- 6 -
groundless and that the courts have repeatedly rejected.4
4By way of illustration, petitioner’s response asserts,
inter alia:
1. The Affiant [petitioner] can not serve two mas-
ters. The Affiant has a divine covenant with the
Affiant’s Creator [Exodus 23:32 and 34:26] pro-
tected by the common law and the Constitution for
the united States of America.
2. The Affiant has made a formal Declaration of Alle-
giance to an American Republic and cancelled the
nationality that is held under the 14th amendment
(U.S. citizenship) * * * the affiant never gave
express consent to be or become a citizen and
national of the United States: and, has declared
allegiance to the republic/ Florida state and
claim sole nationality thereof.
* * * * * * *
WHEREFORE * * * the Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment must be denied and vacated for
lack of authority over Affiant and that no bona
fide contract exists between the Respondent and
Affiant. [Reproduced literally.]
Petitioner’s affidavit asserts, inter alia:
4. The federal United States government has been
operating under the Wars Powers Act since 1861.
The United States Supreme Court is not a judicial
court, but a member of the Executive Branch under
Martial Law (Supreme Court Rules 45.1). * * *
* * * * * * *
12. The [Internal Revenue] Service was never created
by an Act of Congress and is listed as an agency,
sub-agency or sub-department of the Department of
the Treasury in 31 USC � 301 et seq. The Service
is an “alter ego” for “Common Law Trust #62" which
is registered in Puerto Rico, and is therefore
inside the jurisdiction of Washington D.C. The
actual, physical headquarters of the Service is in
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011