Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

Authored or posted by | October 30, 2015
Share Button

Supreme Court of TexasATTENTION: To get the PDF files of the court case in this article, click on this link and then click on the appropriate links to view or download them. Please do not ask me personal questions about this court case, because I am not a part of it. The content about this court case was originally published on SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com. I recommend reading the content in the comment section at the end of this article, because it has some interesting information on the legal system.

If you have been reading my articles about the legal system, you should know that this system is a big fat FRAUD and is run by a bunch of TRAITORS to humanity! The content below will show you more evidence of this fraud against humanity. For some reason, I could not find the court case No. 4:14-CV-0027 on txcourts.gov.

As always, use your intuition to help you discern the information and do your own research to verify the information below. Thanks to Steve for sending me the link to this article. ~ PL Chang

Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45

(SupremeCourtCase.wordpress.com) The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.

There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Case”).

Petitioner’s filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14 months.

When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division; Judge Clark is not involved.

For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, there is a requirement that the Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; to wit:

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal [United States Supreme Court], two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . .” [Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

That a lawsuit is authorized by the statutes of Congress, however, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in any Federal court; to wit:

“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).

Article III of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to ordain and establish inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction—with no authority to exercise general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union.

Courtesy of Congress, however (since no later than June 25, 1948), every United States District Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears and decides both civil and criminal cases, an implied power granted only in the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2), and only in Federal territory, such as the District of Columbia and the territories; to wit, 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; . . .”

All Federal civil and criminal proceedings fall under Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.

Congress define “judgment” in Title 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:

“‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner files in the Lufkin Case, “Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Objection and Demand”) (hyperlinked below).

The statutory period for plaintiff United States to respond to the Objection and Demand is 14 days.

On September 29, 2015, 15 days after the filing of the Objection and Demand, the record in the Lufkin Case is devoid of response from either plaintiff or the Court—and Petitioner transmits to the clerk on that date, for filing September 30, 2015, “Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Demand for Dismissal”) (hyperlinked below).

The reason neither plaintiff nor the Lufkin Court could produce the constitutional authority that allows the Court to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas, is because there is no such constitutional authority.

For the Lufkin Court to reveal that it is using Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, would be to confess to usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and treason to the Constitution.

“How can this be?” or “How can they get away with this?” you may ask.

The answer is simple.

When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in any other way than provided in the statute.

In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, “United States” is a term with a special definition and meaning.

In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).

In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, “United States” means a Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]

Every appearance of “United States” in anything and everything relating to Federal district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:

  • “Congress of the United States” means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
  • “Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.
  • “United States District Court” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court.
  • “United States District Judge” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Judge.
  • “United States Attorney” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.

In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take “United States” any other way.

Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the American People to District of Columbia municipal law.

The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary, Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.

And that is how they get away with it.

In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).

There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in America—and no one can produce such authority.

Objection and Demand, September 14, 2015

Demand for Dismissal, September 30, 2015

[1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of “United States” scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States. For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government follow a culture-of-silence policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.” Examples of this are (1) Chief Judge Ron Clark’s six weeks of silence following Petitioner’s motion for him to recuse himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.

If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the United States is a Federal corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.

Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court’s very existence depends: the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in America.

Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death, the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing situation on their hands:

The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county, parish, or borough in America—and there is no reason why the above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.

If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the American People are numbered.

The sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on Federal tax liens filed against Petitioner’s ranch. Judge and plaintiff having departed the field of battle, said case is over in substance—Petitioner prevailing.

Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will be posted on this website as they occur.

* * * *

Note: If a sufficient number of requests are received (under “Leave a comment” in the left-hand margin above), Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division. The record of these two cases chronicles and documents certain seminal congressional acts that are not taught in any school but have been used to deceive and deprive the American People of the unalienable and constitutional Right of Liberty and foist upon them (1) so-called civil (municipal) rights, (2) rules and regulations (statutes), and (3) municipal (Roman civil) law—a state of affairs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for which they all risked their life to escape. The Lufkin Division case is the first time in American history that a defendant overcame and nullified the hoax of Federal jurisdiction and caused the United States District Judge, United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorney to flee.


To learn more about the court cases in this article, visit SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com.

Share Button

Donate to Help Make a Difference

OmniThought.org is a true independent blog and is free of third-party ads. If you like reading the articles on this site, please take action now by clicking the "Donate" button below to send a donation to the author/editor. Your generous support will help fund his research and expenses, allowing him to continue his quest to educate and teach people to create a better world for everyone.

Tags: ,

Category: Man's & Corporate Law, The Legal System

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. user says:

    If you are a naturalized US citizen, and another European country’s naturally born national, how should one’s conduct differ? Can you still state that you are the adminustrator of NAME in court and say you are a member of the trust, are appointing the judge as the trustee, and are requesting that the said trustee dismiss all charges brought against you in this case?

    • Anabel says:

      Do you want to be a citizen?
      As a citizen can you be anything but a debt slave trustee?
      It is only by not being a citizen, using the magic of pi, which says you can declare yourself the administrator, beneficiary and trustee of the legal name if you so desire. I can use the legal name it cannot use me as I am not it .
      I do not know the details of your case and am not qualified to answer your question maybe someone else can .

      • Elijah says:

        You said “I can use the legal name it cannot use me as I am not it” This is actually incorrect. See if you use the legal name, you become it, you can only be one or the other. If you dont use the legal anme you are your true self, if you decide to use it then you are the legal name, and if you are the legal name then the courts can do whatever they want with you. They can play along or not thats up to them, but the truth is, you can’t use the legal name period, if you do then pay the consequences.

    • PL Chang says:

      Go study Dean Clifford’s video lectures. He knows a lot about trust law. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dean+clifford

      Here is a great website for learning how to defend your rights: http://www.privatis.me/

      • dynadude says:

        Dean Clifford is a freaking fraud..and lier..he tells lies of omission and his so called teaching did nothing to keep him out of jail he made a deal and snitched to get out…..BTW Scott Duncan Say’s HELLO

  2. Allen says:

    Please put up PDF of Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division.

    Or send to me please

  3. Nat says:

    I’d like a copy of the cases in pdf format.

  4. Seditious says:

    You, yeah you, the one reading this, research the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Once you’ve ascertained the truth of that particular matter, think for awhile about the ways in which that amendment could, would, and possibly should effect our current fraudulent systems of government, if only enough people were sufficiently aware of it.

    • Leonard Harview says:

      Seditious, You are correct however, we must also understand Article VI, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution which specifies that the treasonous Definitive Treaty of Peace of 1783 a.k.a. The Treaty of Paris 1783 gives the King of England (Crown), Arch Treasurer and Prince Elector status over the United States of America which continues to be in full force and effect today. This is the main reason the people are debt slaves and the main reason our so called elected leaders are chosen by foreign entities as opposed to the myth of being elected by the people. There is no way out except by bringing forward the lawful government from before the implementation of that treasonous treaty, like maybe the Articles of Confederation followed by noticing the world that the Definitive Treaty of Peace of 1783 a.k.a. The Treaty of Paris 1783 has been deemed as an erroneous debt by a lawful act of a lawful congress. Otherwise, we will continue to be raped and pillaged by our foreign agent slave masters.

    • Tubs says:

      When Justice Kennedy issued the decision in the Obergsfeld case he daid that the 14th amendment carried more weight than any other part of the constitution Justice Scalia can be heard saying “you just disolved the Union”. It’s in many of the youtube videos … Check it out. ….. Scalia’s comment refers back to the terms and conditions under which the Bill of Rights was ratified … To say it was contentious would be a gross understatement.

      It’s why the Bill of Rights also contains a preamble …. which is part of the constitution because of its inclusion at ratification. The SCOTUS ignores it under the fiction that it is redundant and it’s not.

      The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies and further limits the scope and authority conveyed by the Sovereign States to the federal government in the original consent. It requires that the constitution and its ratified amendments be read as one document and that equal weight is given to all its parts. That condition exists because once the constitution part 1 was ratified there wasn’t much intetest on the part of our original national officials in further limiting the authority of the United States.

      The ratifiers for the Sovereign States cried foul. Original consent was granted in part to address the expediency needs of diplomacy with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would be accepted as presented. That didn’t happen … the fledgling government balked at further restrictions. In fact the ratifiers for the Soveriegn States forced inclusion by threatening to withdraw original consent. The Sovereign States were quite willing to maintain their independence as equals to England, France, and Spain.

      This was the second breach of trust the government of the United States had perpetuated on them. The first being using the consent to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation to craft a new constitution. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights included the terms and condition of equal weight backed by reverter language that triggered automatic withdrawl of original consent should the equal weight provision ever be violated. Absent original consent there is no United States. That is why all subsequent States have been admitted to the Union with an independent State constitution. The SCOTUS calls it the equal footing doctrine. The ratifiers for the original 13 Sovereign States viewed them as the controlling documents under which the Sovereign States would autonomously govern should the government of the United States breach their trust a 3rd time …. More than a century before Abner Doubleday invenyed baseball the founders established 3 strikes and you’re out.

      The need for the original 13th amendment tightened the prohibitions and added severe penalties for violating the Titles Of Nobility clause of the constitution. The Sovereign States had little faith and great suspicion of our original diplomats…. and they had legitimate reasons that justified their scepticism.

      The TONA (Titles Of Nobility Amendmeny) was ratified in 1819 and was included in the official publications of the United States for many years. The final publication can be found in the State archive for Wyoming for year 1876 …. though very interesting things can be found in the archives of the State of Colorado.

      …..Let’s just say there is strong evidence residing in the State archives that call into question the legitimacy of the current 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th amendments of thebUS constitution …. and the actions of the federal courts in these 2 tax cases strengthens those suspicions.

      • Tubs says:

        Oh …. And can I get a copy of your pdf file please.

      • DAVID MICHAEL says:

        .. [the 16th Amendment] conferred no new power of taxation … [and] … prohibited the … power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged ….” — United States Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (1916)

  5. George Otto says:

    Can you please cite where exactly in the law the district of Columbia is a corporation?

  6. Todd says:

    Would love a pdf copy please.
    Thank you for sharing your experience.

  7. Amazon says:

    Yes please id love the complete list in pdf

  8. PL Chang says:

    I do not have all the PDF files for this court case. If you want the PDF files, please contact the author of https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com.

  9. Perry Langham says:

    So yes we want to see the case

  10. Perry Langham says:

    Also, How can this be firmed up. i.e. acknowledged and useable in the court system as a DECISION
    Do you have to appeal to get a VERDICT

  11. Trish House says:

    Please put up PDF of Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division.

    Or send to me please.

    Thank you.

  12. I currently have a Federal lawsuit/claim in the courts. Case No. 1:13-cv-00441-BLW. The claim is the result of an unlawful traffic stop whereby the Idaho State trooper wrongful called in a Code 3. Several officers(19) from four (4) different law enforcement agencies arrived on the scene. As I was exiting my automobile some of officer grabbed me walked me to the rear of the automobile, tripped and forced me to the ground face first. I was assaulted, double hand cuffed arrested and taken to Ada county jail. I challenged the jurisdiction from the beginning. I would truly appreciate getting a PDF of this, your case. I am forced to have an answer brief in at the Ninth Circuit by November 23, 2015 as a result of the cops filing an appeal against my claim of excessive force and more. The cops are being represented by the Ada county prosecutors and the Idaho State Attorney General even though the perpetrator has admitted on record that she was operating under “color of State law and being sued as an indivudual. I am without any assistance of counsel. The dash cam video of the traffic stop can be viewed at http:/youtu.be/JzA9eE-plA4 or search Beat down on I-84.
    Thank you. Iook forward to your prompt response.
    Lee Arthur Rice II

  13. Thanks for your excellent review of my cases — you had this difficulty: I could not find the court case No. 4:14-CV-0027 on txcourts.gov. because you need to locate the case under pacer.gov, it is a Federal district court not a Texas court. ALL of the docket/documents on these cases (Houston>>Fifth Circuit>>Supreme Court Petition>>Supreme Court Rehearing Petition AND Lufkin) are posted on my website for your ease of locating and downloading – http://www.supremecourtcase.wordpress.com —- Feel free to download and review/alter/use as you need, likewise for your friends to do the same — the dream of American liberty is within our grasp! JPT

    • PL Chang says:

      You are welcome John P. Trowbridge. Keep it up. You have my support. I am aware of pacer.gov. I will look for it on pacer.

    • Tim McCrory says:

      I do not keep track of people who order my book. Since you have been keeping me apprised of your case, I assume you you did at some point. Thomas Clark Nelson, whose material I link to at my website, has some info on jurisdiction. Ralph Winterrowd in Alaska has also been doing research in that area. You might check them out.
      Tim McCrory

  14. John Galt says:

    For anyone interested in learning a small amount of information in reference to their straw man, which is what our “birth certificate” is referring to, take a look at this video.

  15. Tim McCrory says:

    The federal income tax is pursuant to Art. 4 sec. 3 cl. 2. That is what people have missed about the income tax for decades. The whole scheme hangs on everyone being citizens of the United States. That term does not mean what people think it does. http://www.nontaxpayer.net

    • TheWebZen says:

      http://Www.losthorizons.com Pete E Hendrickson’s book Cracking The Code finally devulges the fraud of the Income tax and the IRS. Please buy and read his book. We DON NOT HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX … I did it and IRS credited all my 2014 taxes withheld to a prior yeras tax balance. Which I really should not owe if i had known then what i know now.

      • Tim McCrory says:

        Webzen, you do realize that Pete and many of those who used his materials went to jail, and many have had to repay with interest and penalties the moneys they got back. Pete started with an incorrect premise, and everything after that was wrong. Read at my website http://nontaxpayer.net/Art_4.3.2_tax.html. Part of Pete’s premise is that the income tax is an excise tax. Excises are required to be uniform. They were never uniform from the very beginning as my site points out. The fed income tax is not an article 1 section 8 tax. That’s what few people are able to grasp, and is why they are all wrong. Tim McCrory

        • Rod says:

          Must be geographically uniform within the States. I’m not at all sure whether it must be uniform as between a State and a Territory.

        • Rod says:

          Who else went to jail? Who had to pay back? Did they actually follow what Pete’s book said, or did they try to “improve” on it?

  16. John-Thomas: Marelli says:

    I would like to know more about this case and any other case that will root out the land pirates that have taken over our country.

      • Leonard Harview says:

        PL Chang, Yes, the West Virginia case is indeed very interesting and in my opinion such a movement may have been the very last bastion of hope for our nation and the world for that matter. If West Virginia’s corporate foreign agent occupier’s purporting to be lawful government would have been removed from their office due to their absolute and lawfully obtained default and dishonor status as planned, such an action very well could have been viral throughout the remaining 49 purported states. Yes, the conference call was absolutely infiltrated with federal foreign agent provocateurs and shortly thereafter Thomas David House of Deegan was arrested. I personally traveled to West Virginia with another colleague and we spent three (3) weeks there filing Writs of Habeas Corpus from both a state and federal level, we filed a complaint in the Federal District Court Southern District in Charleston, West Virginia. We even ran into an unlawful assault and obstruction of a lawful process of service of the Federal Summons and Federal complaint when we personally attempted to serve the purported Wood County Magistrate, Robin Waters at the Wood County Justice Center in Parkersburg, WV. Each and every attempt we performed resulted in them, the foreign agents operating beyond the scope of the rule of law. By golly, we even had the director of the Wood County Sheriffs office, C.J. Johnson telling us directly that purported magistrate Waters ordered the Sheriffs department to restrict any process service to her or her office while we were reporting the incident. How’s that for following the rule of law and yes, the female colleague I was with was pushed out the door of the justice center with both hands from her back by Sheriff deputy Robert White. We also filed an amended complaint to the original Federal complaint regarding this unlawful obstruction and assault on a lawful process server under 18 USC Section 1501-Assault on Process; Public Law: 114-38. All to no avail to date. We received word that the arrest of Thomas was ordered by the White House and we in turn assumed that it was the Pope who urged the White House to do so. We do not have true fact evidence of such however, based on the actions of both the state and federal actors, how could such not be possible. Needless to say, we are still in full speed ahead mode by filing complaints to the Provost Marshal General, Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Metropolite Arch Bishop Lorrie of Baltimore. We also inundated all of the moving parties personnel of Wood County, WV with FOIAs demanding insurance bond documents and oath of office and we are currently awaiting the last moments of the 10 day requirement for their response. We are thinking that our FOIA barrage to these foreign agents may have been instrumental in the sudden, no notice cancellation of last Friday the 11th’s kangaroo hearing for Thomas. We have since filed an additional Writ of Habeas Corpus to both Dodridge County and Wood County court clerks and of course, proofs of service to all of the moving party foreign agents. There is so, so much more to this ordeal but, one could go to: http://www.hudok.info to navigate for some pertinent updates, documents and filings performed to date in this matter. It would be nice to have more people calling these foreign agent’s offices and hammering them with your concern to the matter at hand. We will not stop until Thomas is released from his unlawful political prisoner incarceration status where Thomas has been and still is in solitary confinement at the North Central Regional Jail located at 1 Lois Lane – Greenwood, WV 26415 (304)873-1384 since September 23, 2015. I ask everyone to please call these corporate foreign agent occupier’s offices to give them a piece of your mind. Sending letters would be even better.

        • PL Chang says:

          Thanks for the information. I am aware of the unlawful arrest of Thomas Deegan. What happened to Thomas Deegan is evidence of how corrupt the legal system is. This system is run by a bunch of criminals working for the Crown Temple (the Crown) and the New World Order.

          When you file a lawsuit against them that seriously threatens their legal system, such as the lawsuit filed by Thomas Deegan and his team, they do not honor their so called laws, which are not really laws but are acts and statutes (rules and codes) of corporations.

          This is why we need to create our own system like what Dean Clifford is trying to do in Canada. We also need to stop supporting their legal system. Their legal system cannot survive without our support, just like how a company cannot survive without customers. Fighting their system will only give them an excuse to do something to us. Furthermore, fighting their system only fuels it with negative energy. This is why they want us to fight their system.

          The problem is that most people are not educated about their rights and do not know how to defend them. Because of this, they often hire attorneys to represent them in court. The problem with attorneys is that they have sworn a solemn oath to the Crown, and therefore are Templar agents, making them foreign agents. Another problem is that people do not understand the spiritual side of the legal system.

          There is a spiritual side to this drama, so if you are not aware of it, you will have a hard time freeing yourself from their legal system. My two articles below will give you an introduction to the occult and spiritual side of the legal system.



          • Trish House says:

            The National Liberty Alliance is the most organized and effective group that I know of doing something to take back our legal system. It is an association of Americans all over the country organizing state by state and taking legal action against the players in the corrupt system. They are also notifying the Sheriffs, Marshalls, and Oath Keepers to get support for the people against the violence of the state. Please go to National Liberty Alliance and pick a committee in your state to work on. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/

            • Leonard Harview says:

              Trish House, I am quite aware of the NLA and have to respectfully specify that I do not feel a grand jury of any type is needed when a lawful court of record under a jural society is established. Why would there need to be an oversight panel of 20 something people to decide whether or not a lawful complaint filed into a lawful court of record has validity or not to warrant an indictment? A lawful complaint for harm to someone, damage to someone’s property, or possibly a breach of a lawful contract should be competently filed into the court of record with all evidence. The defendant will also file all evidence into the court of record as well and the case shall be heard in 60 days. The court of record will consist of 12 people of peers with no judges or prosecutors needed or allowed. The 12 panel jury decides the outcome based on evidence provided by both parties and a unanimous decision either way will prevail. This very same jury will also rule on punishment to make whole or reparations to the defendant if found not guilty. No appeals permitted and no follow up civil action to follow.

              • Trish House says:

                Because these courts are often blatantly corrupt. People are being charged for no harm crimes to serve the court profit centers. There are probably thousands of people whose lives are horribly disrupted by charges, fines, and even imprisonment over marijuana sale and use. Not to mention traffic “crimes”. It is destroying people’s lives. We need people with no profit motive overseeing what happens in their communities.

              • Leonard Harview says:

                Trish, By convening lawful courts of record with enforcement backing under a superior or higher authority than their Babylonian, slave driven for profit statutory jurisdiction, one will not be subject to their fictional persecution against no harm acts.

            • joe says:

              where was NLA when tamir rice’s killer got off? what about eric garner? what about…you get the picture. what the hell are you people DOING?

          • Trish House says:

            Leonard, I reread what you first stated and I agree with what you propose. I read it to believe you were defending the existing system. Sorry for the misduplication.



            • Leonard Harview says:

              Trish, No problem whatsoever. I only wish John Darash would have been even part way as open minded as you are. Trust me, I have been around and around with him more than once however, a different topic.

              I think this recording of a conference call linked below and held on July 13, 2015 will peak your and everyone else who listens interest. Please let me know what you all think.


  17. Peyton says:

    I would like a copy too. Thank you for sharing this with us.

  18. David Hyde says:

    District of Columbia, a corporation


    Dunn and Bradstreet is where the information is, look up the naics codes in google for other offices

    Manta.com is the source of tons of information

  19. It’s ILLEGAL to use a LEGAL NAME, Google Legal name fraud, and exit this fictitious 2D paper legal matrix.

  20. I would like to request the availablity of a PDF format on this website for the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division.

    Thank you and respectfully submitted

  21. sid skolnick says:

    A simple filing in federal court of Quo Warranto would speed up and simplify the whole process as it requires the government to respond in short order. If the government doesn’t respond soon enough or provide the proper constitutional foundation, the government operation in question is shut down.

  22. Luis Ewing says:

    This case is being falsely advertised as an alleged WIN, but the records show that the LUFKIN CASE IS A LOSER CASE at every stage of the proceedings here:


    This is what happens when you don’t understand the law and misquote the law out of context.

    I have WON cases regarding JURISDICTION or lack thereof PRE-TRIAL and it NEVER had to be APPEALED because it didn’t lose in the first place. Does LOSING sound very APPEALING?

    If you want to WIN your IRS case, then you need to HIRE LUIS EWING to write your briefs if you want to WIN PRE-TRIAL and be UNPUBLISHED and SEALED!

  23. Linda Haverly says:

    I would like to request the availability of a PDF format on this website for the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division.

    Thank you!

  24. Cynthia Banks says:

    It seems to me that way to much power has been given to the Supreme Court. They are the third and weakest part of government. They may not write law. All they may do is to determine whether the laws congress has written comport with the Constitution. If not it is sent back to congress for rewriting. It applies only to that case not to all America. It is totally false that they hold any such power. They must be stopped now.

  25. Harry L says:

    I’d like a copy of the cases in pdf format.