Page 1 of 1

A Challenge to Territorial Jurisdiction

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:14 pm
by iamfreeru2
From Ed Rivera:
Advanced Student Dannie challenges government power by asserting lack of territorial jurisdiction

The America situated south of Canada and north of Mexico has always been a land of two classes of people; those who consider themselves entirely free, and those who are waiting for something or somebody to free them from their bondage to government. Advanced Student, Dannie, considers himself part of the first class of free people and his Jurisdictional Statement that is presented here is just one way he does battle with alleged government judges who won’t be ruled by the Organic Laws.

Notice how cleverly Dannie raises the difference between the Constitution's Article I, Section 1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 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," without mentioning Article I, Section 1, which is supposed to be a major source of federal government power.

Constantly raising the absence of territorial jurisdiction in judicial and non-judicial proceedings, as Dannie does, will eventually result in the establishment of the correct territorial jurisdiction and the freeing of those who have been waiting for someone like Dannie to free them from government enslavement.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

The question for the Court is the validity of Title 26 United States Code, of a general and permanent nature of the United States, for a direct tax apportioned on the several States of this Union, - a state of the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands, according to the population of inhabitants and immigrants, pursuant to Article I, §2(3) of the Constitution of the United States - 1787, as amended by Amendment XIV, in said Territory or other Property belonging to the United States of America, within districts and divisions by counties, based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §171 (Mar. 3, 1911, chapter 231, §91, 36 Stat. 1117; Dec. 22, 1911, chapter 8, 37 Stat. 51); and hence involves whether Respondents’, who having taken an oath of federal employment, pursuant to 41.240(2) RSMo, prescribed by the laws of the United States, 5 U.S.C. §3331, will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly as to the authority that gives them the power to take jurisdiction in favor of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §3001(a)(2), in the Wrongful Seizure and Fraudulent Sale of Private Land, pursuant to Amendment V to the Constitution – 1787, and Article I, §28 of the Missouri Constitution, for the government of the STATE OF MISSOURI – 1945, revised August 28, 2016; without the United States Union, Article IV, §3,(1) of the Constitution of the United States – 1787, without Relators, a naturally brought forth North American man who is not an individual – citizen of the United States Union nor an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, consent and without judicial proceedings.

Statement of Facts

1. The written legal basis of all government in North America, prior to July 4, 1776, officially ended with the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The American people were freed from any obligation to obey government by the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. These two Organic Laws required the States of the Union to govern by the consent only of those willing to be governed and to leave alone those North American free inhabitants who did not wish to be governed under the written law of humans, pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of the Missouri Constitution, for the government of the STATE OF MISSOURI – 1945, revised August 28, 2016.

2. There is only one provision of this Constitution - 1787 that expressly grants the Congress power to make rules and regulations—Article 4 § 3(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
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;
3. There was a time when the federal government had assessors and collectors of internal revenue appointed by the head of State, the President of the United States of America, (POTUSA), with the advice and consent of the Senate. The assessor’s office was abolished in 1873 and President Truman abolished the collectors in 1952. Before the abolition of those offices government employees would assist those offices of the United States. Today, government employees alone collect internal revenue and these employees are no different than private employees. The exclusive use of employees to effect tax collection is but another form of “voluntary compliance,” since employees nowhere have power or authority to give notice and make lawful demands. Only the people have the power to tax themselves directly and it cannot be delegated to the legislature.

4. In this case of the fraudulent seizure and illegal sale of private land on North America, not in defined geographical boundaries of federal enclaves under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, the Missouri State Registrar of Vital Statistics invented the "fiction" that Relator is a thing labeled a "taxpayer," A.K.A. "Person," of a mark registered and recorded, as the king’s property with rights which a king has by virtue of his prerogative, in the Patent and Trademark Office styled, Mael, Dannie Joe, from data collected from a copyrighted Birth Certificate, Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541.

Re: A Challenge to Territorial Jurisdiction

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:03 am
by Logos
Thanks for posting this, but do we have any info on the outcome?

Re: A Challenge to Territorial Jurisdiction

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 am
by iamfreeru2
Logos wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:03 am
Thanks for posting this, but do we have any info on the outcome?
Unfortunately, that's all I have.

Re: A Challenge to Territorial Jurisdiction

Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:47 pm
by Logos
Perhaps, Dannie should instead challenge the man/woman picking a fight (e.g., cop, tax assessor, etc.) in any particular matter to prove he/she has territorial jurisdiction to do whatever, instead of directly challenging the gov't plaintiff.

After all, it's not gov't per se that moves against us but someone who takes it upon himself to act as if he has gov't authority to do what they're trying to do, or have already done. If you can get that guy into an estoppel wherein he's agreed he doesn't or didn't have jurisdiction, then I think it sets the system up for the "domino effect".

By not having TJ/exTJ that guy can't do, or couldn't have done, anything in his official capacity--e.g., invoke a court's powers--because the law he's invoking doesn't exist at the location in question. It would be a "fruit from the poison tree" scenario. This could also relieve their courts from having to public address this sticky TJ issue. I think it would also then leave that guy liable in his private, personal capacity should his employer plaintiff proceed against you, as well as leave said plaintiff liable for damages.

I think getting the moving party to agree they have nothing is easier and less risky than trying to prove that because proving it relies on their judge to agree with you, or at least to allow the evidence of his system's lack of TJ into the public court record. I also think Dannie's approach gives the judge more opportunity to act in a corrupt manner, e.g., dodging the issue by saying the court doesn't deal with political questions, which I can see them doing with Dannie's filing. I also think a judge might have reason to because filings such as Dannie's would have big implications. A judge might not want to be "that guy" who's court effectively "said" the STATE OF MISSOURI corporation has no authority on the entirety of Missouri as it's depicted on the map, as that pattern would apply for the rest of the country. I think our approach gives the judge/State an "out".

As much as we may want to shout the truth from rooftops, the moving party always has the burden of proof. Make them put up or shut up.