Natural Solutions & World News

Tips to Holistic Health & World News


2 Comments

This Is Why We Don’t Have To Pay Taxes! Comprehending Jurisdiciton…

Never pay taxes again! Below is information on why you don’t have to. Connect with me to get the template letter to mail to the IRS when you receive any demand of taxes, along with a copy of a Certificate of Service that must be included with the letter, then both documents need to be notarized and sent certified with request of signature.  In Sept of 2015 I received a letter stating I owed taxes from three years ago, I used this very letter to rebut theirs. They were threatening to levy all my bank accounts on Oct 1, 2015. I mailed this letter with a Certificate of Service, notarized, and sent certified, they did not levy my account and I never paid them any dollar amount.

Here’s why…

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official “fail” to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a “kick back” or even a “return.” Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?

Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs standing.” The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn’t have come up.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.

That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress “no new powers.” That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to “willfully fail” to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, “Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that.” I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was “true” that you were “under penalties of perjury.” Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be “under penalties of perjury” is to claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

You’ve read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can’t even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.

The term “penalties” is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That’s why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren’t under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can’t be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn’t try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you’ll be charged with “willful failure to file,” a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn’t list it, then swore that the form was “true, correct and complete,” he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the “gross” and “net income” lines, forcing NO answer on the “tax due” line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of “testimony.”

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed “Under penalties of perjury.” The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a “failure.” That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.

However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.

The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements “(I’m) under penalties of perjury” and “I’m not a federal official or employee” would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can’t have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for “willful failure” where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren’t federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn’t tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at “willful failure” trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn’t a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded – at least that’s surely what he’d try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he’s not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the “perjury clause” on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he’s under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It’s still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn’t changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is “voluntary,” in the beginning, but “compulsory” once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government – the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It’s still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don’t immediately realize it. Yes, it’s a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You’ve wondered who are persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.

The claimed purpose of the 14th  Amendment was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the “jurisdiction” of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise – they couldn’t vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.

It ordered that voters had to be “registered.” And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a “State had no right to secede.” The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even “sovereign immunity,” cannot be extended is … perjury.

You must understand “jurisdiction.” That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what “jurisdiction” means. You didn’t WILLFULLY claim that you were “Under penalties of perjury” on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn’t realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn’t give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you’ve made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be “under oath” a perjury of which might be “twice” penalized. Explain that you’ve never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you’d ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you’ll most certainly not make that mistake again! That’ll be the end of any possibility that you’ll ever be charged with “willful failure to file.” Too simple? No, it’s only as simple as it’s supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren’t under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can’t be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.

It’s a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you’ve never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.

Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers “Swear not at all.” That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who’d farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with “sedition” for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He’d “tear down the temple” (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!

The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, “I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition).” An adjuration is a “compelled oath.” Jesus then broke his silence, responding, “You have so said.”

He didn’t “take” the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he’d said so. That’s what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, “You have so said,” Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn’t get jurisdiction.

Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the “protection of Rome.” Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of “person or persons unknown” which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate “marveled at that.” He’d never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean – the “great unwashed masses.” The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that “failure of jurisdiction” required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would “wash his hands.” Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn’t kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How’s that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn’t do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law – at least the law then and there – the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it – all of those people – and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That “some of the time” regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a “lawful oath.” We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.

Jesus said, “Swear no oaths,” extending that even to oaths which don’t name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call “judgement proof.” They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn’t a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As always I leave my links <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

www.facebook.com/RevolutioninHealth

www.facebook.com/kathrynzkreationz1

www.facebook.com/OrganicSolutions1    9630671

www.OrganicSolutions1.com 9630671

www.teamNGD.com watch the first video then connect with me to get you started TODAY!

A must see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YwESHflEyY

 


Leave a comment

Rumor or Truth? Is There a Law That Requires Us to Pay Taxes?

I have ‘heard’ that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes, have you heard that too? So I started my own little  investigation after receiving a letter from the IRS stating I owned a small fee of $268.98 from three years ago. Guess what, I received a postcard that I had a certified letter awaiting me at the post office. I received the post card on Thursday, Sept 17, 2015. So when I went on Sept 21, 2015 to sign for it I was sure to sign without prejudice UCC 1-308 along with my signature by the way, so why then when I opened the letter at the top it said Notice date: Sept 21, 2015? How is that possible for the letter to be dated the same date I picked it up. I received the postcard to pick it up 4 days earlier. Instant red flags that my suspicions are correct. They’re master manipulators!

I fell upon some pretty interesting information. To start, check this out, its an article in USA Today from July 7, 2000. A group of people arranged a meeting to have some questions answered, the government was given a list of the questions in advance so they can be prepared and after reading the questions, they canceled the meeting.  HHMMMM more red flags.

Now watch this video. This woman is a former IRS agent, short 10 mins part 1then watch this, short 10 mins part 2. Things that make ya go hhhmmmm…. Research her, she even went to jail and still she speaks out, she risks her life to give us the truth! Her name is Sherry Peel Jackson. The IRS is a fraud!

I have learned if you claim your born given rights, if you were born in the USA, your sovereign rights, you do not have to pay taxes, or have a drivers license. You can still go to the DMV and get an ID, its all in how you fill out the papers and write your name. If you are sovereign you write your name for example, me, my name is Kathryn Rose Mancarella, I would write it as Kathryn Rose of the family Mancarella and when you write your address you write c/o in front of your address and you spell out the entire state, not just the two letters for example CT would be spelled out Connecticut and the zip code goes in parenthesis (  ) You must now do your own research, I can’t possible give you all the information in this blog. Start researching UCC 1-308 and there are people on youtube that show you how to write it who have been living this way. Get involved with some groups, I’m in a group on FB called Common Law for Dummies, I wrote this blog  Are you a U.S. Citizen or Are You a State citizen? Read it! You will understand so much more.  They are master manipulators of words. Deception is the ONLY way they can control an entire population. On every application ever from the time growing up, what is the one question always on the application? Are you a U.S. citizen? And what do we always say? Yes!  If you say yes then you have just waived your born given, inalienable rights and have become their (their meaning government) slave through your life wages, taxes, licenses ect… you become their property thus why they feel they can make vaccines mandatory and come take your children from you home.

Have you ever heard anyone reserve their rights when they go to court? I have been to court many times for minor things and have always walked out paying some small fine, never, ever, ever have I walked out not paying a fine. I have NEVER heard anyone reserve their rights and yet they say we can, all the time before court starts.  So recently I decided I wanted to reserve my rights, so I did.  They talked me in circles and tried to convince me to have a lawyer. Did you know if you have a lawyer represent you then you have just gone into contract with them and you do not reserve your rights. Yes, you can NOT reserve your rights and have a lawyer represent you at the same time. Thus you must know what you are talking about.  The lawyer works for THEM, NOW YOU! Don’t be fouled!  As long as you did no bodily harm to anyone, you can not be charged under common law jurisdiction!

Here is what I am taking with me when I go to court on Wednesday, Sept 23, 2015 I will have this paper in front of me.

I reserve my rights under common law jurisdiction , I do not consent and I waive the benefits. ( meaning I do not consent to any offer of a fine or program and that is the benefit, the benefit is whatever it is they have to offer me)

He will probably talk in circles and give me a hard time but it is vital that I get him to state his jurisdiction which probably will never happen because if he states his jurisdiction and still tries to bring charges against me then I can sue the court because that is illegal to do because they are operating out of jurisdiction when and ONLY when I reserve my rights….  so I will then say,

I ask the court what jurisdiction are you operating under sir? He will probably talk in circles again so I will then say: According to Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction is to be stated.  For the record!

He will probably talk in circles again so I will repeat for the record  According to  Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction is to be stated.

If he does not answer or state the jurisdiction I will then say I want it stated for the record that this court will not state it’s jurisdiction, I want this case dismissed!

If he refuses again to answer my questions  ….. I will repeat
I want it stated for the record that this court will not state it’s jurisdiction, I want this case dismissed!

If he still refuses I will ask…..

 Are you operating under your oath today? ……….. O.k. according to****and according to 22 CFR 92.12-92.31FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state.    &Title 22 USC Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. (if the court is a foreign agent and I am a State citizen, they can not bring charges against me)


For these reasons under 28 U.S. Code § 1441 – Removal of Civil Actions,  I want it stated for the record that I want every and all charges dismissed under common law jurisdiction, the court is operating out of its jurisdiction and therefore I request the case be dismissed.  (if they don’t I can sue)

And all the stuff below is just more proving court is foreign jurisdiction…. If he keeps giving me the run around I can use all these codes below that each state the court is of foreign jurisdiction.

Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court Jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.Repeat: Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.

That means that: according to …
The 11th amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall NOT be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.” (A foreign entity , agency or state cannot bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding the following procedure.)

Title 22 CFR 93.1-93.2 states that the Department of State (DoS) has to be notified of any suit, and in turn, has to notify the United States citizen of said suit.
That’s heavy, read that again! THAT IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN! They are not going to write a letter to the DoS in Washington to charge me with these charges.

Finally, Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit, once the court has been supplied sufficient PROOF that the United States citizen is ACTUALLY a CORPORATE ENTITY.

And that is not gonna happen!!
I want it stated for the record that I want every and all charges dismissed under common law jurisdiction, the court is operating out of its jurisdiction and therefore I request the case dismissed.

If you read my blog Are you a U.S. citizen or a State Citizen then you will have a much better understanding of what I am talking about and I shared my first experience in court reserving my rights. It didn’t go well but I didn’t go to jail lol. I will be sure to update you after my experience tomorrow. I am much more confident this time and more prepared. I’m excited, this is gonna be fun. I can’t wait!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  As always I leave my links   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Get informed. Do the research. Take control of your health! Do you know anyone who suffers from depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bi polar or grinds their teeth? You may have parasites….  Click the links below>>

1) Toxoplasmosis Parasite May Trigger Schizophrenia And Bipolar Disorders 

2)  Common Symptoms of Parasites in Humans 

3) 10 SIGNS YOU MAY HAVE A PARASITE

Another Blog on signs~ Do I Have Intestinal Parasites?

>>> Watch this quick video and learn how simple it is to get rid of them!!! https://youtu.be/_YwESHflEyY

More ORGANIC products: www.OrganicSolutions1.com  = (IBO# 3605911) Check out all our products, we also sell organic weight-loss coffee and coffee infused with Reshi mushroom extract,  our Emu oil is incredible, ect… go to my Facebook page to look at pics of what the oil can do, www.facebook.com/organicsolutions1detox parasites with organic Iaso tea, your gonna love it and you will find yourself talking about,… no fee to become a member, when you order your tea, order as a member, then next time you can order from yourself and get a check in the mail.

Purchase tea here>>>  http://www.OrganicHerbDetox.info = iaso tea (IBO# 3605911) I have one week samples available, it makes a gallon. Drink two 8 oz cups a day for one week.  You must message me for samples, can not get one week sample from the website:  Message me

My website: http://www.kathrynmancarella.com >>Nutrition Coach

Please ‘Like’ me FB: http://www.facebook.com/resonatinghealthkathrynmancarella = plz like me!

Please ‘Like’ the pagehttps://www.facebook.com/organicsolutions1 = plz like it!

Sample a nutrition class with The Institute for Integrative Nutrition

Become a Health Coach

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ResonatingHealt

Discount Benefits: http://www.bridgebenefitsmca.com >>> MCA Motor Club of America ~ Profitable Protection
Unlimited 100 Mile Tow ~ Fuel Delivery ~ Tire Change – United States & Canada
Discount Travel, Doctor, Dental, Pharmacy & Optical 24/7- 365 days (Get paid for sharing the benefits

===========================================================================