IN THE

FD EC 17;
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES2t!CEcFTHiH

pt1 Pic2ul - /':;1 —PETITIONER

(Your Nam) ' J

vs.

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

74 ff747- / 4 /J/L$ 7 T///RD

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

FilL. 4, 1 /
(Your Name) /

(Address)

LVLIO Th / i2C N//L'/1i)/)-

(City, State, Zib Code)

5_2 0 57 7 /
(Phone Number)
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

If one is entitled to update a land patent, is there a time of day, time of year,
season, weather event, or anything that would bar the update?

Did the land patent lose its legal authority? If so when?

If a land patent does lose it legal authority is it nun pro tune?

Does treaty Law and Constitutionally secured Rights fall under federal
jurisdiction?

Do court procedures, rules and codes carry superiority to treaty Law and
Constitutionally secured Rights and negate the force and effect of a patent?

If the land patent has legal authority can any lesser court rule on the force and
effect of the land patent?

Does a color of title sheriff deed carry superiority to a land patent?

Should the people of these united States of America be sanctioned even

criminally sanctioned for updating, perfecting a land patent?

Is the following citation reliable?

The Court is bound by the supremacy clause of the Constitution to uphold the
treaty making your Patent a statutory limitation throughout the land. Wineman
v. Gastrell 54 FED 819, 2 U.S. App. 581 (1892)

Is this citation reliable?

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or
executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating
his solemn oath to support it."

If a land patent maintains its' lawful authority and the people can be sanctioned
for updating a patent, ought not public servants and attorneys be sanction for
attempting to eviscerate the patent, violating their oath?
CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pages
ASSN, 153 Ill. App.3d 605 (1987) n.d.
. 24
DeBiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp, 144 Fed. App's x 245, 247 (3rd Cir. 2005). n.d. 15,16
Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982). n.d. 7
Dempsey v. Burns, 281111. 644, 65 (1917) n.d.
.
9
Fenn v Holme, 21 Howard 481 (1858). n.d. 26
Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1985) 15, 17, 18, 20, 22
Hooper et.al.v.Scheimer, 64 US. (23 how.) 235 (1859). n.d. 26
Hughes V. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance co., 246 s.w. 23 (1923). n.d. 22
Joplin Brewing Co. v. Payne, 197 Mo. 422, 94 s. W. 896.(1906) n.d. . 9
JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS 201 U.S. 332 (1906). n.d. . 25
Klais V. Danowski, 337 Mich. Reports 1964, Michigan Supreme Court. n.d. 10
Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U.S.. 74 (1888). n.d. 27
Moore v. Robbins, Iii. 96 U.S. 530, 24 L.Ed. 848. n.d. 26
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg. Co, 612 F. Supp. 253 (Ind. 1985) 12,21,22
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) 27
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, No. 72-851. U.S. Supreme CT 21 Jan. 1974. 15
Raestle v. Whitson, 582p. 2d 17-0, 172 (1978). n.d.
. 26
Safford v. Stubbs 117 ILL. 389(1886). n.d. . 9
Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642. n.d. 20
SHULTHIS v. McDOUGAL. BERRYHILL v. SHULTHIS 225 U.S. 561 (1912). n.d. 25
State of Wisconsin v. Baker 698 F2d 1323 (1983). n.d. 25
Summa Corp. v. California, 466 US 198 (1984). n.d. 10
United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973). n.d. 27
Walton v. United States, 415 f2d 121,123 (10th cir. (1969). n.d. 26
Wilcox v. Jackson 13 PET. U.S. 498, 101 ED. 264 8,20
Wineman v. Gastrell, 53 FED 697, 2 US App. 581 (1892). n.d 7
Rules and Statutes Pages
Federal rules of removal 1446 3(B) 5
43 U.S.C. § 83 U.S. Code Unannotated Title 43. Public Land § 83
- -
9
28 U.S. Code § 1331 Federal question.
-
15
28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) (e). 15
Statute 249 The Doctrine Of Relationship Back 20

Other

David Johnson, secretary, Oakland Citizens for Justice, quoting corpus juris secundum. 5
Webster's Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 1972. "Muniment" means document serving as evidence of
inheritances, title to property, etc. 10
Merriam-Webster; definition of treason; the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow
the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family 27
 LIST OF PARTIES

[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

I TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW ....................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION.................................... . ........................................ 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED......3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........................................................5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............................................12

CONCLUSION..............................................................................27

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDEX A Decision of the United States Court of Appeals

APPENDEX B Decision of U. S. District Court and Report & Recommendation

APPENDEX C U.S. Court of Appeals Denial Petition for Rehearing

 IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

['c] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix A to
the petition and is
II] reported at ; or,
II] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
['>4 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix R to

the petition and is
[ ] reported at ; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
Appendix to the petition and is
[1 reported at ; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[] is unpublished.

The opinion of the - court

appears at Appendix to the petition and is
[1 reported at ; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.

1.
 JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The daç on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case
was Hc c 2 u p/

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[34' A timely petition for rehearing was dçnied by the United States Court of
Appeals on the following date: .Sfp+ LI 2O 10 , and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

{ IJ An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including (date) on ___________________ (date)
in Application No. A______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix

] , An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including (date) on________________ (date) in
Application No. A_______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Treaty of Paris was signed between Britain and America on September 3,

1783, and quickly ratified by Congress. It provided for; The recognition of

American independence The establishment of American boundaries between the

.

Atlantic on the east to the Mississippi River on the west, and from the 49th

parallel and Great Lakes on the north to the 31st parallel on the south (or

everything east of the Mississippi except the Florida's and New Orleans). This is

the establishment of Pennsylvania land. page 8

U.S. Constitution page 8, 10, 13,14,19

Article I,
Section 10, clause 1.The Contract Clause appears in the United States
Constitution,. The clause prohibits a State from passing any law that "impairs
the obligation of contracts" or "makes any thing but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts".

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,
records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by
general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings
shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several; states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee
from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive
authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 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.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any
claims of the United States, or of any particular state

Section 4.The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;
and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic violence

U.S. Constitution Article 6

-

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof,and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to. the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The issue being brought to the Supreme Court of the united States is a

possessory claim to a land patent. The Respondent has brought an ejectment

action to the State Court and the Petitioner moved the action to the District

Court. The District Court ruled no jurisdiction and Petitioner appealed to the

Federal Appellate Court. The appellate court also ruled no jurisdiction and

denied rehearing. The Courts ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court rulings,

the U. S. Constitution, treaty Law and the intent of Congress.

"Being the absolute legal title to land, the land patent, derived from the
U.S. Constitution, makes the United States of America a party of
interest in any attack on that title in courts of law. The only court of
original and proper jurisdiction is the Supreme Court of the United
States. The lesser federal courts cannot rule on the force and effect of
the patent. They must abide by the legislative intent" [quoting David
Johnson. secretary. Oakland Citizens for Justice, quoting corpus juris
secundum].

Rather than dismiss the case, which is what the Petitioner was asking of

the Court, the Court took jurisdiction to remand the case back to the State.

State may have jurisdiction if the matter was a landlord v. tenant issue, a

property line or easement dispute, oil or gas lease etc. The U. S. Supreme Court

has ruled that a possessory claim to a land patent is federal jurisdiction in

Oneida Indian Nation v. County Of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676, (1974). The irony

is the District Court relied on this case to assert no federal jurisdiction.

Explained below.

5
 /

History: The State Court ordered a foreclosure and sheriff sale despite the title to

the land being a "land patent." Eventually the Petitioner went to the District

Court with a "Motion to Void." The Respondent failed to answer the Motion and

after about five months the District Court ordered the Respondent to respond.

Around the same time the Respondent commenced an ejectment action in the

State Court. Petitioner moved the ejectment in plenty of time and attempted to

join the action with the Motion to Void. The District Court than invoked Rooker-

Feldman on the Motion to Void and in a footnote of that order returned the

ejectment action and said it had to come as a separate complaint. By the time the

Petitioner moved the ejectment action again, days have run and it was four days

late. In the second removal to federal court the Petitioner forgot to check mark

the $75,000 block on the civil cover page. Even though the amount is mentioned

in the Petitioners brief, the attorney for the Respondent stated that Petitioner

failed to establish the amount in controversy without checking the block.

In Rules for Removal 1446 3(B) it states:

3(B) If the notice of removal is filed more than 1 year after

commencement of the action and the district court finds that the
plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount in controversy
to prevent removal, that finding shall be deemed bad faith under
paragraph (1).

Respondents' attorney had called the Courts attention to the lack of check

mark in which the Court relied on. That is an attempt by Respondent's attorney

to cloud or prevent disclosure of the amount. That is deemed bad faith. The

amount is the amount regardless. The District Judge Mariani signed both
-

6
Orders, the Motion to Void and the Ejectment and returned the first removal.

The Court knows the amount in controversy and is entitled to rely on the

previous matter and again it is addressed in the Petitioner's brief. Rule 1446

3(B) addresses removal more than one year after commencement of the action. If

a case can be moved one year later, what is the big deal with the four days, which

inconvenienced no one? The same Court andJudge granted the Respondent much

consideration when Respondent failed to respond to the Motion to Void for

months. The Judge even ordered Respondent to respond and allowed three extra

weeks. Months and three weeks compared to four. days. This Supreme Court

knows that court procedures can be waved. That is elementary.

The Courts are focused on codes, rules and procedures rather than Law

and the Constitution. The District Court addressed the land patent and relied on

some erroneous opinions of other Courts. The Appellate Court ignored the land'

patent. In light of the land patent, the issues addressed above are

inconsequential because the land patent is the trump card protected by treaty

and the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The Petitioner came to the Court

to defend the land patent which is, superior title and its superiority not changed

or vaporized by statue and code.

Wineman v. Gastrell, 53 FED 697, 2 US App. 581 (1892) "The court is

bound by the supremacy clause of the Constitution to, uphold the
treaty making your Patent a statutory limitation throughout the
1
land."

In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624(1982), the Supreme Court

ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts

7
 with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a State law
will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the
following two conditions (or both) exists:
Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible
State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

The Issue. The Petitioner is in possession of the said property in this instant

matter and has perfected the original patent from March 16, 1812.

This is notice of Our Pre-emptive Right to possess Our land pursuant to the

Declaration of Independence [1776], Law of Nations, Treaty of Peace with Great

Britain [8 Stat. 80], Treaty of Paris [1793], An Act of Congress [3 Stat. 566, April

24, 1824], The Homestead Act [12 Stat. 392, 1862] and 43 USC sections 57, 59,

and 83. This is Our formal Declaration that this process is lawfully executed and

completed, being effective Nunc Pro Tune, from ...........

The Grantee/Assignee is mandated, pursuant to Article VI Sections

1, 2, 3, Article IV Section 1 Clause 1 and 2, Section 1 Clause 8 and 2;
Section 4; the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments [United States
Constitution 1789-911, and numerous legislated positive laws, to
update the Land Patent by acknowledgment, taking delivery,
acceptance, taking possession, occupying, and bringing forward the
land patent into the grantee/assignee's name. This is the only
lawful method that a Perfect Title can be held in one's name. For an
explanation seeWilcox v. Jackson 13 PET. U.S. 498, 10 1.264.

An over- sized certified copy of the original patent along with the entire update

was delivered to the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania. The Clerk signed off

as having seen and held the patent. The Clerk reproduced it to 8 1/2 x 11 for court

requirements. The original patent is available with a day or two notice if

necessary. The Petitioner never signed away rights to the patent. There is no
dispute about the patent during a public notice period or in this instant matter.

The perfected updated patent is recorded at the Luzerne County Recorder of

Deeds office, although the recording is not required. A certified copy of the land

patent is evidence in all courts. 43 USC 59 where originals would be evidence.

Section 57 covers the states of Oregon and California. Section 58 covers

Louisiana. 43 USC 83 covers the evidentiary effect of certified land patents for all

states. All the courts in the United States must take judicial notice of these

federal patents and their evidentiary effect under these federal statutes.

43 U.S.C. § 83 U.S. Code Unannotated Title 43. Public Lands

- -

§ 83. Transcripts of records as evidence.

Transcripts of the records in the district land offices, when made and
duly certified to by the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he
may designate for individuals, shall be admitted as evidence in all
courts of the United States and the Territories thereof, and before all
officials authorized to receive evidence, with the same force and effect
as the original records..

The Luzerne County Sheriff placed a sheriffs deed on top of the

Petitioners' patent. The land patent derives from Treaty Law and U.S.

Constitution is backed by the intent of Congress and is superior to any color of

title. Deeds and sheriffs deeds are color of title

Safford v. Stubbs 117 ILL. 389 (1886) "Sheriffs deeds also are colors
of title"

Dempsey v. Burns, 281 Ill. 644, 65 (1917) "A warranty deed or

deed of conveyance is a color of title."

Joplin Brewing Co. v. Payne, 197 Mo. 422, 94s. W. 896 (1906) court
said, "In fact, any instrument may constitute color of title when it
purports to convey the title to the land, as well as the land itse1f,
although it is void as a muniment of title."
"Muniment" means document serving as evidence of inheritances, title to

property, etc. Webster's Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 1972.

A foreclosure may fall under state jurisdiction however; a foreclosure

action is not the same as an ejectment action. An ejectment is a separate action

and attacks the title. A number of property disputes as discussed in this writing

may also fall under state jurisdiction but the force and effect of the land patent,

being in the private, falls with the jurisdiction of the united States Supreme

Court.

lKlais V. Danowski, 337 Mich. Reports 1964, Michigan Supreme

Court] held that, based on the supreme law of the land, patents to
land were not cut off by the subsequent creation of the state and
that the state has no jurisdiction on the patented lands.

Summa Corp. v. California, 466 US 198 (1984). The land is secured

by patent under the Guadeloupe Hildalgo Treaty. The treaty falls
under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which proclaim that
Treaties are the supreme law even over a State's foundational
Consfitution.

The Supremacy Clause Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution

which reads; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any state
to the contrary notwithstanding."

There is no public interest served in this ejectment action. No state, county

or town is looking for water rights to build a dam, levee or bridge. There is, no

interest for a military base, easement, railroad, highway, etc. The only question is

who is holding superior title. The patent is exclusive rights and states so within

10
the four corners of the document. The party holding the land patent is entitled to

possession and that is the Petitioner in this instant matter. Respondent cannot

prove title and the Petitioner did not sign away any rights to the land patent.

The Petitioner, a natural individual sovereign Pennsylvanian in these united

States of America, holds title by nature.

11
 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Decision by the District Courts and Appellate Courts are in conflict with

the U. S. Supreme Court. The courts are also misapplying protections afforded to

the people of these united States of America through treaty and the constitution.

Because of a lack of understanding by the courts of the process to perfect a -

land patent it has led to the sovereign people of these united States of America

being criminalized and sanctioned for the exercise of a secured constitutional

Right and Rights granted by treaty. Evidence of this is in the following opinion

by District Justice William C. Lee. The Middle District Court of PA relied on a

Judge Lees' ruling in Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank which was approximately two

months previous to Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph which is also a Judge

Lee ruling. Judge Lee relies on his own ruling two month later in Nixon v.

Individual.

Judge Lee writes in Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg. Co., 612 F.
Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

The court wishes to reiterate its warning in Hilgeford that the

filing of lawsuits based upon land patents which purport to grant a
land patent unto one's self will draw immediate and severe sanctions
from this court. The identical language of the "land patent" in this
case and in the Hilgeford case suggest to this court that some party is
responsible for the broad dissemination of the obviously false and
frivolous legal concepts which have led to this suit and the suit in
Hilgeford. If in fact someone has provided the plaintiff here with these
spurious materials and arguments, the court notes that the plaintiff
would have a solid claim for damages in the amount of the sanctions
issued here for the misrepresentations which resulted in this frivolous
lawsuit. The judicial waste occasioned by the continuous
dissemination of these incorrect legal concepts will continue to draw

12
 the swift response of this court. The court hopes that this clear signal
will discourage others from following such false prophets.

Notice Judge Lee is saying anyone disbursing frivolous materials and arguments

is a false prophet and individuals damaged by the use of these materials have a

claim to damages.

The sovereign people of these united States of America have relied on

Supreme Court rulings, treaty Law, legal writings, the Constitution, the four

corners of the Land Patent document, the motivation and intent of the founding

fathers and the intent of congress. Does the Supreme Court agree with Judge

Lee and support a law suit against the authors and signers of these documents?

Land patent derive from treaty Law and the Constitution. The will and

intent of congress regarding land patents has never been repealed. Land patents

are protected by the Supremacy Clause Article VI, section 2 of the U. S.

Constitution and Article I, section 10 of the U. S. Constitution "no state shall

impair the obligation of contract."

The Supremacy Clause Article \7T, section 2 of the U. S.

Constitution; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof,and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any state
to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Supreme Court of the united States of America must address two rulings

that conflict with treaty Law, the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court rulings and

13
the intent of congress. Judge William C. Lee ruled on two cases approximately

two months apart in 1985. The first was Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank and the

second was Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg Co. Although Judge

Lee maybe correct in some parts of his opinion much of it is rooted in emotion and

ignorance of the law. He loses sight of the 10th Amendment, summarized says

anything not enumerated is left up to the people. Judge Lee states that once a

land patent is granted the government extinguished its title to the land and the

title is in the private. Judge Lee eventually contradicts what he correctly claims

but provides no law to substantiate his contradiction. Without providing the law

Judge Lee invalidates the process to update the one and only patent that can ever

be issued on the land. He has no basis for expressing his opinion contrary to law

and sanctioning the people of these united States of America. No law exists to

provide any credibility to Judge Lees' opinion. It is not the people's fault that the

founding fathers desired property ownership free from government or other

attacks. It is not the people's fault that a patent exists in the historical record of

their property. It is not the people's fault that there is such a thing as a color of

title instrument. It not the people's fault that a land patent is superior title to the

warranty deed. It is not the people's fault that no law exists that prevents the

people from embracing and perfecting the patent. it is not the people's fault that

the U.S: Supreme Court has ruled that a patent is superior title. It is the people's

fault that they are allowing public officials to disregard their Rights secured by

the Constitution to which attorneys, judges, sheriffs and public servants take an

14
oath to protect and defend.

A typical garden variety ejectment generally falls in the state jurisdiction;

however, the indestructability of the land patent and the attack on it, has

changed this ejectment action to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

28 U.S. Code § 1331 Federal Question. The district courts shall

-

have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b). Any civil action of which the district courts
have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under
the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be
removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the
parties.
(e) The court to which such civil action is removed is not precluded
from hearing and determining any claim in such civil action because
the State court from which such civil action is removed did not have
jurisdiction over that claim

The -District Court cited the following cases which at times have made erroneous

and sometimes patently frivolous interpretations. Oneida Indian Nation v.

County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676, (1974); Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d

176, 178 (7th Cir. 1985) and DeBiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp, 144 Fed. App's

x 245, 247 (3rd Cir. 2005)

Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676, (1974);

U.S. Supreme Court Justice White noted;

"Accepting the premise of the Court of Appeals that the case was
essentially apossessory action, we are of the view that the! complaint
asserted a current right to possession conferred by federal law,
wholly independent of state law." "In the present case, however, the
assertion of a federal controversy does not rest solely on the claim of
a right to possession derived from a Federal Grant of Title whose
scope will be governed by state law. Rather, it rests on the not

15
 insubstantial claim that federal law now protects, and has
continuously protected from the time of the formation of the United
States, possessory rights to tribal lands, wholly apart from the
application of state law principles which normally and separately
protect a valid right of possession." The Supreme Court held that
there is federal subject matter jurisdiction for possessory land claims
brought by Indian tribes based upon aboriginal title, the
Nonintercourse Act, and Indian treaties.

Of course this ruling involved the Indian nation. All Land Patents derive from

treaty Law and are constitutionally protected and the same Rights are vested.

The District Court relied on the dissenting opinion in the case which said this

finding does not open the door of the federal courts to garden variety ejectments.

Again, this instant matter is a possessory claim. This is not a landlord v. tenant

ejectment, property line or easement dispute. There is no public interest served in

this matter to justify the evisceration of the land patent.

The courts are not recognizing the difference between the actual ruling of

the Supreme Court and a notice that all land issues are not federal.

DeBiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp, 144 Fed. App's x 245, 247 (3rd Cir. 2005)

The Third Circuit held,

it appears from DeBiasse's filings that he intends to claim what

amounts to a fee simple in his land, a claim that does not raise a
federal question. DeBiasse raises no challenge to the original grant,
but only to the foreclosure in response to his default on a loan.
Foreclosure is a contractual matter, governed by state law. See N.J.
Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:50-53 to 50-68. Thus, no federal question exists.

The Court states here that Debiasse raised no challenge to the original grant. The

inference is if Debiasse did raise a challenge to the original grant than federal

16
jurisdiction may have been invoked. The land patent doesn't estoppel a

foreclosure action which is a different action from an ejectment action. The land

patent protects in an ejectment action. This case is erroneously applied.

Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176. 178 (7th Cir. 1985)

District Judge William C. Lees' opinion in Hilgeford;

"These provisions allow the United States to grant title to public

land to private individuals, thereby creating private title in the
patent holder, and extinguishing title in the United States. The
"patent" involved here is not a grant by the United States; it is a
grant by the plaintiffs. The "patent" here is not a grant to some
other holder so as to pass title on to another party; it is a self-
serving document, whereby the plaintiffs grant the patent to
themselves."

Judge Lee here acknowledges that the patent may be passed to someone else.

This is obvious since it states on the patent "to heirs and assigns forever". (The

years 1913, 1933 and 2018 are all in the forever time frame). However, Judge

Lee doesn't understand that to convey the "updated patent" to some other party

one must first perfect the patent (bring it forward) in order to convey an update.

Otherwise one would just be conveying a deed and that receiving party would

have to perfect or update the patent into their name.

The patent was overlaid by a PUBLIC VENUE DEED and no law can be

found allowing this to occur. Judge -Lee overlooks this aspect. If and when the

patent is perfected it needs to be updated by an heir or assign and they would

have to have Sossession of the property. That would ultimately look like a self-

serving document to anyone not understanding the process to perfect the patent.

17
"He signed a patent to himself' will continue to be the mantra from the

misguided courts following Judge Willian C. Lees' opinion in Hilgeford. Further

explanation.

In Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank Judge Lee goes on and states;

"The blatant insufficiency of the "patent" is evident when it is

compared to the copy of a land patent attached to the plaintiffs'
"Motion Barring Action of Ejectment." That copy, which is apparently
of the original land patent for part of the property which is the subject
matter of this cause, bears the signature of the President of the
United States by his appointed Secretary of the Interior. It is clearly a
grant from the United States to a private citizen (one Reuben
Montgomery). Plaintiffs' "land patent" is obviously insufficient when
compared to this valid patent."

Once the Patent was granted, it was granted. By Judge Lee's own

admission the patent exists and the government relinquished all rights. It is not

the creation or the granting of a new patent to oneself. Judge Lee stated above;

"Plaintiffs' "land patent" is obviously insufficient when compared to this valid

patent." This is Judge Lees' admission that the Hilgeford's are updating the

valid Patent. Judge Lee doesn't realize he just proclaimed it valid and then goes

on to eviscerate it. The process is not creating a self-serving document. The

original or a certified copy of the original patent would reside behind the

perfected update of patent. This is not a new patent but an update. A simple

explanation would be if one bought patent rights to a product. A new patent

wouldn't be issued, you would just own the patent rights to make the product.

According to Article. IV, Sec. 3, clause. 2 of the Constitution only Congress

has the power to change or dispose of the patent. The authority was not given to

18
 Judge Lee, only to Congress.

Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause. 2 gives the Congress the power "to dispose of
and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
or other property belonging to the United States...."

The acceptance of the Deed is part of the process. In the deed the property

owner is signing for the PUBLIC VENUE UPPER CASE NAME and signing for

the sovereign natural individual in the private venue. When the courts have

seen these two signatures they follow Judge Lees' erroneous opinion and make

the same frivolous claim that "he signed a land patent to himself." The courts

don't know or maybe are ignoring the difference between the two venues. The

Petitioner tried everything to explain the difference in the venues but, a read of

the Report and Recommendation it is clear the Court didn't understand. Land

Patents are exclusive rights and in the private. One just has to ask how one

would maintain exclusive vested Rights with two titles floating around. It is an

erroneous opinion not even rooted in common sense or the law and patently

frivolous.

Judge Lees' opinion and perspective mutilates the definitions of Patent,

Update, Non Pro Tunc, the Constitution and the Doctrine of Relationship Back.

Judge Lee undermines the lawful mandate to perfect the patent and many

Supreme Court rulings and he doesn't consider the fact that the government

relinquished all rights to the patent in the private venue not public like the

INCORPORATED COURTS.

The Grantee/Assignee is mandated, pursuant to Article VI Sections

1, 2, 3, Article IV Section 1 Clause 1 and 2, Section 1 Clause 8, 2;

19
 Section 4; the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments [United States
Constitution 1789-91], and numerous legislated positive laws, to
update the Land Patent by acknowledgment, taking delivery,
accepting, taking possession, occupying, and bringing forward the
land patent into the grantee/assignee's name. This is the only
lawful method that Perfect Title can be held in our names. For
explanation see Wilcox v. Jackson 13 PET. U.S. 498, 101 ED. 264.

Statute 249 The Doctrine of Relationship Back

The doctrine of relation is applicable to public land transactions
under a federal patent. When necessary to give effect to the intent
of the statute or to cut off intervening claimants, the patent is
deemed to relate back to the time of the inception of the patentee's
claim to the land. When the doctrine applies, the last proceeding
which consummates the conveyance of the public land is held to take
effect by relation back as of the day when the first proceeding was
had. This relation back is also effective in favor of persons to whom
the claimant has assigned or transferred rights in the land before
the issuance of the patent.

Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642. In case of ejectment, where the

question is who has the legal title, the patent of the government is
unassailable. As an assignee, whether he be the first, second or third
party to whom title is conveyed, shall loose none of the original rights,
privileges or immunities of the original grantee of the land patent. No
state shall impair a private contract, U.S. Constitution Article 1,
section 10.

In Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1985) the Court

goes on to say;

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, we may award

damages, including attorney's fees, and costs if an appeal is both
frivolous and an appropriate case for the imposition of sanctions. See
Trecker v. Scag, 747 F.2d 1176, 1179 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471
U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2140, 85 L.Ed2d 498 (1985); Reid v. United
States, 715 F.2d 1148,, 1154-55 (7th Cir. 1983). The conclusion that this
appeal is frivolous seems inescapable. The drafting and recordation of
the Declaration of Land Patent was a blatant attempt by the
Hilgefords to circumvent the Bank's mortgage and improve their title.
The district court informed them twice within a month's time that this
device did not improve their title or form the basis for federal'

20
 jurisdiction. On appeal, the Hilgeford's have completely failed to
support their claim of jurisdiction by citing relevant authority or by
refuting the district court's analysis.

Even though the Hilgeford's may not have supported their jurisdiction claim in

argument, Judge Lee gave a frivolous and erroneous explanation of the process

the Hilgeford's completed to perfect the patent. The jurisdiction claim is in the

four corners of the land patent itself in which Judge Lee proclaimed as valid

while ruling as if it wasn't valid. No law can be found mandating that the patent

be converted to a deed or that one is not allowed to update the patent. If there is

one Judge Lee doesn't cite it. Again, Judge Lee ignores this fact and sanctions

the Hilgeford's for exercising a right supported by and secured to them and the

people of these united States of America through the Constitution, treaty Law

Supreme Court- rulings, and the intent of congress.

Approximately two months later District Judge Lee rules again in Nixon v.

Individual Head of St. Joseph's Mortgage Co. 612 F. Sup-P. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

Judge Lee claims the two cases are identical except in name and cites his

Hilgeford ruling.

Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph's Mortgage Co. 612 F. Sum).

253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
This case bears more than a passing resemblance to another case
recently decided by this court. In Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank,
Portland, Indiana, 607 F.Supp. 536 (N.D.Ind.1985), this court
dismissed sua sponte a case based upon an alleged "land patent"
drafted by the plaintiffs. The land patent in the Hilgeford case and
the land patent in this case are identical in every aspect except for
the names and property description contained in each. In Hilgeford,
this court held that an action based upon a land patent drafted by a
party in order to give that party rights within property is a legal
nullity. The patent cannot support federal jurisdiction because it is a

21
 patently obvious attempt to create superior title in land through
personal fiat. Any pro se litigant who can read or write knows that
one cannot give oneself better title to land by simply saying so on a
piece of paper.

The land patent, patently is a superior title and it is a piece of paper. The

Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are pieces of

paper. To believe what Judge Lee is saying one would also have to ignore the

four corners of the document, the definition of patent' and the lawful mandate to

update a patent. Again, the valid patent already exists and this is indisputable

and admitted by Judge Lee in Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph

As this court said in Hilgefrd, "the - court cannot conceive of a

potentially more disruptive force in the world of property law than
the ability of a person to get 'superior' title to land by simply filling
out a document granting himself a 'land patent' and then filing it
with the Recorder of Deeds. Such self-serving, gratuitous activity
does not, cannot and will not be sufficient by itself to create good
title." 607 F.Supp. at 538. It is therefore obvious that this case must
fail because the basis of the [612 F.Supp. 255] case
the "land patent" - cannot provide an adequate legal basis upon
Which plaintiff can claim any interest in the mortgaged property.

The above and below opinions here conflict.

[Hughes V. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 246 s.w. 23 (1923)1 "it
is the largest estate in land that the law will recognize, a fee simple
estate still exists even though the property is mortgaged or
encumbered"

There is no law making a land patent a legal nullity.

Although it might feel emotionally good Judge Lees' opinion has no lawful

backing. One time the Petitioner heard a judge say something to the effect---if a

judge feels good every time he makes a decision, he is probably not doing his job.

Judge Lee also states in Hilgeford;

22
 "the court cannot conceive of a potentially more disruptive force in the
world of property law than the ability of a person to get 'superior' title
to land by simply filling out a document granting himself a 'land
patent' and then filing it with the Recorder of Deeds"

The grant was given by the U. S. government and is the intent of our founding

fathers. This is not the Petitioner's fault that the founding fathers didn't like

being subjected to a kings will and emotion which led them to create such a

document. The people of these united States are the beneficiary of their sacrifice.

Our founders risked their lives, their families lives and their fortunes to establish

an idea, a concept, a dream of freedom and liberty. They desired to pass it on to

generation after generation forever. They said so in the land patent---"forever"---.

The land patent appears to be designed to be a destructive force against the

forces of the banks and government. Jefferson said banks are dangerous. In a

May 28th 1816 letter to John Taylor, Thomas Jefferson's wrote in the closing

sentence; "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more

dangerous than standing armies." Armies are a pretty destructive force.

A brief look at back the last eight to ten years. The Massachusetts Supreme

Court has overturned nearly five years' worth of foreclosures that displaced the

people and families of that state. Armies displace people and families. In Nevada

almost an entire development was foreclosed and most of the homes destroyed.

Thousands more across the country have been foreclosed and eventually

destroyed Armies also destroy buildings. In Florida people were lined up for

blocks trying to save their homes from foreclosure. Banks using deceptive, fake

documents to create misdirection. Armies use misdirection in war strategy. The

23
banks have created millions of properties with clouded titles. Armies don't do

that. The banks have been the most destructive force in the world of property

law, not the founders' land patent document and the first conveyance of title to

the land to the people in these united States of America.

The sovereign people of these united States of America have had their

Rights and due process trampled on by misguided and frivolous opinions

expressed in a good number of cases. The people have been sanctioned and

criminally sanctioned as evidenced and documented in Hilgeford and in the

following Illinois Appellate Court Report below.

ASS'N, 153 Iii. App.3d 605 (1987) case on page 608 ; (3) in
addition to the theories relied upon by the trial court, plaintiffs' claim
of superior title is unsupported by any Illinois case law and has been
rejected when raised in the Federal courts; and (4) attempts to gain
superior title by the filing of land patents have been met by criminal
sanctions

The people have a right to protect and defend their life, liberty and property. The

land patent is a lawful document to defend one's property. The judge and

attorney take an oath to the constitution to defend the peoples' Rights. If they

work against those Rights, that is treason against the sovereign people. Judge

Lee ignored the Law and expressed an opinion outside of the law. Doesn't that

disqualify his capacity and void his rulings?

The following cases were relied on in Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank. None are

properly relied on pertaining to ejectments. They are not possessory claims. The

courts clam onto any case where a patent exists and no federal jurisdiction is

2
24
proclaimed.

JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS 201 U.S. 332 (1906).

As this land in controversy is not the land described in the letters patent or the acts
of Congress, but, as is stated in the petition, is formed by accretions or gradual
deposits from the (river, whether such land belongs to the plaintiff is, under the
cases just cited, a matter of local or state law, and not one arising under the laws
of the United States.

The river gradually deposited soil and created land. The created land was not under

the letters patent. Not appropriately relied on by Judge Lee, it's outside of the patent.

SHULTHIS v. McD0UGAL. BERRYHILL v. SHULTHIS 225 U.S. 561 (1912)

To sustain the contention' that the suit was one arising under the laws of the
United States, counsel for the appellants point out the statutes (Acts March 1,
1901, 31 Stat. 861, c. 676; June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 500, c. 1323; April 26, 1906, 34
Stat. 137, c. .1876, § 22) relating to the allotment in severalty of thelands of the
Creek Nation, the leasing and alienation thereof after allotment, the making of
allotments to the heirs of deceased children, and the rights of the heirs,
collectively and severally, under such allotments; but the bill makes no mention
of those statutes or of any controversy respecting their validity, construction or
effect. Neither does it by necessary implication point to such a controversy. True,
it contains enough to indicate that those statutes constitute the source of the
complainant's title or right, and also shows that the defendants are in some way
claiming the land, and particularly the oil and gas, adversely to him; but beyond
this the nature of the controversy is left unstated and uncertain. Of course, it could
have arisen in different ways wholly independent of the source from which his
title or right was derived. So, looking only to the bill, as we have seen that we
must, it cannot be held that the case, as therein stated was one arising under the
statutes mentioned. As was said in Blackburn v. Portland, Gold Mining Co., supra,
a controversy in respect of lands has never been regarded as presenting a Federal
question merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act
of Congress.

Above it states that the controversy is uncertain and unstated. The matter is about a

lease for the oil and natural gas under the property. This case is inappropriately relied on by

Judge Lee.

STATE OF WISCONSIN, State of Wisconsin v. Baker 698 F2d 1323 (1983)

25
 The suit before us is not to decide what property rights in navigable lakes
Wisconsin acquired when it was admitted to the Union in 1848. For that matter,
defendants concede that when Wisconsin became a state it acquired the rights it
asserts in this suit. Rather, the State claims that it continues to hold in trust for the
public the same property rights it acquired in 1848 and that defendants are
infringing those rights. That claim "arises under" federal law, however, only if
federal law continues to govern property rights in the beds and waters of
navigable Wisconsin lakes. It does not. The grant of statehood to Wisconsin was a
grant both of property rights and of sovereign power. In 1848 the United States
conveyed to Wisconsin property interests in navigable waters and the power to
determine by its own laws the future course of ownership of those interests.
"After a State enters the Union, title to the land [under navigable waters] is
governed by state law.."

This is a case not about ownership of land but rather if the federal or state government

govern the waterways in Wisconsin. Another case improperly relied on. The Petitioner can

go on and on with such cases where the claim was made that no federal jurisdiction exists.

Thank God there is a page limit. These cases are misapplied.

The following are some case citation the Petitioner has relied on including many more

in a "Memorandum of Land Patents" in the record in the Middle District Court of Pa.

Moore v. Robbins, Iii. 96 U.S. 530, 24 L.Ed. 848. The issuance of a

patent divested the government of all authority and control over the
land;

Raestle v. Whitson, 582p. 2d 17-0, 172 (1978). Land Patent is the

highest evidence of title and is immune from collateral attack.

[Hooper et.al.v.5cheimer, 64 U5. (23 how.) 235 (1859)1. "I affirm that a
patent is unimpeachable-at law, except, perhaps, when it appears on
its own face to be void; and the authorities on this point are so uniform
and unbroken in the courts, federal and state, that little else will be necessary
beyond a reference to them."

[Walton v. United States, 415 f2d 121,123 (10th cir. (1969)1 "a patent, once
issued, is the highest evidence of title, and is final determination of the existence
of all facts,"

Fenn v Holme, 21 Howard 481 (1858). "The plaintiff in ejectment must in all
cases prove the legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid
in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a

26
 recovery. The practice of allowing ejectments to be maintained in state courts
upon equitable titles cannot affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States."

Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888): Carter v Ruddy, 166 US '493

(1897). "In federal courts, the rule that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere
equitable title is strictly enforced, so that ejectment cannot be maintained on a
mere entry made with a register and receiver, but only on the patent, since the
certificates of the officers of the land department vest in the locator only equitable
title. This rule prevails in the federal courts even when the statute of the state in
which the suit is brought provides that a receipt from the local land office is
sufficient proof of title to support the action."

Should one of the sovereign people of the united States of America stand on the

Constitution, treaty Law, Supreme Court rulings, the intent of congress and other legal

writings of which one is the beneficiary and defend their property, which one has the right,

against a sheriff and his troops, (whom took an oath of office), which party would be

considered the perpetrator? Would it not be treason to violate the sovereign' people's Rights

secured by Treaty and the Constitution? The definition of treason according to Merriam-

Webster; the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to

which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the

sovereign's family.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966). "Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which
would abrogate them."

United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973). "If you've relied on prior decisions
of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness."

CONCLUSION

The people ought not be criminally sanctioned because they did something

the U. S. Constitution protects. The Court must consider the sword cut both

27
ways. John Adams, a founding father gave direction to the Court and to the

people who love this great Republic. "The two enemies of the people are criminals

and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution

so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." John Adams 2nd

president of the United States It is incumbent on the united States Supreme Court to

defend the Constitution of the unites States, laws and documents that protect the God Given

Rights of the people of these united States of America from attacks by public servants and

others.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Resp.c lly ubmitted

Date: )
4
private -Ainirican fopi
,
,

28