In a recent hearing where jurisdiction was effectively challenged the judge apparently got rattled and made some drastic determinations on the record that now can be used as leverage over the court and the lawyers for the rest of the case.
Our person was saying The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of) [name of state] within a state.” We have numerous references to this. But he went on the record saying there was no fictional state of Tennessee which ofcourse we can prove is not true.
From our memorandum that was also part of the record:
In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923),The court ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”.
According to [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252] The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses.  It may be as a sovereign nation or the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Or  It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, and includes “citizens of the United States” as created by the 14th Amendment domiciled in the District of Columbia, or the federal Territories and possessions , or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country.
The US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states as follows:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
Within these areas or in jurisdiction over 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:
“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”
Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term “United States”. Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community
In Law the term “United States of America” refers to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”; the term “United States” refers to federal possessions, property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”.
In the Cumulative Bulletin of the 63rd Congressional Session, Chapter 16, Section 2, 1913, page 177, we find that the terms “State” and “United States” are identified differently when used in the context of the federal United States, or federal zone as opposed to the union of several states that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America:
Congress is the state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone. In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).
“These are the territories over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the landmass and the citizens that are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States”. .
United States is construed to mean “any territory, Alaska, DC, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Philippine Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Johnson Island, Baker Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.”
Furthermore, even though the “United States” is not a member of the “Union of States united by and under the Constitution”, it is bound by that Constitution to restrict its activities in dealing with the several States and with the Common Law Citizens of those States. Under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787). Congress has exclusive power to legislate and regulate the inhabitants of its federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution and its “citizens” wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union.
As can readily be seen from the quote above, with three separate and distinct definitions for the term “United States”, it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define each use of this term in law. It is equally as necessary to separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and distinct rights, privileges and immunities for each.
The term “United States”, when used in its meaning as Congress’ exclusive jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, as opposed to the limited jurisdiction of the federal government under the constitution over the several states of the union that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America, under Article 1, Section 8 et all , (excepting Clause 17}, when used in this respect as its jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2, the “United States” is foreign with respect to the several states of the union united by and under the Constitution. that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America
“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.
as opposed to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”
“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States…… . … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”
Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
“Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]
Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). The individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other
This is also true of legal relationship between states:
It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, [Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535] [6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added]
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625,
It may be significant to note, [Instructions for Form 2555: Foreign Earned Income] [Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service] defines Foreign Country. –
“A foreign country is any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than the United States. “[emphasis added]
But the definition does not include U.S. possessions or territories.
…..a “foreign country” does NOT include U.S.** possessions or territories. U.S. possessions and territories are not “foreign” with respect to the federal zone; they are “domestic” with respect to the federal zone because they are inside the federal zone.
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every right to legislate for its “citizens” and to hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, both within (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when legislative acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra).
As a foreign nation under International law, it is perfectly legal for this nation to consider its people as “subjects” rather than as individual Sovereigns. The protections of the State and the Federal Constitutions do not apply to these “subjects” unless there is specific statutory legislation granting specific protections (e.g., The Civil Rights Act). The guarantees of the Constitution extend to the “United States” (i.e., the federal zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable (Hooven supra).
In 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c) you will find stated, “Who is a citizen? . Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.” [emphasis added]
singular, the federal United States, of possessions, territories, zones areas, not plural as the union of the 50 states that is the constitutional republic, the United States of America.
Congress did not forget the proper use of English here.
NOTE: The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude and slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. This is the manner in which amendments and legislation must be written if the law is to apply within the sovereign lands of the 50 states and to their Citizens.
But The 14th Amendment is not written thusly. The 14th Amendment embraces persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not state the “plural nature” [i.e. “their“] that is required to refer to the states of the Union.
In the absence of the plural language the courts have ruled that the law applies only to federal places or persons.
The 18th Amendment created Prohibition.
“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that the language Congress used in the Amendment limited its application to areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress – which of course is not the states of the Union.
3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains: “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States** is sovereign …” singular, the federal United States, of possessions, territories, zones areas, not plural as the union of the 50 states that is the constitutional republic, the United States of America.
Further, this “United States”, besides designating federal property, possessions, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”, . and its “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union, , in commerce and finance, is a corporate entity. :
The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
As evidenced by Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and possessions. This corporation also copyrighted the names UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, USA, US and AMERICA.
There is likewise equal ambiquity in both constitutional and state statutory law, and in federal law regarding the term used: “State of Iowa”,
We find In federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as “States”. These places are not “states of the Union”. The other manner in which federal law sometimes addresses this issue is with the phrase, “…in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction” , as in 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c which therefore refers only to federal places.
In Article II(a) of the Uniform Detainers Act, “(a) ‘State’ shall mean a state of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
In 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act” now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area”. for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal Area” overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:
Sec. 110(d): The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the United States.
Sec. 110(e): The term “Federal Area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a federal area located within such State.
Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this “Federal area.”
The Supreme Court has determined, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of) xxxxxx within a state.” See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O’Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440
Under the Provisions of 4 U.S.C cited above, Sections 105 , the federal “State” is defined “(also known as, “The State of xxxxxxx.”)
Under state law, “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of Iowa and includes all territory within these limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.
26 USC § 3306 Definitions – For purposes of this chapter—
(j)(1) State – The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
26 USC § 5891 Structured settlement factoring transactions
(c) Definitions (6) State -The term “State” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any possession of the United States.
The actual meanings of such terminology herein discussed affecting this case is ambiguous and unclear on its face at a minimum which materially affect the Courts jurisdiction of the law, In Personam, and in its own setting under proper oath and credentials to hear the case, which must be resolved if [[ this case is to continue.]] [[ the Court ‘s ruling is to stand. ]]
This being the case, it will become a legal issue in this case, which Tennessee his court has jurisdiction in, Tennessee, the state of the republic or some other federal area, region, zone, district or jurisdiction of the federal United States, the federal UNITED STATES, INC., or its federal area or jurisdiction, STATE OF TENNESSEE, or the “federal district of the District of Columbia”, STATE OF TENNESSEE.
Then as we said, she went to ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL” questions “So, is this an administrative proceeding under executive authority of a military, or maritime law jurisdiction, OR a judicial proceeding sitting as a court of law?” judge answered “Administrative” admitting his was not a judicial court as we have suspected all along.
Since the court admits it is an administrative court, As stated in our memorandum on this, Defendant is entitled by law to an actual adjudicative hearing before such Administrative Agency that oversees this part of the code applied in this case as may be provided for in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as found in its own regulations from the state’s administrative procedures code and that the determinations of such an adjudicative hearing must be made before this court administratively or procedurally has subject matter of a case to consider.
And if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court this is determined to be the case, Defendant respectfully gives notice to the Court request for such hearing is hereby made for such administrative agency hearing to be held and those determinations made before this case proceeds further before this Court.
Defendant further questions whether the Plaintiff has exhausted its own necessary administrative remedies found in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as required by the state’s own administrative procedures code before bringing the action to this Court in any capacity and if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court it turns out Plaintiff has not exhausted such necessary administrative remedies, Defendant is entitled to such executive determinations before Plaintiff brings this case, as it cannot consider the case to grant relief until such administrative remedies have been exhausted under the state’s and the executive department’s own administrative requirements. And the Court must comply with such regulatory requirements or it is waiving its judicial immunity.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a statute provides an administrative remedy, even though the terms of the statute do not make the exhaustion of the remedy a condition of the right to resort to the courts. (First Nat. Bank v. Board of County Comrs., 264 U.S. 450 [44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784, 788-789].)
Either of these points should finally kill the case and we will raise these as the case moves on. So much more that came out of this hearing. We will go on later. If there are questions , You may reach us at 662-489-6554. Dr Weatherly
IMPORTANT Advisement: The information and materials included here are only from the personal experience, knowledge or observation of the provider who is not a licensed legal professional and are not given by the provider or to be construed by the recipient as competent legal advise or assistance and the reader is encouraged to seek and maintain access to competent legal counsel to assist in all decisions concerning his or her situation. And any monetary exchanges between the parties to this email are to be understood as the non-contractual, voluntary contribution or gift of either party.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices set aside a 1981 opinion that had given police broad authority to search cars whenever they made an arrest.
Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not “provide a police entitlement” to search the vehicle without a warrant.
He said the court’s past rulings had given police too much leeway, allowing them to search cars even when there was no threat to officers’ safety. For example, if a motorist was handcuffed and put in a patrol car, there was no danger that he could reach a weapon in his car.
The lineup behind Stevens was unusual. Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority.
The case arose when Rodney Gant was arrested in Tucson for driving with a suspended license. His car was parked in his driveway, and officers handcuffed Gant and put him in a patrol car. Then they searched the car and found a gun and cocaine in a jacket in the back seat.
Gant was convicted on drug charges, but the Arizona Supreme Court threw out evidence on the grounds that the search of his car without a warrant was unreasonable.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision Tuesday in Arizona vs. Gant.
The dissenters, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the court should have stuck with the old rule that permitted vehicle searches whenever a driver or an occupant was arrested.