The Driver’s License was just the beginning. The Real ID Act is Fascism realized. No Thanks.

42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988 – fic­tional “cit­i­zen of the United States” who would like to have the rights of a “white citizen.”

1878 Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes of greatly revered “Civil Rights” – Hoo –haa in 42 USC § 1988. Remem­ber­ing that Title 13 is Judi­ciary and Title 70 is crimes and it is all for the greater good of “Vin­di­ca­tion” – to remove from being suspect.

Wel­come to the fas­cist, com­mu­nist and total­i­tar­ian Amer­i­can Empire endorsed and sup­ported by Mil­lions of peo­ple in America.

Overview state­ment – Con­gress must always declare the fic­ti­tious sta­tus of whom they are enact­ing ACTS OF CONGRESS (laws of Con­gress are where Con­gress has ple­nary power in which Con­gress acts as both a national gov­ern­ment and a state gov­ern­ment – i.e. ter­ri­to­ries, Dis­trict of Colum­bia, pos­ses­sions, etc.), not Laws of the United States (Con­gress acts only as a “fed­eral gov­ern­ment” within the sev­eral States and the sev­eral States enact their own laws).

In the REAL ID Act of 2005, it is only for a “cit­i­zen of the United States” or national of the United States. Remem­ber­ing that only a “cit­i­zen of the United States” can vote, sit on a jury, and only this sta­tus is required to pay the IRS for this fic­ti­tious sta­tus, required to obtain a Dri­ver License, etc.

There are many aspects of this par­tic­u­lar “Act of Con­gress” (“laws of Con­gress”) as it is not a Law of the United States. This will be cov­ered later in my post on the “cit­i­zen of the United States.”

When Con­gress usurped and recon­structed the con­sti­tu­tional Repub­lic there were sev­eral essen­tial ele­ments that are involved that must be elim­i­nated. To cre­ate a fic­ti­tious gov­ern­ment out­side of the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States and the sev­eral States wherein the peo­ple of these United States did grant a lim­ited del­e­ga­tion of gov­ern­ment only. (Two gov­ern­ments – one under the Con­sti­tu­tion and one out­side of the Con­sti­tu­tion – see Downes v. Bid­well, 182 U.S. 244, 264(1901))
1. As the sov­er­eign Power, our inalien­able rights, is posited only in the peo­ple of these United States and it is not a grant from Con­gress, any leg­is­la­ture or any­one else to US, THEN, the solu­tion is to cre­ate a fic­tion in law and grant it ben­e­fits and rights (not inalien­able rights) that are totally under the con­trol of the granter, i.e. Con­gress, i.e. 42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988, being the right to own prop­erty, sue, etc. This is no dif­fer­ent from a par­ent grant­ing to his chil­dren an allowance of money or priv­i­leges con­tin­gent upon your CONDUCT sub­ject to change at the will of the par­ent at any time for no reason.

As held in Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576–77 (1926), to wit:

If the pro­ceed­ing were not a case or con­tro­versy within the mean­ing of arti­cle 3, s 2, this del­e­ga­tion of power upon the courts would have been invalid. Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. Ed. 436; United States v. Fer­reira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 42; Muskrat v. United States, 31 S. Ct. 250, 219 U. S. 346, 55 L. Ed. 246. Whether a pro­ceed­ing which results in a grant is a judi­cial one does not depend upon the nature of the thing granted, but upon the nature of the pro­ceed­ing which Con­gress has pro­vided for secur­ing the grant. The United States may cre­ate rights in indi­vid­u­als against itself and pro­vide only an admin­is­tra­tive rem­edy. United States v. Bab­cock, 39 S. Ct. 464, 250 U. S. 328, 331, 63 L. Ed. 1011. It may pro­vide a legal rem­edy, but make resort to the courts avail­able *577 only after all admin­is­tra­tive reme­dies have been exhausted. Com­pare New Orleans v. Paine, 13 S. Ct. 303, 147 U. S. 261, 37 L. Ed. 162; United States v. Sing Tuck, 24 S. Ct. 621, 194 U. S. 161, 48 L. Ed. 917; Amer­i­can Steel Foundries v. Robert­son, 43 S. Ct. 541, 262 U. S. 209, 67 L. Ed. 953. It may give to the indi­vid­ual the option of either an admin­is­tra­tive or a legal rem­edy. Com­pare Clyde v. United States, 13 Wall. 38, 20 L. Ed. 479; **427Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397, 399, 24 L. Ed. 126. Or it may pro­vide only a rem­edy. Com­pare Turner v. United States, 39 S. Ct. 109, 248 U. S. 354, 63 L. Ed. 291. When­ever the law pro­vides a rem­edy enforce­able in the courts accord­ing to the reg­u­lar course of legal pro­ce­dure, and that rem­edy is pur­sued, there arises a case within the mean­ing of the Con­sti­tu­tion, whether the sub­ject of the lit­i­ga­tion be prop­erty or sta­tus. A peti­tion for nat­u­ral­iza­tion is clearly a pro­ceed­ing of that character.

The petitioner’s claim is one aris­ing under the Con­sti­tu­tion and laws of the United States. The claim is pre­sented to the court in such a form that the judi­cial power is capa­ble of act­ing upon it. The pro­ceed­ing is insti­tuted and is con­ducted through­out accord­ing to the reg­u­lar course of judi­cial pro­ce­dure. The United States is always a pos­si­ble adverse party.

What this case artic­u­lates is that if there is any grant from Con­gress, Con­gress con­trols the rem­edy to obtain the grant, i.e. ben­e­fit, to wit:
1. Legal rem­edy in the courts of the United States only after admin­is­tra­tive reme­dies have been exhausted; or,
2. An admin­is­tra­tive rem­edy deny­ing your access to the courts of the United States; or,
3. An legal rem­edy in the courts of the United States; or,
4. Or only a rem­edy what­ever degree that may be – com­plete or not; or,
5. No rem­edy how­ever mis­taken its exer­cise thereof, which is is another case held in Allen v. Gra­ham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968) cit­ing Babcock.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 era and other in in Title XXIV is the source of the prob­lem.
You can eas­ily check on the Inter­net for other Laws of the United States and what you will find is there no require­ment to be just a “cit­i­zen of the United States” in the laws of the United States prior to the Civil War. There are some acts that use these words, but back then in time, by read­ing cases you will quickly come to the under­stand­ing that is was used in lieu of cit­i­zens of the sev­eral States.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

And excel­lent case explain­ing that in real­ity there is no such thing as a cit­i­zen of the United States (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)) [read this case very, very care­fully as there is great knowl­edge imparted therein] and there are no priv­i­leges granted to a cit­i­zen of the United States, but only to cit­i­zens of the sev­eral States. See Arti­cle IV sec­tion 2.

REAL ID Act of 2005
Start­ing on page 75 is tyranny in action.

Note the words “trier of fact” in sec­tion 8 USC §§ 1158, 1231 – this is a flunky employee mak­ing this deter­mi­na­tion con­cern­ing aliens. Wow!

8 USC ¶ 1252 – No court shall reverse a deter­mi­na­tion made by a trier of fact with respect to the avail­abil­ity of cor­rob­o­rat­ing evidence ….

8 USC 1103– “(1) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other pro­vi­sion of law, the Sec­re­tary of Home­land Secu­rity shall have the author­ity to waive all legal require­ments such Sec­re­tary, in such Secretary’s sole dis­cre­tion, deter­mines nec­es­sary to ensure expe­di­tious con­struc­tion of the bar­ri­ers and roads under this sec­tion. Any such deci­sion by the Sec­re­tary shall be effec­tive upon being pub­lished in the Fed­eral Reg­is­ter.
[This pur­port­edly is only for the bor­ders and roads]

Also under 8 USC § 1103 – an inter­locu­tory or final judg­ment or order of the dis­trict court may be reviewed only upon peti­tion for a writ of cer­tio­rari. Another ruse as there is no rem­edy via the statu­tory “Writ of Cer­tio­rari” as juris­dic­tion is not an issue for the Supreme Court nor is the merits.

Effect of denial of certiorari

A denial of cer­tio­rari nor­mally car­ries no impli­ca­tion or infer­ence. U.S. v. Kras, U.S.N.Y.1973, 93 S.Ct. 631, 409 U.S. 434, 34 L.Ed.2d 626.

Denial of writ of cer­tio­rari by Fed­eral Supreme Court imports no expres­sion of opin­ion upon mer­its of case but means only that there were not four mem­bers of the Court who thought the case should be heard. Brown v. Allen, U.S.N.C.1953, 73 S.Ct. 397, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, dis­sent­ing opin­ion 73 S.Ct. 437, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, rehear­ing denied 73 S.Ct. 827, 345 U.S. 946, 97 L.Ed. 1370.

The United States Supreme Court’s refusal of cer­tio­rari, though essen­tial to exhaus­tion of state reme­dies as a pre­req­ui­site to apply­ing to fed­eral courts for habeas cor­pus, is with­out sub­stan­tive sig­nif­i­cance in habeas cor­pus case. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, U.S.Pa.1953, 73 S.Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561, 97 L.Ed. 549.

Denial of a peti­tion for writ of cer­tio­rari to review deci­sion of Court of Appeals of Mary­land revers­ing con­vic­tion of radio sta­tions for con­tempt meant only that fewer than four mem­bers of Supreme Court thought that cer­tio­rari should be granted, and such denial car­ried with it no impli­ca­tion what­ever regard­ing views of Supreme Court on mer­its of the case. State of Md. v. Bal­ti­more Radio Show, U.S.Md.1950, 70 S.Ct. 252, 338 U.S. 912, 94 L.Ed. 562.

Denial of cer­tio­rari imports noth­ing as to mer­its of case; all it means is that, for what­ever rea­son, there were not four mem­bers of Supreme Court who wished to con­sider issues pre­sented for review. How­ell v. Jones, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1975, 516 F.2d 53, rehear­ing denied 521 F.2d 815, cer­tio­rari denied 96 S.Ct. 1116, 424 U.S. 916, 47 L.Ed.2d 321, rehear­ing denied 96 S.Ct. 1687, 425 U.S. 945, 48 L.Ed.2d 189.

Denial of writ of cer­tio­rari imports no expres­sion of opin­ion on mer­its of the case. Labor­ers’ Intern. Union of North Amer­ica, Local No. 107 v. Kunco, Inc., C.A.8 (Ark.) 1973, 472 F.2d 456.

Denial of peti­tion for writ of cer­tio­rari by United States Supreme Court car­ries no prece­den­tial weight what­ever. Ahern v. Mur­phy, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1972, 457 F.2d 363.

United States Supreme Court’s denial of cer­tio­rari did not make deci­sion of Ten­nessee Supreme Court the law of the United States Supreme Court with respect to value of the case as a prece­dent, but the denial of cer­tio­rari sig­ni­fied that appel­late review had been exhausted, that the par­ties had had their day in court, and that the case could be res judi­cata in a sub­se­quent action. Deane Hill Coun­try Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1967, 379 F.2d 321, cer­tio­rari denied 88 S.Ct. 476, 389 U.S. 975, 19 L.Ed.2d 467.

Denial of cer­tio­rari by United States Supreme Court is not to be given effect of judg­ment on mer­its. New­som v. Pey­ton, C.A.4 (Va.) 1965, 341 F.2d 904.

Denial of cer­tio­rari by Supreme Court of United States from judg­ment of state supreme court, did not estab­lish cor­rect­ness of judg­ment but served only to estab­lish final­ity of judg­ment as between lit­i­gants. Dairy Dis­trib­u­tors, Inc. v. West­ern Con­fer­ence of Team­sters, C.A.10 (Utah) 1961, 294 F.2d 348, cer­tio­rari denied 82 S.Ct. 604, 368 U.S. 988, 7 L.Ed.2d 525.

Denial by United States Supreme Court of peti­tion for writ of cer­tio­rari can­not be inter­preted as an expres­sion of the Supreme Court’s opin­ion on the mer­its. McLau­rin v. Burn­ley, N.D.Miss.1967, 279 F.Supp. 220, affirmed 401 F.2d 773, cer­tio­rari denied 90 S.Ct. 2228, 399 U.S. 928, 26 L.Ed.2d 795.

Denial to state con­vict of cer­tio­rari by Supreme Court of the United States is not an adju­di­ca­tion as such but is a refusal of a rehear­ing and is indi­ca­tion that issues were twice con­sid­ered. Williams v. State of S.C., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 360, vacated 356 F.2d 432.

Denial of cer­tio­rari by United States Supreme Court after con­vic­tion by state court and affir­mance by state Supreme Court is not an affir­mance. State of Tenn. ex rel. Ford v. Mor­ris, W.D.Tenn.1965, 236 F.Supp. 780.

Denial of cer­tio­rari by fed­eral Supreme Court imported no expres­sion of
opin­ion on mer­its of state supreme court deci­sion. De La Salle Insti­tute v. U.S., N.D.Cal.1961, 195 F.Supp. 891.

What a ruse as this is not even a true Writ of Cer­tio­rari. This is from the 1856 Bou­viers Law Dic­tio­nary. Does this match the cur­rent Writ of Cer­tio­rari of today high jacked by Con­gress for the fic­tional gov­ern­ment, remem­ber­ing for those that have never filed into the Supreme Court of the United States – NONE of the RECORD is brought up, but you must regen­er­ate all of any record that you choose to use and put it on spe­cial paper of a size of approx­i­mately 6 by 9 inches?

CERTIORARI, prac­tice. To be cer­ti­fied of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a supe­rior court directed to one of infe­rior juris­dic­tion, com­mand­ing the lat­ter to cer­tify and return to the for­mer, the record in the par­tic­u­lar case. Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 330; Nels. Ab. h. t.; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.; 3 Penna. R. 24. A cer­tio­rari dif­fers from a writ of error. There is a dis­tinc­tion also between a hab. corp. and a cer­tio­rari. The cer­tio­rari removes the cause; the hab. corp. only super­sedes the pro­ceed­ings in below. 2 Lord Ray. 1102.

2. By the com­mon law, a supreme court has power to review the pro­ceed­ings of all infe­rior tri­bunals, and to pass upon their juris­dic­tion and deci­sions on ques­tions of law. But in gen­eral, the deter­mi­na­tion of such infe­rior courts on ques­tions of fact are con­clu­sive, and can­not be reversed on cer­tio­rari, unless some statute con­fers the power on such supreme court. 6 Wend. 564; 10 Pick. 358; 4 Halst. 209. When any error has occurred in the pro­ceed­ings of the court below, dif­fer­ent from the course of the com­mon law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or crim­i­nal cases, the writ of cer­tio­rari is the only rem­edy to cor­rect such error, unless some other statu­tory rem­edy has been given. 5 Binn. 27; 1 Gill & John. 196; 2 Mass. R. 245; 11 Mass. R. 466; 2 Virg. Cas. 270; 3 Halst. 123; 3 Pick. 194 4 Hayw. 100; 2 Greenl. 165; 8 Greenl. 293. A cer­tio­rari, for exam­ple, is the cor­rect process to remove the pro­ceed­ings of a court of ses­sions, or of county com­mis­sion­ers in lay­ing out high­ways. 2 Binn. 250 2 Mass. 249; 7 Mass. 158; 8 Pick. 440 13 Pick. 195; 1 Overt. 131; 2 Overt. 109; 2 Pen. 1038; 8 Verm. 271 3 Ham. 383; 2 Caines, 179.

3. Some­times the writ of cer­tio­rari is used as aux­il­iary process, in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for exam­ple, the record of an infe­rior court is brought before a supe­rior court by appeal, writ of error, or other law­ful mode, and there is a man­i­fest defect, or a sug­ges­tion of diminu­tion, a cer­tio­rari is awarded requir­ing a per­fect tran­script and all papers. 3 Dall. R. 413; 3 John. R. 23; 7 Cranch, R. 288; 2 South. R. 270, 551; 1 Blackf. R. 32; 9 Wheat. R. 526; 7 Halst. R. 85; 3 Dev. R. 117; 1 Dev. & Bat. 382; 11 Mass. 414; 2 Munf. R. 229; 2 Cowen, R. 38. Vide Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

So we pro­ceed for­ward to the this section:

8 USC § 1182 – note that “indi­vid­ual capac­ity” is included, i.e. if your do some­thing that the Fas­cist gov­ern­ment does not like includ­ing weapons, etc (same sec­tion – read care­fully of all items included – any­one can be included here) – your are under their statu­tory scheme for pros­e­cu­tion –page 81. Also included in ter­ror­ism is any two “indi­vid­u­als” orga­nized or not.

Also impor­tant if the Secretary’s (includes home­land secu­rity Sec­re­tary) sole unre­view­able dis­cre­tion for cer­tain parts – com­pli­cated here.

8 USC § 1252 – denial of Habeas Cor­pus (must be at War – eh?) – Note use of “statu­tory or non-statutory – hmmmm – two Habeas Cor­pus’ out there is seems – unbe­liev­able. Of course you can file into the Court of Appeals (equity and admi­ralty) since 1911 in the Fas­cist fic­tional world (real Cir­cuit Court of the United States still exists even after the 1911 Judi­cial Code)

49 USC 30301 – “State” is defined as “a State of the United States.” Con­gress did NOT estab­lish a Law of the United States (under Arti­cle VI is the author­ity for only laws of the United States) for within any of the sev­eral States, so the sim­ple solu­tion which is always the case, Con­gress must sup­ply the definition(s) of whom they are leg­is­lat­ing for – THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT to prove that Con­gress is out­side of their Con­sti­tu­tional Power. The Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States ONLY has pro­vi­sion for the “sev­eral States” of the Union and none other – hence we define the fic­tional “State of the United States.”

49 USC 30301 – “a Fed­eral agency” which has no exec­u­tive, leg­isla­tive or judi­cial Power aris­ing under the Con­sti­tu­tion is forc­ing upon an Indi­vid­ual to com­ply. It also man­dates that you have accepted the ben­e­fit of the SSN, con­clu­sively prov­ing that you are not a cit­i­zen of one of the sev­eral States, but are a “cit­i­zen of the United States”, i.e. a fic­tional sta­tus in Law.

But the REAL CONCLUSIVE part of this “law of Con­gress” for the Fas­cist is that CONGRESS MUST IDENTIFY WHAT ENTITY THEY ARE LEGISLATING FOR. Hooo – haaa.

This is what I dis­cov­ered by look­ing prior to the Civil War and after the Civil War on Laws of the United States and laws of Congress.

Con­gress must iden­tity that it is strictly ONLY for a “cit­i­zen of the United States” or “national of the United States.” Either isn’t a cit­i­zen of the sev­eral States. I will be post­ing on this soon – just a lot to under­stand in this area for those start­ing a ground zero with the deer in the head­light stare.

This should be enough ini­tially to scare the dolts of our Repub­lic into action are to at least ques­tion the Fas­cist Empire – but who knows.

As for those that are seek­ing knowl­edge, there is hope.

What is the one sen­tence that could expose this com­plete trea­so­nous act

This Act has no appli­ca­tion to any of the cit­i­zens of the sev­eral States who are not “cit­i­zens of the United States.” This is as short as it can be.
Ques­tions to the Con­gress.
1. Does this Act have appli­ca­tion to “cit­i­zens of the sev­eral States” domi­ciled in the sev­eral States?
2. Please define what is a “cit­i­zen of the United States.”
3. Is it not true that a “cit­i­zen of the United States” is a grant under 42 USC §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1988?
4. Is it not true that Con­gress is man­dat­ing that I be a racist, i.e. to have rights like a “white cit­i­zen?”
5. Who or what is this “white cit­i­zen” in Title 42?

This is just for starters.

Later.

Ralph

–
The infor­ma­tion pro­vided in the lists of Win­ter­rowd is the work prod­uct of Ralph Ker­mit Win­ter­rowd 2nd with all rights reserved.
I am not an Attor­ney or Counsellor-at-law. The fun­da­men­tal rights to dis­trib­ute research mate­r­ial is claimed by Win­ter­rowd as an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen, cit­i­zen of the United States of Amer­ica, a cit­i­zen of one of the sev­eral States and “white cit­i­zen” due to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1988 Admin­is­tra­tive State of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq under the “laws of Con­gress” which are not “Laws of the United States.”
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of www.jusbelli.com. There is a spe­cial e-mail list for $120 per year dona­tion that includes attach­ments – con­tact me via e-mail to join. Requires a min­i­mum of 5 meg. of e-mail stor­age by your server.
I have a talk show on Repub­lic Broad­cast­ing acces­si­ble by going to
http://republicbroadcasting.org/ Mon­day, Wednes­day and Fri­day at 7–8 PM Cen­tral Time.
Ralph