oppression and acts of treason

[leon clugston]

Since when did we waive are rights to the fundamental rights incorporated and preserved in the Constitution of the United States and the several states?. Since when did the seperation or abrogation of powers become an aceptence to the people.?How can a person without an office created under the constitution weld judicial or executive power? and how can one weld both, and not be in violation of the seperation of powers and therefor not be held for acts of treason against the people or the constitution.?
When congress enacted title IV-d of the social security act as an adaption to the already questionable impletation of the orriginal act, (for which Californa of all places tried to get out of)(for which congress forbid them from doing so)it created an adaptation to the already increasing rights (rights created by the states against itself)(Hayburn, Nester, and Babcock) cases in the United States Supreme Court, for which congress, or in this instance the Secretary of health ,can adopt and implement regulations denying you acess to the courts and therefor denying you any rights, (for if you whish to receive this gratuity)
The gratuity is the Social Security Number in so many cases, however what is being tried now is how can congress mandate under law you have a Social Security Number(taxpayer ID) and then abrogate youre rights because of there mandation that you recieve this gratuity, right created by the states against itself. We have judges with no office, no OATH to the Constitution(employees) bound by cooperative agreements as so founded under title IV d , state plans section 3.1, to the collection agencys, to act in there favor, to generate revenue for the administrative state, at any cost, to whomever has more revenue regaurdless of there standings. Employees cannot have judicial or executive power, it is forbidden by the constitution, so if they do then that answers where we stand.

[leon clugston]

In a new twist the federal dstrict court for the State of Alaska, refused my case, citeing the Rooker Feildman Doctrine(even thought it was beat by a new Supreme court case Lance vs. Dennis feb. 1st 2006) the judge Sedwick for Alaska, decided he didn't want the fight, and advised or warned would be more correct to not appeal up to the 9th, for he knows he will get beat. Of course he didn't adress any of the fundamental rights, or the issues and only spoke of the judge who was involved in the suit(who has two other suits against him) and as usual didnt adress the facts presented about the other entities and the fact that hold no judicial or executive power, and no claim to immunity,,he did state though rather there was any law or not, for the actions taken against me,,judges are immune, and can do what they want under the claim for the color of law.
On up to the 9th circuit I go,,for everyone,,custodial or not,,this will affect everyone.