We, as citizens and inhabitants of the United States, are often confronted with complex legal systems and government regulations that can seem overwhelming and unjust. This narrative is not just a personal story but a reflection of larger systemic issues that affect many. We come together to understand and challenge the boundaries of federal and state jurisdictions, the implications of historical legal precedents, and the truths hidden behind the “Greatest Lie Ever Told.”
Anthony Rogers’ story is a powerful testament to these challenges. A dedicated boxer from Fort Wayne, Indiana, Anthony’s life took a dramatic turn when a favor for a fraternity brother led to unexpected federal charges. His journey exposes the broader systemic issues of federal overreach and the often punitive nature of federal law enforcement, as seen in his legal battle over purchasing a firearm that was later used in a crime.
Through his research and persistence, Anthony uncovered significant distinctions between federal and state jurisdictions, questioning the legitimacy of certain federal actions. His case highlights the interplay between historical legal precedents and modern federal authority, revealing how events like Prohibition and the Civil War have shaped current laws and government power. Anthony’s resilience and dedication to uncovering the truth inspire us to challenge unjust legal practices and advocate for a more equitable legal system.
(STATE OF INDIANA IN THE ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT) SS: (COUNTY OF ALLEN) CAUSE NO.02C01-0807-CT-000022 (ANTHONY LEE ROGERS, Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES, a corporation, et. al, and THERESA SPRINGMANN) and TINA NOMMAY) and THOMAS O’MALLEY) and ROGER COSBEY and AMANDA MILLER and NED EDINGTON Defendants)
on 10 December 2007 I began the term of Supervision assigned to the caseload of Mr. Ned Edington, U.S. Probation and Pre-Trial Services office (Fort Wayne, IN).
In August 2008 I was assigned (promoted) to Ms. Amanda Miller of the same office.
While assigned to Mr. Edington, I filed two (2) separate suits (02D01-0712-CT-548 and 02D01-0806-CT-231) in the Allen Superior Court, and one (1) in the Allen Circuit Court (02C01-0807-CT-22), each alleging identical charges against the United States and others. Each suit was subsequently copied to the U.S. District Court as 1:08-cv-30, 1:08-cv-162, and 1:08-cv-183, respectively.
These suits stem from the misapplication of Title 18 when the United States, thru its agents, prosecuted Me in Cause no. 1:03-cr-78 without proper jurisdiction within the boundaries of Indiana.
In May 2008 Cause no. 1:08-cv-30 was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. In February 2009 Causes 162 and 183 had been combined together and dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; Which proves My point!!
I filed the same suit again in the Allen Circuit Court on 8 April 2010 [02C01-1004- CT-16] followed by [02C01-1006-CT-25] and [02CO1-16 01-PL-000002] and [02C01-1006-CT-25] which were all completely ignored by Circuit Court Judge Thomas Felts while certain State officials –acting on behalf of a foreign government- pretended to assume control of My grievance only to immediately dismiss it for “Lack of Jurisdiction”; thereby keeping My COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES from ever being heard in a constitutional court of law [Indiana Constitution, Article 7 §§ 7-8].
The district courts of the United States do not possess proper jurisdiction/authority to operate as courts of law within the boundaries of Indiana.
After a regular meeting with Ms. Miller on 10 September 2008, she filed a request for warrant for My arrest. Said warrant asserts a “Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B)” and is signed by Roger Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge (now retired), at Fort Wayne, Indiana; This warrant does not specify any particular “violation”.
I was arrested that evening and taken to the Allen County Jail.
In the original case no. 1:03-cr-78, My attorney, Mr. Thomas O’Malley, an agent of the United States, did not require the U.S. District Court to establish “territorial jurisdiction” which allows the United States the authority to prosecute the alleged offense. As a result, proper jurisdiction was never established.
In these united States of America, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions; one being that of the State within its own territorial boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly, a State’s jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control, and govern personal property, individuals, and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given State. For Indiana, its limits (territorial jurisdiction) and sovereignty are declared in Article 14 (Boundaries) of the Indiana Constitution:
Section 1. In order that the boundaries of the State may be known and established, it is hereby ordained and declared, that the State of Indiana is bounded, on the East, by the meridian line, which forms the western boundary of the State of Ohio; on the South, by the Ohio river, from the mouth of the Great Miami river to the mouth of the Wabash river; on the West, by a line drawn along the middle of the Wabash river, from its mouth to a point where a due north line, drawn from the town of Vincennes, would last touch the north-western shore of said Wabash river; and, thence, by a due north line, until the same shall intersect an east and west line, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan; on the North, by said east and west line, until the same shall intersect the first mentioned meridian line, which forms the western boundary of the State of Ohio.
Section 2. The State of Indiana shall possess jurisdiction and sovereignty co-extensive with the boundaries declared in the preceding section; and shall have concurrent jurisdiction, in civil and criminal cases, with the State of Kentucky on the Ohio river, and with the State of Illinois on the Wabash river, so far as said rivers form the common boundary between this State and said States respectively.
For the United States, those limits are laid out at Article 1 § 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The judicial powers for each sovereign are likewise delineated in their respective constitution:
Indiana Constitution, Article 7 § 1: Judicial Power. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, one Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts, and such other courts as the General Assembly may establish.
United States Constitution, Article 3 § 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Congress is merely a body which represents and acts as agents of the several States for external affairs; it has no jurisdiction within the States.
To be Continued…
