CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

Go to your portal to pay your car. Click on PAYOFF. add a new payment method. For the Routing number, you are going to use the financial institutions Routing number. For the Account number, you are going to type 3 0s, then your SSN. It will look like this: 000XXXXXXXXX. Retype it in the next box if asked to do so. Then hit submit. There is an 80-90% success rate because your SSN is under the institutions records for payment. The Account number is your Treasury Direct number. They all start with 000. BOOM! NO MORE CAR PAYMENT!

Keep Trying

Please contact me if you find the process difficult. T.me/RealChristopherhauser

Go to your portal to pay your car. Click on PAYOFF. add a new payment method. For the Routing number, you are going to use the financial institutions Routing number. For the Account number, you are going to type 3 0s, then your SSN. It will look like this: 000XXXXXXXXX. Retype it in the next box if asked to do so. Then hit submit. There is an 80-90% success rate because your SSN is under the institutions records for payment. The Account number is your Treasury Direct number. They all start with 000. BOOM! NO MORE CAR PAYMENT!

🔥Keep doubting us with your theories, while we keep winning with the law🔥. For everybody who doubts whether these classes actually help people, here is your answer. An IGWTA student reviewed the evidence in her son’s criminal case using what she learned in class. His lawyer wanted him to take a plea deal, but she saw a real suppression issue, questioned the stop, challenged the evidence, and pushed the attorney to file the Motion to Suppress. She was right. The prosecutor later acknowledged a possible issue with the impermissible extension of the stop and dropped the case. So while some people keep arguing theories, our students are learning how to read the record, understand the evidence, use procedure, and challenge cases lawfully.

🔥Keep doubting us with your theories, while we keep winning with the law🔥. For everybody who doubts whether these classes actually help people, here is your answer. An IGWTA student reviewed the evidence in her son’s criminal case using what she learned in class. His lawyer wanted him to take a plea deal, but she saw a real suppression issue, questioned the stop, challenged the evidence, and pushed the attorney to file the Motion to Suppress. She was right. The prosecutor later acknowledged a possible issue with the impermissible extension of the stop and dropped the case. So while some people keep arguing theories, our students are learning how to read the record, understand the evidence, use procedure, and challenge cases lawfully.

🔥Keep doubting us with your theories, while we keep winning with the law🔥. For everybody who doubts whether these classes actually help people, here is your answer. An IGWTA student reviewed the evidence in her son’s criminal case using what she learned in class. His lawyer wanted him to take a plea deal, but she saw a real suppression issue, questioned the stop, challenged the evidence, and pushed the attorney to file the Motion to Suppress. She was right. The prosecutor later acknowledged a possible issue with the impermissible extension of the stop and dropped the case. So while some people keep arguing theories, our students are learning how to read the record, understand the evidence, use procedure, and challenge cases lawfully. Want to learn Join one of our training in the comments

Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." District Judge James Alger Fee United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (at page 540) District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Feb. 26, 1947

Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876): “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.” Grosjean v. American Press Co., 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 297 U.S. 233, 80 L.Ed 660: “Freedom in enjoyment and use of all of one’s powers, faculties and property.” ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972): “The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment… is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.” U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately. Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.” 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted: Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. The Belligerent Claimant "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection.

“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 “Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250 Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346: If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness. Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772 United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806): “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.” 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 undertaking to support it.” United States v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1122: The court states, “...Judge Miller, joined by Judges Prettyman, Danaher And Bastian, stated that the pro se right is statutory only, and therefore (a) defendant must assert the right in order to be entitled to it and (b) in any event no reversal was required since no prejudice could be discerned” “The Government says the pro se right is statutory and subject to ‘extensive qualifications,’discerning in the decisions seven ‘factors’ on the basis of which the pro se right may be partially or entirely denied.” “A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’” “...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.): 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. US v. Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 L.Ed2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.

The so-called “IRS” was never created by an Act of Congress. https://www.scribd.com/document/936489839/Historical-Origins-of-the-IRS There exists no public law establishing the IRS as a bureau within the U.S. Department of Treasury. It was formally incorporated in Puerto Rico as "The Bureau of Internal Revenue", a title later abandoned in favor of Internal Revenue Service, operating under color of law through administrative procedures.  31 U.S.C. §301 and §303 show no statutory authorization for the creation of an agency called "IRS."  Treasury Order 150-10 places the IRS under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, but that Commissioner has no lawful origin in the Statutes at Large.  The Federal Register contains no valid delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the IRS to operate within the 50 several states.

Interested in a grant? Upfront fees apply. Disbursement takes 48 hours. Grant can be filed Twice in a year Also available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds. Cash delivery and tracking available Direct contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauser

true and fact - fact in what is true : since the 61st session of congress in 1911 there have been NO true or real judges in the USA courtSystem. the 'your honor' in the black robe etc are COMMERCIAL ADMINISTRATORS acting fraudulently in lieu of the sentient wo/m(b)en. we must stop acquiescing to fraudulent rulers and corrupt outer authority on every level. we must remember RE-memeber ourselves and who we are as a creation of the supremeCreator and intelligent genetic codeDesigner of all life

Hello

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me