Fraud of the Arizona Immigrations Act

Return to: HOME: https://docs.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#all
:mark rodney: sunde
c/o Notary Public
Guardwell Self Storage & Mail
23316 NE Redmond Fall City Rd
Redmond, WA 98053

December 15, 2010

Grantor: :mark: Sunde

Grantee: The State of Arizona

Respondents:
The Honorable Jan Brewer
Arizona State Senate
Governor of Arizona
Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2890
Certified Mail: 7010 2780 0002 6952 8610
Certified Mail: 7010 2780 0002 6952 8597


Terry Goddard
Arizona House of Representatives
Arizona Attorney General
Capitol Complex
1275 W. Washington
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2890
Certified Mail: 7010 2780 0002 6952 8627
Certified Mail: 7010 2780 0002 6952 8603



ARIZONA IMMIGRATIONS ACT, SENATE BILL 1070
http:/ www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bil s/sb1070s.pdf

AUTHORITY LIMITED TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS AND FEDERAL LANDS
WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES’ OF ARIZONA.

Dear, Sirs
I herein present you with this NOTICE AND AFFIDAVIT: OF FRAUD HIDDEN WITHIN THE FOUNDATION OF
THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATIONS ACT, SENATE BILL 1070.

FIRST OF ALL, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I AM, AND HAVE BEEN FOR MOST OF MY ADULT LIFE, A CONSTRUCTION
LABORER. I TRUST THAT ANY DEFICIENCIES AND IMPERFECTIONS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED HEREIN WILL BE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, AS THE LAW FAVORS FORM LESS THAN SUBSTANCE.


THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND IS SUBJECT TO WHATEVER
CORRECTIONS ARE FOUND NECESSARY, IF AND WHEN SUCH IS RECOMMENDED.

Chief Justice Sobeloff, in United States v. Glass 4 Cir,. 317 F2d 200, 202. “Where the layman‟s papers clearly
show what he is driving at, it is usually in the interest of justice and may in the long run save time to
temper the reading of the papers with a measure of tolerance. This court has applied the same rule of
Common law copyright © by :mark rodney: sunde, A Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven (Verification at www.EmbassyOfHeaven.Org Driver License #1127176
Passport #1903993) Seat le, Washington state (Republic) December 2010.
Page 1

Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology or QATT--The term ``'Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology' or ``QATT'' means any Technology (including information
technology) designed, developed, modified, procured, or sold for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause. 6 CFR §25.2 Definitions

This QATT has been developed and is given freely to assist American businesses and workers in preventing, detecting, identifying, and deterring further acts of
terrorism by Homeland Security and its terrorist agents (ICE and others), and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause.

---

construction of a layman‟s pleadings in Thomas v. Teets, 9 Cir. 205 F2d. 236,238. Note 1” Note1: “Thomas”
application being by an inexperienced layman is to be construed to give its allegations effect, though in
artfully drawn. Dart v. Burford. 339 U.S. 200, 203; 70, S.Ct. 587. 94 L. ed. 761; Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S.
262, 292; 68 S. Ct 1049; 92 L.ed 1356, 370 F.2d at 40 (1966) [emphasis added]

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, hereafter “the Act or Act”.

By a strong presumption the Arizona Immigrations Act and its implications reach far beyond the borders of Arizona
into all the states of the Union, possibly affecting the freedoms and liberties of all Americans.

By a strong presumption Arizona is correct in attempting to control illegal immigrants but the Arizona immigrations
act and its reliance upon the federal “Immigrations Reform and Control Act of 1986” hereafter IRCA, is by
stipulation the wrong law for the wrong purpose, and constitutes a massive FRAUD upon the people of Arizona
and the Nation as a whole.

There is a strong presumption that the definitions of words used in the Act are vital to United States interests in
maintaining power and control by a strong deception of which the people of Arizona are unaware.

There is a strong presumption that the legislature must identify the jurisdiction for which it has authority to pass
legislation, either it is the legislature of Arizona state one of the states that have joined the Union on an equal
footing with the original thirteen states, and having been guaranteed a republican form of government, or it is
simply a franchise of congress legislating only over federal lands and employees of THE STATE OF ARIZONA, it
cannot be both it can only be one or the other.

Senate Bill 1070 @ Pg 1.
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

the term “this state” is a term of art used throughout this act which has a very definite and important meaning,
which must be understood as it is one of the vital keys to understanding this Act. and the jurisdiction over which it
applies.

Term of art: A word or phrase used by practitioners in a field of endeavour which has a precise and typically quite technical
meaning within the context of the field of endeavour. Terms of art allow practitioners in a field to communicate with each other
concisely and unambiguously.
Inventing suitable yet totally new words to be used as terms of art is often quite difficult. Consequently, the words which become
terms of art often also have non-field-specific meanings. This can create and/or reinforce communication barriers between a
field's practitioners and non-practitioners. Unfortunately, inventing totally new words or borrowing words from other languages
can also contribute to said communication barriers (see "de bene esse" below).
The extent to which a practitioner uses their field's terms of art correctly and routinely is a strong indicator of the depth and
breadth of the practitioner's experience in the field. That said, the mark of a true adept in a field of endeavour is their ability to
clearly communicate advanced field-specific concepts to non-practitioners.
It should be noted that "term of art" is essentially a synonym of jargon when the two are used in colloquial contexts. On the other
hand, "term of art" is a term of art in the legal profession whereas "jargon" isn't! (see full article @
ht p:/ www.everything2.com/title/term+of+art )

The term “this state “ is synonymous with federal area

Page 2 of 36

---

United States Code, at Title 4 section 110(e) of the Buck Act the term “federal area” is clearly defined (see the
Buck Act on the internet) (See also, the Federal Zone @ ht p:/ www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm )

Title 4 UCS 110(e) The term ``Federal area'' means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United
States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is
located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

"4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States."

By stipulation similar definitions appear throughout the federal and state codes, where the Act does not include a
clear definition of Arizona, the definitions of ‘state’ and ‘United States’ below shall apply tacitly.

See ht p:/ inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/DefinitionOfIncludes.htm and
ht p:/ www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr12.htm for the term “includes”

Immigrations and Nationality Act Sec 101 [8 U.S.C. 1101]
(36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the
continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

By presumption the term Continental United States refers only to the District of Columbia.

Title 28 USC, Part VI, Chapter 176, Judicial and judiciary procedure, sub chapter a, Sec. 3002. definitions (15), P..564, “United
States” means – (A) a Federal corporation.

Arizona along with the other 49 states of the Union are NOT States of the United States as defined above but are
independent states that have joined themselves together into a Union, the United States is a creation of this
Union and is subservient to its creator (the Union) not superior to it. The Constitution is the Contract between the
Union and the United States.

(see the statehood acts for Alaska and Hawaii, both were states of the United States prior to being admitted as
states of the Union, once they became States of the Union Congress had to redefine the definition of United
States, removing Alaska and Hawaii from the definitions of United States throughout the U.S. Code however
Congress by stipulation overlooked the Immigrations and Nationality Act.

On March 30, 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward signed an agreement with Baron Edouard Stoeckl, the
Russian Minister to the United States. The agreement, widely referred to as "Seward's Folly" (and "Seward's
Icebox") ceded possession of the vast territory of Alaska to the United States for the sum of $7.2 million. This is
when Alaska became a state and territory of the United States, however in 1958 Alaska became a State of the Union,
no longer under the authority of Congress and Congress had to delete Alaska from all definitions of United States
throughout the U.S. Code ht p:/ www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/alaska_statehood_act.htm (see sections 12 and 20)

Absent a clear definitions of “this state” in the Arizona Revised Statutes, the definition given in the Washington
state statutes is tacitly deemed the correct definition for the purpose of the Act.

Common law copyright © by :mark rodney: sunde, A Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven (Verification at www.EmbassyOfHeaven.Org Driver License #1127176
Passport #1903993) Seat le, Washington state (Republic) December 2010.
Page 3

Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology or QATT--The term ``'Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology' or ``QATT'' means any Technology (including information
technology) designed, developed, modified, procured, or sold for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause. 6 CFR §25.2 Definitions

This QATT has been developed and is given freely to assist American businesses and workers in preventing, detecting, identifying, and deterring further acts of
terrorism by Homeland Security and its terrorist agents (ICE and others), and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause.

---

RCW 82.04.200 "In this state," "within this state "In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within
the exterior boundaries of the state. (See also Title 37 RCW Federal areas — Indians)


Examples from other state codes.

Colorado: 36-27-110(15) "In this state" means within the exterior limits of the state of Colorado and includes all territories within
these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America. (See also Title 3 United States)
Florida: Title XIV 212.02(8) "In this state" or "in the state" means within the state boundaries of Florida as defined in s. 1, Art.
II of the State Constitution and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.
Idaho: Title 63 §3604. In this state ─ In the state. The terms "in this state" or "in the state" mean within the exterior limits of
the state of Idaho and include all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.
Nevada: Title 32, §372.030 “In this State” and “in the State” defined. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the
exterior limits of the State of Nevada and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of
America. (See Title 26, §328-075 FEDERAL LANDS)
Oklahoma: Title 68.500.3 (36) "In this state" means the area within the border of this state, including all land within the borders
of this state owned by the United States of America;
Rhode Island: Title 44 44-18-17 "State" defined. – "In this state" or "in the state" means within the exterior limits of the state
of Rhode Island and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.
Texas: Title 2, §151.004. "IN THIS STATE". "In this state" means within the exterior limits of Texas and includes all territory
within these limits ceded to or owned by the United States.

By presumption in this state has the meaning given it at "4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or
possession of the United States." By a strong presumption the literal meaning is “in this federal territory and possession of
the United States”.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us456.html JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER

There has been created a fictional "Federal State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344
U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375
Pa. 440.
ht p:/ openjurist.org/344/us/624/howard-v-commissioners-of-sinking-fund-of-city-of-louisville

Arizona Enabling Act at Section 20.
[t]hat the people inhabiting said proposed state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the
unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within said boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes,
the right of title to which shall have been acquired through or from the United States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the
title of such Indian or Indian tribe shall have been extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition and
under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.... That no taxes shall be imposed by the
State upon lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be acquired by the United States or reserved for its
use....

37-620.02. State consent to acquisition of land by the United States for exclusive jurisdiction
1. Pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States, the consent of this state may be given to the
acquisition of any other privately owned real property within this state by the United States only upon the governor's signing a
joint resolution adopted by the legislature to that effect. The joint resolution shall recite the legal description of the land and the
purposes to which the state consents that the property may be used.

The Arizona enabling Act clearly abdicated Indian lands to the United States.

Page 4 of 36

---

“This state” as used in the Act limits its effect to only those areas of Arizona1 that have been ceded to the United
States or abdicated as in the case of Indian lands, where the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction.

“This state” therefore is limited to land owned by the bureau of Indian affair, bureau of land management, bureau
of Reclamation, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife service, Forest service, and the National Park Service.

“This state” .therefore is limited by presumption to 48.1% of the land mass of Arizona leaving 51.9% where the Act
does not apply.

In the Arizona Revised Statutes one can see that the legislature passes laws exclusively for “this state” creating a
strong presumption that there is no legislative body for the republic leaving only the common law as the law over
state lands not included within the federal areas..

The: An article which particularizes the subject spoken of. The most unlettered persons understand that “a” is indefinite, but
‘the’ refers to a certain object. Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th ed, pg 1647.

By a strong presumption each of the deferent spellings of Arizona are independent and diverse terms of art, each
having its own meaning distinct and different from the others where the general public is handicapped by a public
education, believing they mean the same thing. (some of these spellings are as follows - Arizona, state of Arizona,
STATE OF ARIZONA, AZ, Ariz, etc, etc,.)

There is a strong presumption that the term Arizona refers to the republic, where the term THE STATE OF ARIZONA
has the following meaning.

It is stipulated that the word THE is referring to the specific definition of state as given at "4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d).
The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States."

By presumption the term THE STATE refers to any Indian reservation, territory’s and possession’s of the United
States within the exterior boundaries of Arizona, it does not however refer to the sovereignty of Arizona.

OF: A term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like;… The word has been
held equivalent to after, at, or belonging to,… Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, Pg 1232.

The term “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” is by a strong presumption a short version of,

THE [state] FEDERAL AREAS [of] BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES LOCATED WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF
ARIZONA

There is a strong presumption that with the Legislature writing laws applying to federal lands, it is in reality a political franchise
of Congress masquerading as the republic state, Arizona.

This creates a strong presumption that THE STATE OF ARIZONA2 and its legislative body are defacto, legislating only for the U.S.
citizen residing within the federal areas.

1 Arizona: by presumption refers to the land area of Arizona NOT within an Indian reservation or land ceded to the United States.
2 THE STATE OF ARIZONA: the legislative franchise of congress legislating for the Indian tribes and U.S. citizens within the exterior
boundaries of Arizona.
Common law copyright © by :mark rodney: sunde, A Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven (Verification at www.EmbassyOfHeaven.Org Driver License #1127176
Passport #1903993) Seat le, Washington state (Republic) December 2010.
Page 5

Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology or QATT--The term ``'Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology' or ``QATT'' means any Technology (including information
technology) designed, developed, modified, procured, or sold for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause. 6 CFR §25.2 Definitions

This QATT has been developed and is given freely to assist American businesses and workers in preventing, detecting, identifying, and deterring further acts of
terrorism by Homeland Security and its terrorist agents (ICE and others), and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause.

---

There is a Strong presumption that these federal areas together comprise what is referred to in the Act as “this state” where
“this state” and THE STATE OF ARIZONA are one and the same comprising the 48.1% of Arizona owned by the federal
government. Arizona the republic on the other hand comprises the remaining 51.9% of the land mass for which the acts of the
legislature do not apply.

By presumption all state government issued licenses of whatever kind are issued by the federal government under the franchise
name “THE STATE OF Arizona, Washington, etc, etc,.” and apply only within the federal areas within the Union States. And by
presumption there are no laws requiring a drivers license, business licenses, etc, etc,. outside such federal areas. (all such law
apply only within the federal areas AKA this state)

There is a strong presumption that the creation of the federal states within the boundaries of the Union states, was an act of
war upon the American people by Congress to deprive them of their sovereignty and overthrowing the Guaranteed republican
form of government forcing all the States into a federally dominated draconian democracy under the symbol of the FASCES.
. See the trading with the enemies act (1914) where Congress declared the American people to be the enemy.

Constitution of the United Sates @Art IV §3: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States
shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more
States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. There is
a strong presumption that federal and state officials have over the years demonstrated a pattern and practice showing an
attitude of abhoration and disgust of the Constitution and its limitation on their power and control over the American people.

Democracy v Republic: ht p:/ www.c4cg.org/republic.htm ht p:/ www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
ht p:/ www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm ht p:/ www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_democracy_or_republic.pdf


The Fasces on a US dime
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/130105fascistsymbols.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MlMUzrlwis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eynHqvaEyuU&feature=related






Held: An employer's refusal to hire a person because he is not a United States citizen does not constitute employment discrimination on the
basis of "national origin" in violation of § 703. Pp. 414 U. S. 88-96.
(a) In light of the statute's legislative history and the longstanding practice of requiring federal employees to be United States citizens, it is
clear that Congress did not intend the term "national origin" to embrace citizenship requirements. Pp. 414 U. S. 88-91.

By a strong presumption wherever United States citizenship is required for employment one is deemed to be a
federal employee, and by presumption the hiring entity or employer must be able to certify his status as a federal
government employer, and must provide the applicant with certifiable evidence of his status as a federal employee.
Such evidence shall be by certified document on federal agency letterhead signed true, correct and complete under
penalties of perjury.

By a strong presumption all Arizona Legislators, employees of the state of Arizona, employees of the counties,
cities, etc,. are required to be United States citizens proving that The State of Arizona is in fact a franchise of
Congress and not an independent republic state of the American Union.

What certified documents do Arizona public employees file with the state, etc, to prove U.S. citizenship beyond a
shadow of a doubt. Tacitly the answer is none, they are by presumption simply making an unverifiable claim.
Claiming to be a U.S. citizen without the proper documentation, by stipulation claiming U.S. citizenship without
certified documentation as proof is deemed a federal crime. (See the “Handbook for employers at Page 29, Question & Answers
#2 notice there is no mention of the union states. By a strong presumption the Handbook is correct.)
Page 6 of 36

---

There is a strong presumption that the fasces is the symbol of United States citizenship, and when one signs an I-9
form or any other document claiming United States citizenship he is claiming fascism as his chosen form of
government and authority.

There is a strong presumption that United States citizenship is the nexus that allows the IRS to seize the paychecks
of American workers to pay an enforced kickback.

There is a strong presumption that fascism is evident in the plethora of licenses and permits a U.S. citizen must
purchase from government, in a free nation a mans home is his castle, in fascist America he must register his
property, pay rent to government for the roof over his head, he must get government permission by permit to do
any work on the home he thinks he owns. He must have government permits , to travel, own a pet, own a gun,
etc, etc,. (what can you do in the year 2010 without a license of permit issued by government under the
FASCES??? NOT MUCH!!!!)

There is a strong presumption that the current American Police State is fascist in nature, where a Police State
cannot exist in a free country of the people, by the people, for the people.




There is a strong presumption that under the
leadership of Congress the FASCES has replaced
the bill of rights and the Constitution as the law of
the land. And the American people have chosen
to remain in blissful ignorance as the three
monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak
no evil, however I choose now, to no longer
hold my tongue but to speak of the political
cancer that is now covering our once great land of
freedom, sending our children and posterity to
suffer and die in foreign lands, and destroying
our people from within.

There is a strong presumption that all laws
currently being created and passed by the
Congress and legislatures of the States are fascist
in nature and design, where our elected officials have buried our Constitution and freedoms with knowledge and
intent to destroy us from within, forcing the people into their fascist New World Order. by stipulation the FASCES
is the symbol of this New World Order which has been adopted by Congress as the official symbol of the United
States.

There is a strong presumption that the legislature for the state of Arizona legislating for the federal areas cannot
cede land belong to the republic of Arizona to the United States, Such ceding would be theft by the United States,
and all such land that has been stolen from the people of Arizona by such unlawful ceding must be returned.
By stipulation this is nothing more than the United States ceding the private land of Arizona republic to itself.
Common law copyright © by :mark rodney: sunde, A Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven (Verification at www.EmbassyOfHeaven.Org Driver License #1127176
Passport #1903993) Seat le, Washington state (Republic) December 2010.
Page 7

Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology or QATT--The term ``'Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology' or ``QATT'' means any Technology (including information
technology) designed, developed, modified, procured, or sold for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause. 6 CFR §25.2 Definitions

This QATT has been developed and is given freely to assist American businesses and workers in preventing, detecting, identifying, and deterring further acts of
terrorism by Homeland Security and its terrorist agents (ICE and others), and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause.

---

There is a strong presumption that the Act was written by attorneys for attorneys and cannot be applied to the
people of Arizona who cannot understand the code (legalize) it is written in, where no one can be expected to obey
a law that cannot be clearly understood. There is a strong presumption that terms of art like “in this state” were
developed with the intent to deceive publicly educated non-lawyers into reading such language with assumptions
and misconceptions making them vulnerable to exploitation by the legal profession.

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that "In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions,
such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United
States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17." U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).
When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is
important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a
state of the Union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution does
not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its
territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944);
Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966),
among others).
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S.474 2D 215. "The law provides that once State and Federal
Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct.2502 (1980). "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be
assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/jurisdictioncases.html, http://freedom-school.com/challenging-jurisdiction
When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction,
judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68
L.Ed 2d 326. "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than
lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the
territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha v. United States, 152 US 211
"It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States unless a contrary intent appears" “Because Congress can make law locally or nationally, it must be presumed that
law enacted by Congress is territorial in scope rather than national”, Foley Bros. Inc. vs. Filardo 336 U.S. 281(1949)
Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W. 2d 796 (1928) It was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded
jurisdiction of a place to the United States , the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense.
"Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional
requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity.." City Street Improve Co. v. Pearson, 181 C 640, 185 P.
(1962); O'Neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P2d 234
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative
proceedings" Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533
"Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal government has nothing
approaching a police power." United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626
"We (Courts) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The
one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." -- Cohen v. Virginia 6 Wheat 264

There is a strong presumption that THE STATE OF ARIZONA does not, and has not produced an official and certified
physical map of “this state” for the use of the people to understand the limited jurisdiction of the Act.

Page 8 of 36

---

However there is an unofficial map provided by http://www.mapcruzin.com/free-maps-indian-reservations/pdf/az.pdf on
the internet that shows the federal areas within Arizona and which agency controls what land. A map of Indian
reservations in Arizona is located at http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/uploads/az-res3.pdf

Question: Are there any federal areas within the city limits of Phoenix? If so where are they posted? are the
federal buildings and post offices federal areas? If so where are the certified ceding documents from a lawful
legislative body? And why are they not posted where the public can view them? There is a strong presumption
that without clear public NOTICE federal jurisdiction cannot be applied.

There is a strong presumption that the legal establishment has with knowledge and forethought kept this secret
from the people of Arizona and the states of the Union.



Senate Bill 1070 @ Pg 3.
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
Rewrite the above section @ line 44, with the language from the definition of this state..

Senate Bill 1070 @ Pg 3.
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE [federal land lying within the exterior boundaries of Arizona.]
.45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). [emphasis added]
(the term “or” means “and” unless preceded by the word either.)

There is a strong presumption that this is the correct wording within the meaning of the Act.

There is a strong presumption that according to the wording of the Act, the person must be certifiably present on
both public and private land within a federal area, located within the exterior boundaries of Arizona prior to any
application of the Act.

By a strong presumption Title 8 USC §§1304 and 1306 only apply within the federal area, having no application
within the sovereignty of Arizona.

Entry into a movie theater (private property) without a ticket (green card) is an act of trespass, the trespasser is
identified in the U.S. code as an illegal alien. Illegal alien is simply a word stating he is not authorized to be on
private property belonging to the United States. Sneaking into a movie without the purchase of a ticket is
considered theft, where the illegal alien entering onto U.S. property is also a thief stealing benefits he is not
entitled to.

Common law copyright © by :mark rodney: sunde, A Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven (Verification at www.EmbassyOfHeaven.Org Driver License #1127176
Passport #1903993) Seat le, Washington state (Republic) December 2010.
Page 9

Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology or QATT--The term ``'Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology' or ``QATT'' means any Technology (including information
technology) designed, developed, modified, procured, or sold for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause. 6 CFR §25.2 Definitions

This QATT has been developed and is given freely to assist American businesses and workers in preventing, detecting, identifying, and deterring further acts of
terrorism by Homeland Security and its terrorist agents (ICE and others), and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause.

---

Any business or corporation that is open for business will advertize its presence by a sign large enough for an
individual to read, noticing all who enter that he is entering private property, are all federal areas posted? Is any
notice provided upon entry on any ceded land? Is notice provided identifying “this state? Except for military
basses, the answer is Tacitly NO.

Most property owners who do not want trespassers on their property will post a NO TRESPASSING sign at the
gate, and without such a notice one is presumed to have an invitation to enter.

There is a strong presumption that since the legislature of THE STATE OF ARIZONA has failed to produced an
official certified map of this state it is stipulated that only clearly marked federal areas are within the meaning of
“this states” as the term is used in the Act.

There is a strong presumption that in the absence of an official map or other clear signs to show federal
jurisdiction than the presumption must stand that all land within Arizona not so identified as a federal area , is
within the republic and under the authority of the common law and the dejure Citizens and Electors of Arizona
who are in fact the real government.

If I am a land owner, I have the absolute right to post a NO TRESPASSING sign on my property, but I may not post
my neighbors property and then attempt to enforce my rule on his land, the United States consequently has no
authority to post Arizona as a NO TRESPASSING zone. If it does than it becomes the trespasser, an illegal alien and
invader within the jurisdiction of Arizona.

Consider the continental united States of America as a large shopping center containing 49 separate and distinct
business, (48 states and the District of Columbia) any one has the legal right to enter any of the businesses and trade
provided he does so peaceably without harm or damage to another. Each business being independent is distinct
and separate from all the others and has its own management (Legislature) which makes the rules and regulations
that apply only to the company employees. (and those customers who have consented to be regulated by license.) all
others are exempt from the internal rules of the several stores. (when a customer enters a Safeway store he is not
required to follow the rules that apply to employees.) the theater however is different than all the others, one is
required to purchase a ticket prior to entry or have a membership card (passport/U.S. citizenship) without a card he
may enter as an invited guest (green card / ticket) and without any cards or ticket to show his status of right to enter,
he is an illegal alien

The theater management cannot remove a customer from the other stores in the shopping center demanding they
have a theater membership, theater management attempts to get around this by opening up Indian smokshop’s in
all the stores these would be akin to a federal area located in each state. Now the theater management assumes
it has the right to enforce their own brand of internal rules and regulations on everyone within the entire
shopping center.

Check any Safeway store that has leased a portion of the interior to a Starbucks coffee shop, and ask yourself how
much authority does Starbucks have to demand that Safeway customers have a Starbucks card before they can
shop at Safeway?? does the Starbucks legislature/Management have authority to enforce laws, rules and
regulations enacted for Starbucks employees and property (this state) upon the employees and customers of
Safeway (Arizona)????

There is a strong presumption that the United States has authority to create immigration policy within its own
jurisdiction, where the states of the Union are concerned the United States in the Constitution was given authority
only to “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization3” (singular) The United States was only given authority to make the
rules uniform among all the states, enforcement was reserved to the states alone. And by stipulation the de facto

3 Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
Page 10 of 36

---