jurisdictional prseumptions to be rebutted
Kingsman Funding
People boldly talk about challenging jurisdiction but never directly confront the many jurisdictional statements of a complaint or the presumptions they have entered into over the years that allows the court to consider you a 14th amendment citizen of the United States instead of a dejur citizen of a state of the constitutional republic, united States of America. Below are some of these presumptions addressed in the affidavit we use.
Further, Defendant here avers and affirms by any past self- identification or indication on any government forms, applications or documents of whatever jurisdiction, or any banking forms, applications or documents as himself being a “citizen of the United States” or a “United States citizen”, federal or “US Citizen”, or “U.S. person” he has thereby intended to communicate or acknowledge solely that he is a “Citizen as defined in the Preamble,”[ Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal.. Sup. Ct. 43 (1872)], a citizen of the Constitutional republic, United States of America by virtue of being a sovereign born de jure, state Citizen of Mississippi, domiciled on the land, on Mississippi, a state of the republic, of the union of several states that is the Constitutional republic, united States of America, as delineated in sections 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 of the United States. Constitution, and as determined in [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)] “ the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen of one of the United States**,
and in Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909); State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 601 (1889); Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 243 Md. 555, 221 A.2d 431, (1966). “One can be a state Citizen without also being a federal citizen. “
And further “there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.” [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] [(1873) emphasis added]
(U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542] [(1875 “Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own.”
In Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined the term `citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens. U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. Title 28, USC 297 defines the several States of the union as being "countries" in subsection(b). and the individual states foreign to the United States.)
And as further confirmed in Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700 (1869):
“The original Constitution of 1787 is perpetual, as is the Citizenship that is recognized by it.”
[[ and Defendant has further revoked, corrected or amended all known government forms, applications or documents of whatever jurisdiction that by use of the terms “citizen of the United States”, federal or “US Citizen”, or “U.S. person” may have wrongly and erroneously been construed to identify the Defendant as a citizen of the federal United States, of the federal UNITED STATES, INC., or its federal area or jurisdiction, STATE OF NEW YORK, or the "federal district of the District of Columbia", STATE OF NEW YORK, or as being subject to the jurisdiction of any 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 NEW YORK, or the "federal district of the District of Columbia", STATE OF NEW YORK, OR as Defendant being anything other than a Citizen on the state of the republic whereon he is domiciled: a state of the union of the freely associated compact states that is that constitutional republic, United States of America.]].
[[[[ And further to the best belief and knowledge of the Affiant he has made, and did intend to make application to, and has made participation in a program of the Social Security Administration created by the Social Security Act of 1935 and as thereafter amended which was created by the Congress of the constitutional republic, United States as law having jurisdiction over the 50 freely associated compact states of that Constitutional Republic and over the citizens on the land thereon as well as its other jurisdictions. And Affiant here avers and affirms he has not been provided, and is not in knowledge of or in possession of any facts to the contrary and Defendant demands, on the record, strict proof of any such claims to the contrary. in rebuttal of this first hand sworn affirmation.
Again, Pursuant to NY Code 38-1-207, I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
And pursuant to NY Code 38-1-103 and 38-1-308, Defendant has and does hereby reserve all rights under common law and this code in termination of any such contract that may erroneously have been made by the Affiant with and through any other government or jurisdiction of the United States than that over the 50 states of the Constitutional Republic and over the citizens of the states on the land thereon which was not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by Defendant under full disclosure of the jurisdiction to which application was being made.
And Affiant here affirms my hand and signature to all documents of application or for any other purposes associated with the same said Social Security Administration using any derivative of my name was understood by me to represent application or participation with no other government or jurisdiction of the United States than that over the 50 states of the Constitutional Republic and the citizens of the states on the land thereon and is voided pursuant to NY Code 38-1-103 and 38-1-308 if chosen to be construed by any parties otherwise. ]]]]]]]
This is just part of what needs to be refuted, there is much more. If there are questions we will try to answer. Dr Weatherly
On another very important subject let me add something.
Most people don't understand this, but God was in Christ paying for all our sins on the cross and its over and done and finished and He's not angry with us about anything any more.
The Bible says, He is for us, not against us.
He died in our place to purchase us for Himself and if you'll give in to Him, there's nothing He won't be able to do in your life.
I know, I have been with Him for 41 years.
And when we finally leave this world, we'll live with Him forever,
if we belong to Him.
If you need to think about that or you have someone in mind that does, I'll be glad to talk with them. My number again was 662-489-6554. I just wanted you to know that.
Dr. Weatherly
