Title IV Jurisdiction the greatest legal fiction

in #familyprotectionlast year (edited)

Challenging Jurisdiction

If this is your first rodeo the first thing you do in a legal battle is, challenge jurisdiction. Most of the time is spent challenging the jurisdiction of the other party, of the court, etc. Once you challenge jurisdiction and you have subject-matter jurisdiction you then need to prove the lack of jurisdiction on their part to the court. Lets look at what is defined as "State" in title IV programs.

Blacks Law defines State as:

  • "the System of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over a political organized body of people; the political organization or the body of people itself."
  • "An institution of self-government within a larger political entity."1

state defined in Title IV2, 45 cfr 301.1 as;

"State means; the several states, the District of Columbia, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa."

Ask is this clearly outlining the jurisdiction in which you reside? "Several states" seems awfully ambiguous. Below is two Supreme Court rulings that further clarifies that when Legislator wants to it clearly defines appropriate jurisdiction.

It is the canon of statutory construction that the inclusion of certain provisions implies the exclusion of others. The doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius informs "the court to exclude from operation those items not included in a list of elements that are given effect expressly by the statutory language.3,4' In Re TMI Wohlegemuth. 540 F2d 163, 169 (3rd Cir 1976)" UNITED STATES v McQuilkin, 78 F3d 105, 108 (3rd Cir 1996)

As you can tell the jurisdiction of the Federal program, is limited to what is outlined in 45 CFR 301.1. Since it clearly states the jurisdiction with clear distinction, the term several states is at best unclear and does not refer to the sovereign entities aka 50 states of the union.

Looking at 42 USC 618,619:

"The Term 'State' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Somoa, the commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands."

Comparing 42 USC 618,619 and 45 CFR 301.1 we see that there is no plausible jurisdiction over sovereign states. Id like to point out that per the treatise previously mentioned in Supreme Court rulings, that the terminology of "each of the 50 states" does not equate to State of the United States.

This is what is called Legal Fiction;

LEGAL FICTION
Believing or assuming something not true is true. Used in judicial reasoning for avoiding issues where a new situation comes up against the law, changing how the law is applied, but not changing the text of the law.

As you can tell from above that it is passed off that Title IV agencies has appropriate jurisdiction over individuals. This by definition is legal fiction, whereas the parasitic agency has no real jurisdiction over you and will continue to wreck your life until you challenge it. Truth..

Sovereignity

In the Supreme Court Case Federal Marine Commission (FMC) v South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S 743 (2002)5, Gregory v Ashcroft 501 U.S. 452, 4576. "Dual sovereignty is a defining feature of our nations constitutional blueprint." What Justice Thomas was referring to was that each State of the Union of the United States, was subject to its own sovereignty as well as the sovereignty at the "Federal" Level.

When challenging jurisdiction ask "when and whether it was the intention of the states legislator to ratify becoming an extension of the Federal government?" The real deal is that each state declares explicitly that it is sovereign. In addition to being united in an union at the "Federal" level.

I hope this helps you in your future endeavors dear reader! Remember this is just one part of what you can pen to paper, this by no means is the complete picture. Again I am not a lawyer (never will be) nor a law firm, just a man trying to help others.


References

1 Blacks Law Pocket Ed. (2000)
2 45 CFR 301.1
3 In Re TMI Wohlegemuth. 540 F2d 163, 169 (3rd Cir 1976)
4 UNITED STATES v McQuilkin, 78 F3d 105, 108 (3rd Cir 1996)
5(FMC) v South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S 743 (2002)
6 Gregory v Ashcroft 501 U.S. 452, 457
img src

Sort:  

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.22
TRX 0.02
BTC 11733.40
ETH 389.92
SBD 1.05