Not too long ago I read a case about a man who challenged the city within which he lived, claiming that the town and therefore the government did not have jurisdiction because it was a corporation. One of the cases cited in his defense was Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824) in which was opined,
There is another discussion located at TeamLaw that discusses in great detail the fact that we no longer have a seated original jurisdiction government and how and when our federal government incorporated in 1871 to conduct business without restriction within its 10 square mile district. As has been discussed on this site in other articles, the US Constitution allows this at Article 1, Section 8 Clause 17 which gives the federal government “exclusive jurisdiction” over its territory. However, this clause creates some confusion, since the “exclusive jurisdiction” refers to the area from which Washington DC was cut. Washington DC was taken from the territories of Maryland and Virginia and the Constitution for the United of America wanted to assure that neither of these states had any authority over the new capital. It did not give the govenment of the United States jurisdiction over people without said peoples’ consent, because people are sovereign.
If we check on 28 USC 3002 Section 15, we see that the term United States refers to a “federal corporation”. A federal corporation is one that is formed in the federal territory rather than one of the states. This corporation was formed in Puerto Rico.
This established a means by which the federal government could then fool “we the people” in the schools that it took control of in the 1800’s with one of the wealthy elitist, Horace Mann, at point. It has even referred to the American people as enemies in the Trading with the Enemy Act.
Since then, every state government across these united states of America has followed suit in an effort to circumvent through deceit the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in regards to government and none of it can be circumvented through the passage of law. Not even the member nations to the united states of America can circumvent any restriction on government in their several constitutions. Two ways the state government uses this tactic is to charge income and property taxes. Neither of which is legal under both common law and Constitutional law. ( I will have the case references linked here soon.)
Not only have all of the state governments set up private companies like the federal government, every municipality including counties, parishes, towns, and cities have done the same. They form corporations to conduct the business of raising revenue. As such, they have no more legal force of authority over human beings than Home Depot and Walmart or any other private company.
As such, there is no original jurisdiction government in place to uphold even Constitutional law. When any human being is challenged, all the human being would have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the government at whatever level the challenge arises as not having jurisdiction over human beings, since the government is merely a corporation and human beings have to voluntarily enter into contracts knowingly and voluntarily. That means that the human being has to have knowledge of every aspect of the contract by which he is expected to abide. If he does not know, for example, that getting a drivers license contracts him to pay a state income tax, then the contract was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Since there is no government that has not incorporated then no government entity within the united states of America can try any case against any human being. The only way that human beings could be tried for the commission of a crime, is to be charged by another sovereign of equal status, another human being, who also knows common law and knows that other human being sovereigns would have to judge whether or not the human being did in fact trespass against another human being’s equal rights.
Since under common law, government employees cannot testify against the people, then it cannot charge the human. One of the reasons that the government always claims that the case is The people of the state of vs John Doe is because they are attempting to fool those who do not know any better that it is, in fact, humans that are bringing the charges. They do this knowing that most people do not know the law and do not know that government employees cannot testify. Prosecutors rely heavily on testimony from police and other government employees in many cases ranging from drug arrests to income tax cases to driving under the influence to under age drinking. Since all of the states agreed to a republican form of government, then every single human who is arrested for one of these crimes must consent to the law for which he is being charged a crime. That is one of the reasons that we so commonly hear politicians running for office calling our form of government a democracy. The corporation is a democracy and a democratic form of government does not require the consent of the individual. That is, also, why it is so important to know where you live. Not knowing where you live can mean the difference in going to prison or losing your life and walking free.
Of course, even if we did have an original jurisdiction government seated, any statute passed by the legislative body therein would still require the consent on each human being affected by the statute. This proved to be a huge problem for wealthy elitist.
Those who know that the government is merely a corporation that has not contracted with the people will know that the facade setup by said corporation will not be able to stand against jurisdictional challenges. All contracts require all parties to the contract to enter said contract knowingly and voluntarily. If, for example, getting a drivers license, because agents of the corporate government claimed through its public schools it is required and so getting one entered the recipient into a contract without his knowingly, then such a contract is void for the fraud perpetrated by the fraudulent claim that the human was required to have it and the lack of informing the human he was entering into any form of contract, So the moral of this story is always challenge jurisdiction.