Be AWARE the Constitution does NOT apply to people who use "PRIVATE""fiat money," the dollar, as an Exchange System to "buy and sell." To use "fiat money," we had to "agree" to a "private contract" using the UCC.
THIS is then a TRAP for innocent, unknowing people.
------------------------
"Motion to Vacate"
After winning his case, he put this ad in the Houston for 6 days. He definitely wants to show the people how they are being defrauded and to wake up! This is just a recent case of many like it. People are waking up!
1) The reason no one in government has come forward is that there exists no such constitutional authority[3];
2) It is not possible to have a fair proceeding in a kangaroo court;
3) Every United States District Court in America is a legislative-branch Article IV territorial court of general jurisdiction, usurping exercise of jurisdiction in extra- constitutional geographic area;
4) Every United States District Court in America is a kangaroo court;
5) The Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction can be concealed no longer; and
6) The appearance of impartiality is crumbling under the weight of fraud and treason to the Constitution.
***
The judge just walked away. NO RESPONSE or REPLY.
Any response up or down, one way or the other, would show the TREASON against the US Constitution.
The following banner ad (2” X 6”) runs in the Front Page section of Houston Chronicle newspaper (both hard copy and online version) six consecutive days, from May 29 to June 3, 2015:
LANDMARK INCOME TAX CASE: U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 14-1305
Using the provisions of the Constitution as ultimate evidence and proof, Houston man exposes systemic fraud in the federal judiciary and Department of Justice, concealed by a culture of silence and amounting to treason to the Constitution.
Current income-tax case displays incontrovertible legal evidence and proof that no contemporary federal court is authorized to exercise civil or criminal jurisdiction anywhere in the Union—only in the District of Columbia and the Territories.
2 comments:
It sounds like he lost his case and was later ruled a vexations litigant.
That should be vexatious litigant
Post a Comment