ENFORCEABILITY & 4 USC 72

Pre-emptive thought pattern conditioning is paramount to comprehend what is about to be exposed in your mental approach to understanding. You MUST be able to adjust your thinking to accept and apply certain logic or you will fail in every approach of relief. 

Greed shapes the minds of the ruling class and ignorance gives them license. We have been captured by corporate agencies and our property (rights) has been stolen by way of codes, statutes, and rules under Color Of Law. Vi et armis means under force of arms. Uniformed officers, under force of arms and extreme intimidation, have forced silent deception upon the Real People of America by way of Inducement by Fraud.

Fear, Intimidation, Coercion and simple Piracy rule over the lives of Americans. Well, you better be afraid and you better address them properly as “Sir” or “Ma’am” and you better kiss their ring regardless of which finger they wear it on. It is at present the way it has been for decades, “Justice to the highest bidder.” They are the ones with shiny boots, fancy uniforms, guns, clubs, radios, and a swarm of dozens more just like themselves if needed. Resources? They have all the money they want; all they have to do is squeeze you a little more. So, continue to live on your knees or learn to stand like a man. [Womb men inclusive.]

There’s a song that says, “If you’re gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.” I agree with that; however, I’d like to say, “If you’re gonna be successful, you gotta learn to pick your battles.” It’s stupid to argue with a cop (or, a court). My guestimate is 90% of cops are only overgrown 3rd grade bullies or want2be Hall Monitors. Choose your battles by conditioning the battlefield BEFORE you have to contend with them. Knowledge is the key to success, but only if it is properly applied.

A certain level of thinking is required to understand (and use) “legalese*” in your defense. In this case, you are using it as your ONLY defense, an effective OFFENSE. *Specialized vocabulary of the legal profession, especially when considered complex or abstruse. We (the People) are mentally handicapped. We have been conditioned since childbirth to believe that government is the all-powerful Master of everything we think and do and that a License is required to exist much like water is to a fish.

I must clarify our approach to legal situations regarding “Negative Averments”: Two (2) “negatives” equal one (1) “positive”. 2 no(s) mean yes. If I said, “I ain’t got no cigarettes”. That means that I have some cigarettes. If I stated, “I have no record or proof leading to a conclusion that you are not as queer as a $3 bill”, I just stated that I have proof and record that you are as queer as a $3 bill. Soon I will introduce F.R.C.P. Rule 9(a), showing that we must use a “specific negative averment”, which is, technically, a Writ of SPECIFIC DENIAL in regards to jurisdiction, venue, attributes, policies, and doctrine. Other F.R.C.P. Rules are incorporated to form a viable machine of Freedom beyond Liberty. (Liberty requires permission; Freedom is the will of the Master.) 

Now, we begin our journey in the S.P.V. (special purpose vehicle) called a Negative Averment.

I, first name-middle name: hereinafter referred to “The Real Party in Interest”, have no record or information leading to a conclusion that Rule 17 does not plainly declare that the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party of interest.

I, the Real Party, have no questions if I may sue in my own name without joining the person whose benefit the action was brought whether they are executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, or trustee of an express trust. I have no attribute other than owner.

I, the Real Party, have no indications that F.C.R.P. Rule 36 does not indicate that,  “if the demanded documents are not produced they are admitted,” and that, Rule 37 does not declare that any documents not submitted to me can not be used against me”; And that, Rule 9(d) does not indicate that, “In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.” [Can any agent of a fictitious, or factitious, corporation make that statement?]

I, the Real Party, do not have any proof that this discourse is not a NOTICE of direct and resultant consequences for continued unlawful actions to all public officers, agents, attorneys, judges, clerks, and Private Actors operating under Color of Law. 

I, the Real Party, do not have proof that this is not a Public Record Notice | U.S. Constitutional Authority | Statutory Mandate I. LEGAL WARNING: OPERATION WITHOUT VALID OATHS, BONDS, or DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.

I, the Real Party, have no verifiable evidence that I am not injured by acts of public or private officers—whether judicial, legislative, executive, or administrative, operating de facto, without a verified, filed, and witnessed Oath of Office and valid Public Official Bond, which constitute: a Class A breach of public trust, an act of fraud, and impersonation of office; also, includes violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (False personation); a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241-242 (Conspiracy against rights; Deprivation of rights under color of law); a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1986 (Civil rights violations; neglect to prevent). 

I, the Real Party, do not comprehend that any valid public authority can exist in absence of constitutionally compliant, bonded, and sworn oaths per: Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution 5 U.S.C. § 3331* (Federal oath requirement) SDCL §§ 3-1-5 through 3-1-8 (State oath and bond requirements). Such failure invalidates all judicial orders, administrative actions, elections, arrests, proceedings, and contracts executed thereafter as null and void ab initio. See: Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).

I, the Real Party, have no record or proof that according to; CLASSIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS AS INSURRECTION AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM that once notified, a public actor can claim ignorance; that continued violation does not trigger malice aforethought and intentional fraud; and, that under 18 U.S. Code § 2385, encouraging or executing unlawful usurpation of government offices does not constitute insurrection, especially upon resistance to lawful correction; and, that under 18 U.S. Code § 2331 and § 2339A-B, obstruction, intimidation, and coercion by private BAR members operating as foreign agents does not constitute domestic terrorism, especially when conducted under color of law to suppress rights; and that use of private tribunals or courts not established by constitutional warrant or Article III compliance is not actionable under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) and False Claims Act. 

I, the Real Party, have no proof that according to: SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO CEASE AND CORRECT 1. All Unlawful Orders Are Not Void; and that any further attempts to enforce invalid decrees, fines, arrests, or prosecutions will not be lawfully resisted and challenged with full due process under federal authority; and that, 2. Civil and Criminal Exposure – All parties continuing to act without authority are not personally liable and subject to: Civil actions for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Criminal complaints to DOJ, U.S. Marshals, and Interpol for human rights violations Commercial liens under UCC-1, filed against offending parties’ bonds and assets; and that, 3. Public Notice and Record Preservation – This notice is not being: Digitally signed and preserved under UETA and ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. Ch. 96) and Circulated via certified notice, publication, and email to establish estoppel; and that this publication is not logged in public domain for third-party enforcement, including marshals and lawful peace officers; and that, 4. Demand for Remedy – you are not hereby instructed: to cease all activities unless and until your delegation of authority is proven and verified in the public record to produce valid Oaths and Bonds upon request within 72 hours to refrain from further retaliation, coercion, or fraud under penalty of law.

I, the Real Party, have no proof that I may not issue this FINAL DECLARATION that Failure to comply with this Notice and Lawful Demand will not be taken as active admission of: Willful and malicious fraud Impersonation of government office Insurrection against the organic Constitution Culpable participation in a criminal conspiracy against the People Correct the record, stand down, or be held liable. Signed and delivered with lawful authority. 

By: Claimant, Real Party name: Principal In Propria Persona, All Rights Reserved U.C.C. 1-308, without prejudice. This concludes your instructions as per “Negative Averment.”

Keep in mind that in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, which they, altogether, have sworn to uphold, in direct contradiction where Article 3, Section 2 clearly states, “In all Cases… …in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

Do a F.O.I.A. request for copy of the judge’s “Appointment Affidavit, SF-61”, which is mandatory (see Appointment Affidavit Exhibit SF 61).

Since this grand event involves a Court Case, send your (notarized) case file, photocopies of the 3949A, and your Affidavit of Truth to the DOFAC, Director Of Foreign Asset Comptroller. They will investigate any commerce taking place in the private sector and block them from embezzlement and piracy. It’s all part of JAG. They will do the audit on the court, lawyer, judge and/or public servant! All you have to do is open a claim on their website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/
In 2016 the Supreme Court clarified Military Law under the Military Justice Act to mean that Military Law was separate than Civil Law, which secured the ultimate authority of Military Tribunals. You’ll soon discover (below) that this “process” ties in with the office of the Judge Advocate General.
Also, there is strong “rumor” that documents sent to Inspector General of the Air Force's Office, will allow their Spec Ops people to pay a call on such criminals. Email: saf.ighotline@us.af.mil

There are ways to invoke Military Action against these rogue officials. Admiralty and Maritime Claims are any claim of debt involving “money” which require or permit the giving of security by a party in the form of a bond (promise) or stipulation (contract) or other undertaking, which automatically submits to the jurisdiction of the military (see next paragraph) court and (under such jurisdiction) irrevocably appoints the clerk of the court as surety’s agent (important) upon whom any papers affecting the surety’s liability on the bond or undertaking may be served.

August 25, 1983, the Federal Register designated all of your military districts by zip code, which identifies the IRS District, because they do not want you to know that you are in military districts. There is a Provost Marshall over each district.  Then they put a Provost Marshall General under the Bureau of War out of Washington, DC over all the Provost Marshals.  

In 2016 the Supreme Court clarified Military Law under the Military Justice Act to mean that Military Law was separate than Civil Law, which secured the ultimate authority of Military Tribunals. This “process” ties in with the office of the Judge Advocate General.

I’ve carried the info in this document far beyond what I intended. It could easily become another 30-page document. Please read my other docs like, “Leveling The Playing Field” and “Hold Their Feet To The Fire”, etc., for further education.

4 USC § 72 as it applies to jurisdiction

4 U.S.C. § 72, which is positive law, mandates that all offices of government are restricted to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” unless Congress “expressly” extends said jurisdiction to other areas by United States law.

4 U.S.C. § 72 “All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.” 4 U.S.C. § 72 is a foundational administrative statute itself rather than a delegation of agency power.

Has Congress “expressly” extended the authority of the DOJ outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” pursuant to 4 USC § 72?  If so, please forward to me the United States law which so “expressly” extends the authority of the DOJ.  NOTE:  At least 20 U.S. Attorneys have been asked for this and not one has been forthcoming with said United States law.  The expression "without United States" is being addressed here.

United States law 4 U.S.C. § 72 provides the litmus test for the jurisdiction of every office attached to the seat of government; which includes the Department of Justice and any other "offices attached to the seat of government".

4 U.S.C. § 72 is concerned with “where” offices of the United States can exercise their authority.  The breakdown of this law is as follows:

	1.  ALL offices attached to the seat of government are contemplated in this law and not just some offices – this includes the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), etc.;

	2.  The provisions of 4 U.S.C. § 72 are made mandatory by Congress by its use of the word “shall.”  In other words, this is not an optional consideration for any United States officer or Agency.

	3.  The “exercise” of ALL government offices is by default limited to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.”  In other words, “the District of Columbia” is the starting place for jurisdiction not the exception;

	4.  An exception can be made to the limited jurisdiction of ALL offices attached to the seat of government to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.”  As set forth in 4 U.S.C. § 72, authority to act outside “the District of Columbia” must be “otherwise expressly provided by law.”  In other words, if Congress intends to extend the authority of a particular office of the United States to areas outside “the District of Columbia,” it shall “expressly” delegate and extend said authority in United States law.

	5.  Any “expressly” delegated exception to the limitations of an officer’s authority to that of “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” is to be authorized by Congress in “law.”  In other words, since Congress (Legislative Branch) has the exclusive authority to create law for the United States, said exceptions will be found only in United States law and not in Codes of Regulations (Executive Branch) or in Supreme Court rulings (Judicial Branch).  Only Congress by United States law can authorize or extend the authority of any government office outside “the District of Columbia,” pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72.

One of the key words in 4 U.S.C. § 72 is the word “expressly.”  This means that when Congress extends the authority of any office or officer of the United States outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere,” Congress will do it by “expressly” extending the Secretary’s authority and by leaving no doubt that said authority has been “expressly” extended by Congress to an area outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.” (read "without United States")  The definition of “expressly” from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. is as follows:

“In an express manner; in direct and unmistakable terms; explicitly; definitely; directly. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill, 336 Mo. 17, 76 S.W.2d. 685, 689.  The opposite of impliedly.  Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 144 Ohio St. 195, 58 N.E.2d. 381, 396.” 

As an example of how Congress has “expressly” extended the authority of the Secretary outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” can be found is 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a) cited as follows:

(a) Jurisdiction.  The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, regardless of the degree of the offense or of the amount involved, except the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands. Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands which would constitute a criminal offense described in chapter 75 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [26 USCS § §  7201 et seq.] shall constitute an offense against the government of the Virgin Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the government of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers thereof in the District Court of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands, notwithstanding the provisions of section 27 of this Act [48 USCS §  1617].

As anyone [even a jury] can readily see, Congress in 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a) “expressly” extended the authority of the "The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States." to the Virgin Islands just as Congress mandates in 4 U.S.C. § 72.  One should keep in mind that Congress has complete authority over the Virgin Islands and yet it still complied with the mandate of 4 U.S.C. § 72 and “expressly” extended the authority of the Secretary to the Virgin Islands in United States law.  If Congress “expressly” extended the authority of the District Court of the United States (and by inference, the DOJ) for the Virgin Islands, then it is certain that Congress will also “expressly” extend the authority of the District Court of the United States in the same manner if Congress intends the District Court of the United States to exercise his authority in the several 50 union states.

It is obvious that the paperwork from the Department of Justice is an attempt to deceive naïve men and women into believing that they are "Citizens of the United States" and into "voluntarily" giving themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States into parting with their property. Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72, the jurisdiction of the "Department of Justice" and the "United States District Court" extend to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.” 

A jurisdictional statement is required from the Department of Justice to attach jurisdiction of the United States District Court to me. If the jurisdiction is contractual, then a clarification of the contract is required. Follow to discover how certain interconnected documents keep us chained to their process via procedure as CAGEGORY (DCUS) moves ITEM (U.S. Citizen) to fake jurisdiction (USDC), de jure to de facto.

As jurisdiction over the U.S. Citizen “appears” [apparition] to follow certain procedures and applies to citizens as we move (not so) freely about. Do you answer to being a U. S. Citizen? Of course, we all do. ENTRAPMENT. You must know that: "A "U.S. Citizen" upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in "interstate commerce", as a "resident" [and] does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states." Hendrick v. Marylalnd S.C. Reporter's Rd. 610-625. (1914) 

And, "I.R.C. Section 7701(39) a. “If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States Judicial District, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provisions of this title to (A) jurisdiction of courts, or (B) enforcement of summons.” And, c. Which further states that citizens of the District of Columbia are not embraced by the judicial power under Article 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America, the same statement is held in Hepburn v. Dundas v. Elizey, 2 Cranch (U.S.) 445, 2 L.Ed. 332.; In 1804, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that a citizen of the District of Columbia was not a citizen of a state;

In other words Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over citizens of the City of Washington, District of Columbia, and through their plenary power nationally covering those citizens even when in one of the several states as though the district expands for the purpose of regulating its citizens wherever they go throughout the states in union".

And, “The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 23 L. ed. 678), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, …” -- Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908)

Now, let’s discover how jurisdiction moves from WHO (U.S. Citizen) to WHAT (money); any form of money.

The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 states, in part, "The entire taxing and monetary systems are, hereby, placed under the U.C.C."

The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 1125, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 6323, provides further evidence that treating the United States like any other lender would not undermine federal interests. Also see: Public Law 89-719, Legis. Hist., pg 3722, C.R.S. 5-1-106., 80 Stat. 1125 (1966).

Now, jurisdiction moves from WHAT ($) to WHERE (Location). U.C.C. 9-307(h) [Location of United States.] “The United States is located in the District of Columbia.”

Now, do you see that our “jurisdictions” have become a conflicting circus of concepts and assumptions to enforce confusion and greed?

This is where I abruptly stop this diatribe. If you’re happy, stay stupid. 

Doug Duff