Freedom Domain
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......States Court of Appeals judges, the Attorneys General of the "United States" of
America, the American Bar Association, licensed ABA lawyers, and D.E.A.
agents.
You are publicly challenged to bring forth evidence and aver under Oath,
before the general public, that :
1. The congressional "Controlled Substances Act," 84 Stat. 1242-1296 (21 U.S.C.
sec. 801-950) has been congressionally enacted into "positive law," and may be
lawfully applied over the Nation-at-Large, regardless of State sovereignty. See
1U.S.C.A. sec. 204, p.61-62
2. That the Federal Government has the constitutional or congressional authority
to apply federal statutory provisions over private citizens, domiciled within the
geographical boundaries of a sovereign State.
3. That a United States district court, congressionally empowered to operate
under Admiralty-equity jurisdiction, has the legitimate authority to entertain,
convict and imprison for alleged violations of federal statutory provisions,
unconnected to Admiralty-equity Law, or committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court or the federal "United States," corporation, 28 U.S.C.
sec. 3002(15)(A).
4. That the following Supreme Court authorities may be ignored: in order to
extort constitutional rights and to advance political and personal ambitions of the
governments' elected and appointed representatives: Slaughter-House Cases, 83
U.S. 36; United States v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. 41; Gibbons v. Odgen, 22 U.S. 1;
Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138; People v. Godfrey, 17 johns 225 (N.Y.
1818); United States v. Bevans, 16 (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818); Adams v. united
States, 317 U.S. 312 (1943); Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; Caha v.
United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894); Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S.
281 (1949); Voorhees v. The Bank of the United States, 35 U.S. 449, 474-475
(1936); Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925); Nigro v. United States, 48
S.Ct. 388 (1927); Blockburger v. United States 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1931);
Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. (19 U.S.), 264, 404 (1821); United States v. Fox,
95 U.S. 670, 672 (1877).
5. That the federal forfeiture laws set out under 84 Stat. 1285 (21 U.S.C. sec.
881), may be legitimately and lawfully applied to causes unconnected to
Admiralty-Maritime jurisdiction, or matters not committed within the jurisdiction
of a federal territorial court.
6. That federal statutory provisions which have not been promulgated in the
Federal Register (44 U.S.C.A.) sec. 1505 et seq.) may be legitimately and
lawfully applied outside of the jurisdiction of the federal "United States," viz:
The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American
Samoa.
7. That the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration and it's agents have the
congressional authority to reach well beyond the restricted and circumscribed
jurisdictional parameters specified in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, and 21
CFR Ch.II (4-1-95 ed.) sec. 1311.02(h), to search, sieze and arrest for alleged
violations of unenacted, "non-positive" law provisions.
8. That the Federal Sentencing provision, 18 U.S.C. 3551may be legitimately and
lawfully applied to alleged violations of federal statutory provisions not committed
within the jurisdiction of the federal "United States." The implementing
regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3551 are contrary to and at variance with the proper
application of the statute, as such apply to Alaska, not the Nation-at-Large.
9. The forgoing challenges are supported to be true by and through Congressional
Statutes-at-Large, the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, and the
plain unambiguous language contained within the Congressional Acts. Whereby,
the challenged parties, supra, are compelled to bring forth documented evidence
with which to confute, rebut, or disprove the challenges raised heretofor. In the
nature of FRCP, Rule 8(d), failure to rebut or deny with evidence is an
uncontested averment of truth as to all allegations, establishing supportable
groups for a cause of action in the nature of 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985, and
1986, against each and every party who usurped authority and jurisdiction while
acting under color of Law. See; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat (19 U.S.) 264,
404 (1821), "..usurpation is akin to treason to the Federal Constitution," and
perjury of your sworn Oath of Office, grounds for your impeachment and
removal from office.
Submitted by: Dino A. Bellazerius, #80389-098, For Sine Qua Non, email:
LB4SCUBA.AOL, tel: (972)-287-4686 Ms. LaVern Burns