USA lacking Standing as Owner

Posted: 31st May 2011 by admin in Territorial jurisdiction

On June 6-22-2011 the USA Treasury Department intends to sell 5720 North Palafox Highway and 5800 block North Old Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida.  The USA is currently recorded at the Registry of Deeds as the legal owner, pursuant to US Court Order, this notice is to inform all that the Record is incorrect.  No US court can go beyond its “exclusive Legislative” authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8, (par.17) USA Const. 1787, and is only limited to land owned by the USA pursuant to 28 USC CHAPTER 5, Sec.89. Florida.  Both described properties for sell are owned by the Trusts as were of record January 2009.  Upon investigation one may find that the sale will be AS-IS, this meaning if the USA is not legal owner it has no right to sell title, the purchaser then gets what he paid for, that being a mere belief of purchase with no right to possess.  Challenge to any owner of the described land must take place before a court with territorial jurisdiction, of which the US proprietary administrative courts are not.  Paul John Hansen as Trustee,  SEE more at >

The above was published in the Pensacola News Journal 10 days before the intended sale date of 6-11-2011.


Legal Brief:

Does the USA have authority to apply US written law, or court order, on land the USA does not own, or upon a free inhabitant absent a US license?

As many have witnessed the USA attacked Kent Hovind for not following US written law.

Now for a brief introduction of what few know- USA is a confederacy of states, and the US is the land owned by the Confederacy we call the USA.

  • See>  The USA Constitution – Articles of Confederation, 1777, Article I. The stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”
  • and
  • Title 28 USC. PART VI CHAPTER 176 SUBCHAPTER A § 3002(14) (15)(A): (15) “United States” means—   (A) a Federal corporation;   (Note that it does not state USA but only US.)

Now the question now is on what land does this “Federal corporation” law apply?  The answer is found at the following:

  • “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession (D.C.) of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And”     Article I, Section 8, (par.17) US Const. 1787

As you see it is limited to “District” / “Places purchased”, now what do these two have in common, they are both land owned by the USA.

You may have heard the rumor that the US Government is to big.  Well maybe it is not because the said Federal corporation owns very little land in Florida, and there is absolutely no evidence that they own any land that Kent Hovind was accused of doing any acts on. So we see for the US to impose its written law on land they do not own is actually a violation of that corporations jurisdiction.  Withstanding that Kent Hovind was not acting under any Federal license, which is clear.  Their written law says that US “Legislative” (LAW) is to be “exclusive” to what they own.  See EDRIVERA.COM.  phd

Now how can one know which land the US has this exclusive jurisdiction on?  Well they tell us in the following:

  • DISTRICT COURTS -CHAPTER 5 -MISC1-    Sec. 81. Alabama. 81A. Alaska. 82. Arizona. 83. Arkansas. 84. California. 85. Colorado. 86. Connecticut. 87. Delaware. 88. District of Columbia. 89. Florida. 90. Georgia. 91. Hawaii. 92. Idaho. 93. Illinois. 94. Indiana. 95. Iowa. 96. Kansas. 97. Kentucky. 98. Louisiana. 99. Maine. 100. Maryland. 101. Massachusetts. 102. Michigan. 103. Minnesota. 104. Mississippi. 105. Missouri. 106. Montana. 107. Nebraska. 108. Nevada. 109. New Hampshire. 110. New Jersey. 111. New Mexico. 112. New York. 113. North Carolina. 114. North Dakota. 115. Ohio. 116. Oklahoma. 117. Oregon. 118. Pennsylvania. 119. Puerto Rico. 120. Rhode Island. 121. South Carolina. 122. South Dakota. 123. Tennessee. 124. Texas. 125. Utah. 126. Vermont. 127. Virginia. 128. Washington. 129. West Virginia. 130. Wisconsin. 131. Wyoming.

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.

“Territorial composition” is a fancy word for what land the US courts administrate over.

So what we have here is – the jurisdiction discussed is “District” specific, now district can be a deceptive word, for it merely means territory.  So the 89. (District) Florida, actually means territory (land) in Florida owned by the USA, such as the District of Colombia is 100% owned by the USA, all there are living as tenants.

Essentially every court order against Kent Hovind issued  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION, is lacking territorial jurisdiction and that makes every order void, of no force or effect, it can only have appearance of law.  Any party utilizing such order has no written law of support and has no sustainable enforcement ability.  Any claim of land transferred by such order is worthless.

Now the question that can never be ignored is, does/did the land that is in Trust, or where Kent Hovind was accused of doing an illegal act, is it of the same type as described where the listed “exclusive Legislative” (jurisdiction) exist of the US court.

This is a question that no Licensed attorney can ask and expect to ever function in the US court system again.  Why, because it took 200 years for the US to deceive people, of America, of its true, very limited, jurisdiction.

Simply put- the USA can not attack a man that has no license agreement with the USA and is not doing acts on US land, for such is not their jurisdiction.  You see a tremendous, constructed, travesty is being orchestrated against the man Kent Hovind.  This man was dragged from his home, forced before a US court that did not have proprietary authority/power, that is, they did not govern that land by right, as owner, and did not have a consented acceptance of any license from the USA or the US in which to enforce.

You see the US controls attorneys, Hovind’s “trusted” attorney failed to protect his client, but opted to keep in good standings with the US courts by failing to give notice of lack of “exclusive Legislative” authority to apply the US written law to land and a persons not subject, even though clearly noticed of the same valid defense.  You see kings, and organized governments, often hate any one to know they are outside of their jurisdiction.

The (four) Organic laws are found in the United States Code, in the very front of their book, and clearly include “independence”, yes independence to own land, make a living for yourself and others, all independent of others, that including independent of this said intrusive US Federal corporation.    See Articles of Confederation, Article IV,    note the AOC have never been repealed, never!

Yes Kent has been sentenced 10 years for doing nothing in violation of Gods law, man’s law, or in violation of any of USA / US written law.

People often hate those who exercise independence, without knowing that those few are the very same people that makes independence even accessible to anyone.

Independence can be found in the written laws of the USA, tell everyone, independence is a gift from above , to which who can put a value.

Independence is seldom found in this world for it is grasped for to late, by to few.

Contact everyone and tell them to do what they can to expose the unlawful horrific injustice the US Federal corporation has done to Kent Hovind, his family, and his ministry.

Paul Hansen                     (Acting as Counsel of law for Kent Hovind)


p.s.   Generally when a person purchases a property from a USA sale it is clearly sold AS-IS, often this notice is on the back of the sales notice handed out by the US agents on the day of the sale.  It is my experience that payment for such land under such notice is converted to a donation to the US Treasury, nonredeemable.  All you get is a contribution pat on the back as the land is still owned by the rightful owner.  AS-IS means just that. (Buyer be aware.) Good luck getting title insurance for  purchasing land from the USA that was not legally possessed by the USA.  Why the US will probably sell you the London Bridge As-IS.

Now the claimed purchaser will have the burden of proof that the USA sold land it legal owned, the holding Trusts will not have to prove anything.  If the purchaser can twist the above US written law to prove ownership he is a far better lawyer than me.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.