District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Masquarading as The United States Government — Judge Anna von Reitz
With the background information provided to the Sheriffs and FBI Agents regarding the difference between “law enforcement” and “peacekeeping” I explained to everyone how incorporating anything shifts it over into the international jurisdiction of the sea and removes it from the jurisdiction of the land, and thereby also removed it from being under the Law of the Land.
I also explained that the “federal government” converted to operating as an incorporated entity long ago and that our counties and states then by mistake or deceit or for whatever reasons also converted to operating as “franchises” of the “federal corporation.”
I also explained that familiar names of what used to be proper parts of our government have been reduced to trademarked and copyrighted brand names, so that “Bureau of Land Management” and “FBI” are just private corporate subcontractors operating under a brand name.
The same applies to “US DISTRICT COURT”—- and to “ALMEDA COUNTY COURT” and “STATE OF UTAH”—- these are no longer your organic courts, counties, or states. These are all federal franchise corporations that were organized under the auspices of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation and either then traded to the UN Corporation without your knowledge or handed over to United Nations Trustees, equally without your knowledge.
The excuse for this is that all these “federal corporations” are private business enterprises merely under contract to provide you and your states with “governmental services”. What business is it of yours if they go bankrupt, sell off their trademarks and brand names?
The opposite side of the coin is that when they do this without disclosing to their employers, they set up a de facto constructive fraud, because the names and logos of what were once part of our legitimate and lawful government are now being used by private subcontractors and corporations that at most, maybe, have a “governmental services contract”.
The “BLM” ain’t the Bureau of Land Management you grew up with anymore, and nobody told you, so you continue to assume that the BLM is the BLM you think it is, when it isn’t. You trust and respect it as a part of your lawful government, when in fact, it is just a brand name that has been sold off to private investors and is operating under entirely different management. This sets you up to be a “marK” and allows these “agencies” to operate under Color of Law. It is constructive fraud.
The “US DISTRICT COURT” operates all the “STATE” courts and “COUNTY” courts in its “DISTRICT”.
Now, with that in mind you are prepared to grasp the importance of this recent US SUPREME COURT case. In it, the usurpation upon our land jurisdiction by the “US DISTRICT COURTS” was fully proven and confirmed by the US SUPREME COURT. This decision which appears to affect only the US DISTRICT COURTS — but because the US DISTRICT COURTS also run the STATE COURTS and the COUNTY COURTS—- it also applies to them and their usurpations upon our jurisdiction at those levels.
They have been caught, red-handed. Here’s the landmark case:
SUPREME COURT MAJORITY OPINION
AMERICAS COURTS BUSTED!
FOUND USING JURISDICTION FRAUD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Trowbridge, Jr. et al
Assigned to: Judge Michael H. Schneider
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin
Cause: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:14-cv-00138-MHS-KFG CASREF, MHS2 Petitioner is a Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471 (1793)).
“DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE, OF THIS ALLEGED CASE FOR LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY THAT GIVES THE COURT THE CAP A CITY 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.”
“When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences whetherintended or not. One can not elect to make his home in one place in point of interest and attachment and for the general purposes of life, and in another, where he in fact has no residence, for the purpose of
taxation. . . .” Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939).
When any United States District Judge in any civil action issues an order commanding the plaintiff or
defendant to do anything, is incontrovertible evidence that (1) the judge is a legislative-branch officer
exercising personal jurisdiction over the litigants and prosecuting the case sua sponte, and (2) the court
is an Article IV legislative court of general jurisdiction—with authority only in “Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States” (Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2)), such as the District of Columbia.
More Here – https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/…/docket-and-record-division-federal-tax-cases-2/
Submitted by: Wynter Moon
See more of Judge Anna von Reitz articles at www.annavonreitz.com
