The United States of America Sues the United States corporation

Error message

Warning: preg_match(): Allocation of JIT memory failed, PCRE JIT will be disabled. This is likely caused by security restrictions. Either grant PHP permission to allocate executable memory, or set pcre.jit=0 in drupal_valid_http_host() (line 740 of /var/www/vhosts/

For Immediate Release 05/26/2017

The United States of America Sues the United States corporation

Federal Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya attempts to block case and Trump Named as Defendant

The united States of America along with numerous other claimants have filed an action at law against the United States corporation in the de jure District Court of the United States in the case numbered according to the statutory system of numbering 17-cv-01046. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled there are two separate United States in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In said case, the court ruled that the Constitution for the United States of America does not apply to the United States corporate territories. "Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress had exclusive legislative authority." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. The congress does not have “exclusive legislative authority” within the several states which are protected by the United States of America as strictly bound by the Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice John Marshal Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell stating “if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era legislative absolutism...It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside the Supreme law of the land finds lodgement in our Constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

Justice Harlan’s fears have come to pass and the United States corporation has been operating against the people within the states and outside the United States federal corporation's territories. As can be evidenced by the revised Trading With the Enemy Act, the United States corporation has referred to the America people as “the enemy”.

The case in which the United States of America has filed an action at law against the United States corporation which includes numerous other government corporate agencies and agents, the other claimants, being the people of the United States of America are agents for the United States of America and they are duty bound to assure the rights of the people are upheld against “enemies, both foreign and domestic.” The United States corporation has made it abundantly clear in the Trading in the Enemy Act that it considers the United States corporation an enemy of the United States of America. As agents for the United States of America, the other claimants in the federal case had formed a real grand jury as permitted by law and upheld by Justice Antonin Scalia in U.S. v. Williams in 1992 and had investigated the legitimacy of the oaths of office and bonds for numerous public officials. The Constitution of Colorado requires that public officials take and oath of office that supports the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution for the United States of America. Their investigation found that most public servants, including judges, have not taken a constitutionally mandated oath and have not filed a bond with the secretary of State as required by law.

The grand jury notified the public servants found to be out of lawful compliance and alotted forty days to remedy the infraction as required by law. Those who failed to correct their illegal and unlawful status were leveed a fine and liens were filed against their properties as required by law when one takes public funds under fraudulent intent. Said public servants are criminal imposters when sitting in a seat of a public officer without a legitimate oath and bond. A Notice of Fraud that details the infraction of the public servant included thereon is included as an exhibit with the case.

In retaliation against the grand jury and the continental united States of America superior court justices, the imposter judges who were under fraud, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, retaliated against the grand jury members and the superior court justices. The FBI is the primary agency utilized to interfere with an group of American people who work to recenter the government under the restraints of the Constitutions which are the supreme law of the land. The FBI has historically been that agency that is quickest to overstep its bounds and infringe on the rights of the America people. The courts have repeatedly held thatsovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves.....Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 at Dall (1793) pp 471-472.

The Constitution for the United States of America guarantees the common law to all America people. Any act of government must get the “consent of the governed” as secured in the Declaration of Independence.

The grand jury found and the case alleges that the members of the BAR are foreign agents who have not registered with the federal government as required by the Foreign Agent Registration Act or FARA. It additionally alleges that the BAR has conspired to overthrow the government of the United States of America and the several states. Evidence included in the case includes a letter from the Colorado BAR assuring the then governor of the state that the BAR would get rid of the county courts, which were courts of justice, which are common law courts.

The case was filed in a court of record, which is by definition, a court that proceeds according to the common law and the magistrate of the court is not permitted to make any decisions. In spite of that fact, the magistrate, Kathleen Tafoya has twice attempted to file an order in the court in an attempt to interfere with the case. It should be noted that Tafoya is also a member of the BAR and has not registered as a foreign agent. The court has corrected the magistrate and ordered her to no longer interfere with the court or she will be held in contempt of court.

BAR members are granted the title of nobility “esquire” which falls between gentleman just below it and “knight” just above it. The Constitution for the United States of America disallows the United States from granting a title of nobility at Article I, Section 9, Clause 1. It additionally disallows the states from granting a title of nobility at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The fear of anyone with a title of nobility working for a foreign power was such a strong issue that the United States of America added the 13th Amendment in 1819 that disallowed anyone who accepts a title of nobility from serving in private office. This amendment has been hidden from the public for years and has never been repealed. A certified copy can be obtained from numerous states including Texas, Colorado and Virginia. It is included in the federal case USA et. al. v. US. et. al. As evidence in the case.

The conspiracy of the BAR includes changing definitions in Black’s Law dictionary to hide the law. For example, Black’s Law first edition only defines “esquire” under English law, because that is the only place that used the specific title of dignity of nobility. More evidence is the change of the definition of “court of record” to hide the fact that a court of record proceeds according to the common law and the “duties of the magistrate are independent of that of the tribunal”. In other words, the judge is not allowed to make any decision or orders.

Questions contact

For Immediate Release 05/26/2017