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

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:17 pm

notmartha wrote:If that is where you think the beginning starts, you won't be able to identify the flaws in man's constructions. You must start in the Garden.
Yes, I agree, but that is not what I am referring too. I am talking about the creation of The United States of America and going back to what transpired form its creation till now. For instance people believe George Washington was a great man. He was a scoundrel and deceived the people into believing the lie the Constitution of the United States applies where they live. There are many followers of Yeshua that have been deceived into believing this lie, and many more as well.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:44 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:I am sorry to say, but I have found that Dennis had very little nailed down. He certainly did not have the issue of the courts nailed down.
I did not agree with a lot of DC's two hats theory. Defacto is defacto period, whether you call them dejure or not. But I was talking specifically about congress' power to transfer their power to the pres, both statutorily and constitutionally. And they have done that.
The courts are all without any judicial power at all.The Chief Justice under the Constitution has no judicial authority whatsoever.


Semantics? The corporation makes courts, puts in judges, and gives them power. That equates to judicial power. Power is different than authority, and yes I agree that there is no constitutional judicial authority.
You might also be interested to know That the President of the United States is also legislative under Article 1 and not executive. The President of the United States of America has executive power, not the President of the United States.
The corporation dba "United States" has a CEO called "President". Therefor, the President of the United States is executive.

And you are still confusing territory, area, possession, property. I think I'll start a new thread sometime in the future to define each.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:22 pm

notmartha wrote:
iamfreeru2 wrote:I am sorry to say, but I have found that Dennis had very little nailed down. He certainly did not have the issue of the courts nailed down.
I did not agree with a lot of DC's two hats theory. Defacto is defacto period, whether you call them dejure or not. But I was talking specifically about congress' power to transfer their power to the pres, both statutorily and constitutionally. And they have done that. The President is merely an employee of the Congress of the United States. He has no power in the perpetual Union. The Constitution only applies on federal territory/property.

Also, once again here are

Art 1.8.17

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;--


Art. 4.3.2:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;

The courts are all without any judicial power at all.The Chief Justice under the Constitution has no judicial authority whatsoever.


Semantics? The corporation makes courts, puts in judges, and gives them power. That equates to judicial power. Power is different than authority, and yes I agree that there is no constitutional judicial authority. The point is, they have no authority or power anywhere other than federal territory/property.
You might also be interested to know That the President of the United States is also legislative under Article 1 and not executive. The President of the United States of America has executive power, not the President of the United States.
The corporation dba "United States" has a CEO called "President". Therefor, the President of the United States is executive. Well, according to the written law (United States Constitution) he is not the executive of anything. He may have power, but it only extends to US territory. Unfortunately, the people not knowing any better have allowed this charade to continue.

And you are still confusing territory, area, possession, property. I think I'll start a new thread sometime in the future to define each.
I know you to believe I am confusing the terms, but am I really? I would like for you to start that other thread, if you would be so kind. I have a question for you. The Northwest Territory that was given to The United States of America in the Treaty of Paris, A.D. 1783, is it land, an area, a possession, and property? Was The United States of America not given a proprietary (ownership) interest in that territory, area, possession, and property, when it was won from Great Britain by conquest?
4 U.S. Code § 110
(d) The term “State” includes [is limited to] 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.
If the term State “is limited to” any Territory or possession of the United States, then federal area can only mean the same thing. “[O]r for the use of the United States” does not mean United States does not have a proprietary (ownership) interest.

The following is from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition:
Include.jpeg
Include.jpeg (52.45 KiB) Viewed 16186 times
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:43 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:I know you to believe I am confusing the terms, but am I really? I would like for you to start that other thread, if you would be so kind.

I have a question for you. The Northwest Territory that was given to The United States of America in the Treaty of Paris, A.D. 1783, is it land, an area, a possession, and property? Was The United States of America not given a proprietary (ownership) interest in that territory, area, possession, and property, when it was won from Great Britain by conquest?.
I don't think so. I believe that it was given back to those who held the charters in the colonies. The colonies/perpetual union then ceded their interests in the land to the "united states" for the benefit of the people. The "united states" then had to purchase what they were claiming from the Indians. After the war, soldiers could choose pensions or bounties of land west of the Appalachians. They then went through the process of survey, warrant, return of survey, then patents. At some point the BLM was created, and at some point they held back certain lands. It never affected me as to what happened west of the Appalachians, so I have not spent a lot of time studying it. But that is my understanding.
4 U.S. Code § 110(d) The term “State” includes [is limited to] 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.

If the term State “is limited to” any Territory or possession of the United States, then federal area can only mean the same thing. “[O]r for the use of the United States” does not mean United States does not have a proprietary (ownership) interest.
[/quote]

You may want to dig a little deeper...
Which "United States" are they talking about? You know there are no less than 4, right?
What do "acquired" and "held" mean?
What does "deemed" mean?

No, Federal Area does not mean the same thing as State.

I know you know this. Think planes of jurisdiction. The Federal Area is an overlay.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th and 6th Editions

Acquire – To gain by any means, usually by one’s own exertions; to get as one’s own; to obtain by search, endeavor, investment, practice, or purchase; receive or gain in whatever manner; come to have. In law of contracts and of descents, to become owner of property; to make property one’s own; to gain ownership of. Sometimes used in the sense of “procure.” It does not necessarily mean that title has passed. Includes taking by devise.

Held/Hold – 2. To be a grantee or tenant of another; to take or have an estate from another. Properly, to have an estate on condition of paying rent, or performing service. 6. To administer; to conduct or preside at; to convoke, open, and direct the operations of; 8. To possess; to occupy; to be in possession and administration of; as to hold office. 9. To keep; to retain; to maintain possession of or authority over.

Deem – To hold; consider; adjudge; believe; condemn; determine; treat as if; construe

Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999

Deem – 1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it doesn’t have. “Deem is a useful word when it is necessary to establish a legal fiction either positively by ‘deeming’ something to be something it is not or negatively by ‘deeming’ something not to be something which it is…”G.C. Thornton, Legislative Drafting 83-84 (2d ed. 1979)

BTW, I'm not assenting to your other claims by not replying. I'm just trying to keep the thread clean and on point. There are a million and one rabbit trails that could be taken, I do better at tackling one at a time.
Last edited by notmartha on Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:35 pm, 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 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:19 pm

notmartha wrote:
iamfreeru2 wrote:I know you to believe I am confusing the terms, but am I really? I would like for you to start that other thread, if you would be so kind.

I have a question for you. The Northwest Territory that was given to The United States of America in the Treaty of Paris, A.D. 1783, is it land, an area, a possession, and property? Was The United States of America not given a proprietary (ownership) interest in that territory, area, possession, and property, when it was won from Great Britain by conquest?.
I don't think so. I believe that it was given back to those who held the charters in the colonies. The colonies/perpetual union then ceded their interests in the land to the "united states" for the benefit of the people. The "united states" then had to purchase what they were claiming from the Indians. United States owns nothing in actuality. The owner is The United States of America, the Confederacy. United States is simply the administrator of the territories. Until you have a firm grasp on all four organic laws of The United States of America, know what George Washington and his ilk did with the creation of the Constitution of the United States, you will not know what has actually taken place. After the war, soldiers could choose pensions or bounties of land west of the Mississippi. Where did you hear this? Are you aware of when the territories west of the Mississippi were acquired/purchased by The United States of America?
US territorial acquisitions.jpeg
US territorial acquisitions.jpeg (214.58 KiB) Viewed 16170 times
They then went through the process of survey, warrant, return of survey, then patents. At some point the BLM was created, and at some point they held back certain lands. Those lands, such as is in Nevada is land (territory), all desert, that is owned by The United States of America, and where it has exclusive legislative authority. It never affected me as to what happened west of the Mississippi, so I have not spent a lot of time studying it. But that is my understanding.
4 U.S. Code § 110(d) The term “State” includes [is limited to] 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.

If the term State “is limited to” any Territory or possession of the United States, then federal area can only mean the same thing. “[O]r for the use of the United States” does not mean United States does not have a proprietary (ownership) interest.
You may want to dig a little deeper...
Which "United States" are they talking about? You know there are no less than 4, right?
"The term 'United States' may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate a territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution."
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 US 652 Pg. 672 & 673.
In every instance, United States is defined as federal territory ONLY in the above quote.
What do "acquired" and "held" mean?
What does "deemed" mean?

No, Federal Area does not mean the same thing as State. When you go into every Statute, whether so-called State or federal it means just that. I know what you have been told about overlays, but in reality it is federal territory located within the exterior boundaries of a State, i.e., State of California, State of Florida, State of Michigan, etc., etc. Every State of XYZ is a political subdivision of United States, as well as a geographical area (territory).

I know you know this. Think planes of jurisdiction. The Federal Area is an overlay. Answered above.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th and 6th Editions

Acquire – To gain by any means, usually by one’s own exertions; to get as one’s own; to obtain by search, endeavor, investment, practice, or purchase; receive or gain in whatever manner; come to have. In law of contracts and of descents, to become owner of property; to make property one’s own; to gain ownership of. Sometimes used in the sense of “procure.” It does not necessarily mean that title has passed. Includes taking by devise.

Held/Hold – 2. To be a grantee or tenant of another; to take or have an estate from another. Properly, to have an estate on condition of paying rent, or performing service. 6. To administer; to conduct or preside at; to convoke, open, and direct the operations of; 8. To possess; to occupy; to be in possession and administration of; as to hold office. 9. To keep; to retain; to maintain possession of or authority over.

Deem – To hold; consider; adjudge; believe; condemn; determine; treat as if; construe

Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999

Deem – 1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it doesn’t have. “Deem is a useful word when it is necessary to establish a legal fiction either positively by ‘deeming’ something to be something it is not or negatively by ‘deeming’ something not to be something which it is…”G.C. Thornton, Legislative Drafting 83-84 (2d ed. 1979)
Yes, I am aware of all the definitions you posted, and none of them change a thing. All the Statutes are very clear as to what they mean, as long as you have properly read them.

The Problem is, most people believe they live in United States (federal territory). I was watching a video yesterday at minute marks 6:33-6:43 where a cop said, ”The problem is, when you are on United States territory, State of California, you are required to abide by all State and federal laws.” What he stated was absolutely correct, if you live on federal territory, but most people do not live in United States territory a/k/a State of XYZ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=580pvONvjOI

I know you can’t watch and that is also a problem, because there is much relevant material you are missing.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:02 pm

You may want to read the attached document as well.
COLORING THE PRESIDENTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.doc
(83.5 KiB) Downloaded 809 times
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:33 pm

October 10, 1780
Resolution of Congress on Public Lands. Resolved that any unappropriated lands that are ceded to the United States (the collective of 13 free and independent states), shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and shall have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other States;

September 3, 1783
Cornwallis surrendered October 19, 1781. King acknowledges the colonies to be free and independent states, as the United States, and relinquishes all proprietary and territorial rights back to states. Note: England did not vacate posts in western lands until after The Jay Treaty in 1794.

December 20, 1783
Virginia ceded its interest in western lands to the United States for the common benefit of the Union. Deed was signed March 1, 1784. Note this was AFTER Treaty of Peace.

April 23, 1784
Jefferson introduced plan for organization of government in the western territory (tract of country).

May 20, 1785

Land Ordinance of 1785
Land ceded to and purchased by United States, that was not yet appropriated was to be laid out in townships, reserving specified lots for future sale, for public schools, and mineral rights.

July 13, 1787
Northwest Ordinance

Land speculators from Ohio Company of Associates and the Society of the Cincinnati lobbied Congress to pass this ordinance establishing a government in the Ohio county (territory).

this is all pre-constitution of United States. Will add links later as time permits. And yes you are right - I made a mistake - I meant west of the Appalachians not west of Mississippi, although some land ceded by colonies/states was west of Mississippi.
Last edited by notmartha on Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:22 pm, 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 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:33 pm

notmartha wrote:October 10, 1780
Resolution of Congress on Public Lands. Resolved that any unappropriated lands that are ceded to the United States (the collective of 13 free and independent states), The United States is NOT the thirteen free and independent states of the perpetual Union, and nowhere in the Resolution does it state such.shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and shall have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other States; Also, the perpetual Union has no "republican States". Those are all "members of the Federal Union", and are nothing more than federal territory..
According to the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D.l 1787, the Northwest Territory consists of the future States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota, the second union.  These are States of the United States and they belong to The United States of America the Confederacy.  The settlers and inhabitants of the Northwest Territory are the “We the People of the United States,” which belong to the Confederacy known as The United States of America. They are NOT the people of the perpetual Union.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I will wait and respond to the others once you have links up I can go to to read.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:08 pm

Concerning the Resolution of [Continental] Congress on Public Lands, October 10, 1780:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01830))
“…shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States
“common” means shared among several. The land was to be disposed of for the common benefit of the several states.
“That the said lands shall be granted and settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or any nine or more of them.”
“Them” qualifies “United States” as plural, referring to the independent states as a collective. If they do not refer to the collective of the perpetual union/confederation of independent states, which collective of states do you think they refer to?

This is 1780, before the Northwest Ordinance, before the Constitution that created a “more perfect union.”

As for "republican", it is in the general sense. From Black's 2nd:
a government of the people ; a government by representatives chosen by the people.
As for the Federal Union... wasn't the Confederation of States a federal union in a general sense?
"A term commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states."
And I’ve looked at numerous sources with varying punctuation: federal union, federal Union, Federal Union. My guess is that a federalist wrote this resolution, which by the way, did not pass. I referenced it because of the wording of “United States” previous to the Constitution.

I'll add links to original post.
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 Jun 07, 2015 1:40 pm

notmartha wrote:Concerning the Resolution of [Continental] Congress on Public Lands, October 10, 1780:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01830))
“…shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States
“common” means shared among several. The land was to be disposed of for the common benefit of the several states. United States is not referring to the several States of the perpetual Union. Those public lands, when the Northwest ordinance is created, become the several States of United States, the second union.
“That the said lands shall be granted and settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or any nine or more of them.”
Yes, by the United States in Congress assembled, because those lands are territory (wilderness areas) and not populated enough to become States under the AOC. United States has authority over those public lands.

“Them” qualifies “United States” as plural, referring to the independent states as a collective. It may be plural, but the fact remains that this is not talking about the free and independent States of the Perpetual UnionIf they do not refer to the collective of the perpetual union/confederation of independent states, which collective of states do you think they refer to? The future States of the United States under the NWO and Constitution.

This is 1780, before the Northwest Ordinance, before the Constitution that created a “more perfect union.” Yes, it is a precursor to the NWO and the Constitution. You think the NWO and Constitution just popped up over night? It took years of planning and implementation.

You may want to take a look at the last sentence of the NWO, which repealed the resolutions of 23rd April, A.D. 1784 you previously linked.:


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void.
As for "republican", it is in the general sense. From Black's 2nd: It matters not what Black's says, but what the organic law says. Why would anyone want a republic, a dictatorship, which is exactly what George Washington and his ilk created? The only place you will find republican form of government mentioned is in the Constitution, not the AOC.
a government of the people ; a government by representatives chosen by the people.
The people have the right of self governance under the AOC, the right to choose to be citizens or free inhabitants, not so under the Constitution. Only citizens have representatives, and only citizens are subject to government.
"A term commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states."
As for the Federal Union... wasn't the Confederation of States a federal union in a general sense? Union yes, federal no. It is a union/confederation of free and independent States. Under a federal union they are not free and independent. Take a look at the following quote from Dr. Rivera from his AOC doc I have attached.
The Constitution of the State of Texas carefully conceals the fact that the government of the State of Texas is limited to federal territory and persons in Texas who call themselves citizens of the United States.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
PREAMBLE.
Humbly invoking the blessing of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas do ordain and establish this Constitution.
ARTICLE I
Bill of Rights
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
SECTION 1. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States.
If the State of Texas is subject to the Constitution of the United States, then it is not a free and independent Sovereign State, but merely a State of the United States (federal territory).

And I’ve looked at numerous sources with varying punctuation: federal union, federal Union, Federal Union. My guess is that a federalist wrote this resolution, which by the way, did not pass. I referenced it because of the wording of “United States” previous to the Constitution.

I'll add links to original post.
AOC.doc
(997.5 KiB) Downloaded 743 times
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Post Reply