Injustice Breeds Injustice – Our Two-Tier System of Justice – Cromar, Bundy & SCOTUS

“Americans are so disheartened to see the two-tiered justice system that favors the politically connected, preserving the Bidens, the Clintons and others from the Dickensian workings of the criminal justice system. We get “Bleak House;” they get Martha’s Vineyard. That’s what’s at play as prosecutors continue to pursue “January 6” thought-crimes (just compare the prosecutions of Trump supporters—not to mention former President Donald Trump himself—to the way rioters during the George Floyd summer were treated). The latest indictment of Trump, in fact, is clearly criminalizing speech, thought, legal positions (right or wrong), and incorrect information. Meanwhile, the Biden crime family continues its spree unabated. Americans see the truth of it quite clearly.” – Brett L. Tolman

The same is true as prosecutors relentlessly continue to pursue Ken Cromar in Barbie & Ken’s battle with Goliath IRS, or Ammon Bundy in his battle with the Idaho State Court and St. Luke’s Hospital. It’s even more apparent when the Highest Court in the Land, SCOTUS, refuses to rule on the simple question, did our political leaders violated their Oaths of Office when they Failed to Investigate Allegations of Election Fraud? Clearly, not everything is as it appears!

To better understand the roots of this injustice, we need to review certain Facts, Conclusions, and Maxims of Law, that have been interpretively used against us, We the People, by those who were Elected to Protect and Defend the Constitution. Many of whom are connected to our favored families, friends and religious associates. Acting deceptively, Under Color of Law (pretense), they have willfully altered and changed the perceived meaning of our laws, so they can now be used against us in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

PERSON

The legal commentary Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “Person” into two categories. One term to represent two separate types of “person”:

Natural Person. “Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of Nature formed us. Artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations, or bodies politic” (1 Blackstone Commentaries, 123)

Artificial Persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons [Fiction]. 1 Blackstone Commentaries, 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 890, 62 N.W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep 779; (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4^th ed., (1968) at pg. 145, Col 1)

However, The Clearfield Doctrine, derived from the 1934 Supreme Court Decision in Clearfield Trust, et al. vs. United States, (328 U.S. 363, 318), the court ruled, in essence, that when a government reduces itself to a corporate status, it becomes merely another corporation, having no more or less standing than all other corporations. Thus, the lawful question of jurisdiction arises when a CORPORATION claims jurisdiction over a LIVING MAN because the claim causes the courts to enter into legal fiction commerce.

A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true. – Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Member of the public. “Member of the public” means any person, except a member, agent, office, or employment of federal, state or local agency acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office, or employment. (Gov. C.A. § 6252(b))

United State citizen. “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government.” (Kitchen v. Steele, 112 f. Supp. 383)

The “United States” as defined in United States Code, Title 28 § 3002(15) means – (A) a Federal Corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

The term “United States,” as used in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone. (18 U.S.C.A. § 5 (West))

“The United States is located in the District of Columbia.” Uniform Commercial Code § 9-307(h)

DOMINION – SOVEREIGNTY – Complete independence and self-government

1. DOMAIN-DOMINION: 2. Law: supreme authority: SOVEREIGNTY – having dominion over the natural world. 3. Dominions plural, Christianity: an order of angels – see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY 4. Often capitalized, government: a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state 5. Law: absolute ownership (http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/dominion 1. Control; possession <dominion over the car>. 2. Sovereignty <dominion over the nation>. 3. foreign dominion. (DOMINION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11^th ed. 2019))

Republic. “Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state.” (2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Dict. (1870))

“A sovereign is not a person.” (In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751)

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.

The People of this State, as the successor of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature, they may exercise all the powers which, previous to the Revolution, could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S. Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89, 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York) “D.” = Decennial Digest; Lansing v. Smith 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89; 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec 219; Nuls Sec. 1-67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.; [NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)]

“The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The People, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…” Supreme Court, 4 Wheat 402.

“In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people.” Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.

While sovereign powers are delegated to the government… sovereignty remains with the “people.” Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. Yick Wo. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)

The United States Supreme Court has also ruled in 2000, Bond vs. United States 529 US 334-2000, that THE PEOPLE ARE IN FACT SOVEREIGN and NOT the States or government. The court went on to define that local, State and Federal law enforcement officers are committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign people by the enforcement of laws and are personally liable for their actions.

TAXPAYER

US Title 26 – “…for the purposes of this title the term “United States” means those who reside in Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.”

The term “taxpayer” means any “United States person,” a citizen or resident of the “United States” subject to any internal revenue tax.

PROPERTY

Private adj. 1. Of, relating to, or involving an individual, as opposed to the public or the government. 2. Of a company) not having shares that are freely available on an open market. 3. Confidential; secret (PRIVATE, Black’s Law Dictionary (11^th ed. 2019)

The Supreme Court ruled that municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolz v. Rhode Island, 553 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct__(2001) (no expiration on the takings clause for city’s illegal enforcement of its codes on the man’s private property and restricting the man’s business), affirming both Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505, US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992) (butterfly activists and code enforcement cannot restrict development of the man’s private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a “takings”). (Monterey V. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L…Ed. 2d 882, 119 S.Ct._(1998))

Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. (18 U.S.C.A. § 7(3) (West)

JURISDICTION

Legal Jurisdiction over a LIVING MAN can only be derived from consent to contract into legal fiction commerce. If there is no valid contract, there is no jurisdiction. No legal or lawful matter can proceed without jurisdiction. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. And Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910

FRAUD

               “Fraud vitiates everything.” United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61

The specific Facts, Conclusions, and Maxims of Law, referenced above lie at the heart of Barbie & Ken Cromar’s battle with Goliath IRS and Ammon Bundy’s ongoing battle with the Idaho State Courts and St. Luke’s Hospital. Both of which adequately document a willful violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.

Ken Cromar has filed and recorded, in multiple places, the following declaration:

Paul-Kenneth: Cromar, is not a United States Citizen, subject, vessel or “person” as defined in Title 26 United States Code Section 7701 or elsewhere, or any other ens legis artificial person, individual, entity, fiction of law, procedural phantom or juristic personality, notwithstanding the reproduction of any such fictions in any media, computer, record or instrument, written or electronic. 

Furthermore, Paul-Kenneth: Cromar, is foreign to the United States and retains official authority within his chosen jurisdiction. As beneficiary to the original Jurisdiction, he is not subject to nor does He volunteer to submit to or contract with any ens legis artificial or corporate jurisdiction to which a United States person may be subject.

Paul-Kenneth: Cromar, did not, does not, nor does he ever intend to volunteer, consent or contract to being identified as, of, or connected by any nexus to, any institutional, bifurcated, public cestui que trust or other fictional construction of law or ens legis entity of a political state or subdivision thereof, in any capacity including, without limitation, as trustee, co-trustee, surety, co-security, officer, co-officer, fiduciary, or co-fiduciary.

Ken Cromar’s declarations of his status as a LIVING MAN, his denial that he is NOT a United State Citizen, nor “Person” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary or US Tax Code, his NOTICE that he has never consented to contract into legal fiction commerce, along with his challenge to lawful jurisdiction has been repeatedly ignored by the courts.

There is no greater evidence of this than the Court(s) repeated refusal to accept the Cromar’s filings under a claim that the filings were frivolous. The acknowledgement by the IRS through its crooked Commissioner Charles Rettig that the Cromars’ did not owe any taxes between 1990 and 2020 would be anything but frivolous. Yet, the Court(s) repeatedly refused that specific information from the Cromars, or in the Friend of the Court Brief filed on the Cromars’ behalf, because they were not filed by “Bar Licensed” attorneys, which illustrates the courts intentional Deprivation of rights under color of law. The amount of noise generated by Barbie & Ken’s battle with Goliath IRS (and now the DOJ) makes it impossible for anyone in the Court to claim that they did not know about the IRS’ admission and thus the coordinated attempts to avoid addressing the Cromars’ Defenses, which proves the Conspiracy to Deny them of their Rights.

Ken Cromar has previously declared that his property had previously been severed from the public, under a land patent, and was private property, over which the county of Utah and/or the state of Utah (a municipality) and/or the United States has NO AUTHORITY or control without Cromar’s consent. Cromar discovered on April 27, 2020 a notice had been posted on his home in Cedar Hills that the United States through the IRS had taken possession of it. Cromar immediately contacted the Utah County Recorder’s office and did a title search to confirm if the notice of seizure was, in fact, legitimate, and found that there was no such recording or filing. Cromar was not aware (or served any notice or any evidence) of any transfer of title to his Cedar Hills property to the IRS. Later Cromar discovered on April 29, 2020 that his Cedar Hills home was sold from Southwestern Area Collection of IRS on September 10, 2019 to Coper Birch Properties, LLC, for the sum of $331,000. The recording appears to be an attempt to obfuscate the facts by back dating the date of sale through the fraudulent recording of an indenture deed of transfer on April 29, 2020.  

In a similar manner, Ammon Bundy considered the enormity of the burden of his time and finances that would be expended in fighting the litigation in court. As evidenced by the numerous stacks of paperwork he has received on a weekly basis, resulting in amounts that could fill a commercial dumpster. Bundy made a conscious decision NOT to appear, requiring Judge Norton to issue a default judgment under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 55(a)(1).

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the court must order entry of the party’s default.” 

Rather than hiring a team of expensive attorneys and spending years in the courtroom Ammon Bundy concluded, wisely, that defaulting would be the least time consuming and the least expensive way to mitigate this lawsuit.

Judge Lynn Norton intentionally did not enter the default judgment as required by law. Instead Judge Norton fraudulently kept the case going for over a year without entering a default judgment, allowing St. Luke’s attorneys to amend the complaint on four separate occasions, which increased the punitive damages to over $52 Million in addition to $700,000 in legal fees and then Judge Norton issued a warrant for Ammon Bundy’s arrest. Shortly before judge Norton recused herself, she entered the “inflated” default judgment. Judge Norton’s replacement, Nancy Baskin, seized the personal property allegedly belonging to Ammon Bundy, over which the State of Idaho (a municipality) has NO AUTHORITY or control without the owner’s (Bundy’s) consent.  

“The majority of Americans in a new poll say there’s a two-tiered justice system in the U.S.: one for politicians and those in Washington, D.C., and one for the rest of Americans,” the Center Square reported last year. “A large majority of those polled in a separate survey expressed opposite views about who they believed was behind the FBI’s raid on former President Donald Trump’s home based on their party affiliation.” Not even 12% of those polled said “There’s one system of justice with laws applied to all Americans equally.” Those on the left, of course, are rushing to defend a system they’ve been saying was two-tiered for decades. At a recent House hearing with two IRS whistleblowers who say Hunter Biden was given special treatment, Congressman Maxwell Frost, a Florida Democrat, slammed Republicans for co-opting the verbiage of the civil rights movement.

“Since January 6th, these Republicans and Trump have complained about a two-tier justice system, co-opting the language of the decades-long civil rights movement for Black lives and Black freedom,” Frost said. “There is a two-tier justice system, but it’s not about Democrats versus Republican. This language, ‘two-tier justice system,’ has a real history. It has a real history of Emmitt Till. It has a real history with Breonna Taylor. It has a real history with George Floyd, the Central Park Five.” But what enabled the grave injustices like Emmett Till’s death was selective enforcement of the law—and an acceptance of the two-tiered system by those in power.

“The remedy for a two-tiered system of justice isn’t to keep the tiers and re-divide the country, by political connections rather than race; the remedy is a consistent system that promises justice for all, with malice toward none (not even toward that basket of deplorables). When the system gives a pass to the politically connected, it undermines the rule of law we all want and need. ‘Injustice breeds injustice,’ Dickens wrote in ‘Bleak House.’ It’s time to stop the vicious cycle, and restore justice for all.” - https://www.texaspolicy.com/in-a-two-tiered-justice-system-ordinary-families-suffer/

The Cromar and Ammon Bundy Cases are a National Emergency because the DOJ and the IRS (along with the other Alphabet Agencies) have been weaponized and have Declared War Against We the People. Those elites, who through their Oaths of Office swore to Protect and Defend the Constitution have established a two-tier system of justice, in their attempts to Deny We the People of Our God-Given Rights. There is no better evidence of this Conspiracy than the abuses sustained by both Ammon Bundy and the Cromars, which is comparable evidence of the lawful violations of Constitutional Rights being denied in the other current cases being heard by SCOTUS. – Yes, it is an Epidemic Crisis of National Proportion.

Where there is smoke, there is fire!

Tom Fairbanks
Intelligence Support Activity (ISA)
Community Health Advocate
Community Support Foundation