to United States.
Well...usually, but they do issue DL's to non-citizens and non-residents. And yes, you give them interest when claiming you live in "STATE of XYX," or when you pledge your property to their trust via registration.
No one pledges their property upon registration willingly and with knowledge. It can be easily proven the "State" does not have territorial jurisdiction to tax private land.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Post Reply