And here is the secret decoding - it really doesn't matter what Constitution

we're talking about -- the question to whomever -AFTER- duly [look up, "duly"]
accepting their alleged constitution and oath ["to preserve, protect, and defend
... so help me God"] is: "Is there something by or through your alleged
Constitution that compels My performance?" -- If yes, "...then please enter it
into the record of this matter." If no, "...then what am I doing here? Is there
some manner of contract that is controlling?" Can they show that you
knowingly, willingly and voluntarily after full disclosure signed on to something
that bears the other party's signature as well? (See, jurisdiction.)

Ask the judge if he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution -
he has to say yes. If you ask the judge if he intends to conduct his duties in
compliance with that oath, what can he possibly say but yes? The judge
knows if the court is an Article III court, but he is hoping you will not
understand this or how to force him to comply with his oath of office.

Juilliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) "There is no such thing as a

power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States … In
this country sovereignty resides in the people [living in the states of the Union,
since the states created the United States government and they came before
it], and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their
Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”

Yick Wo v.Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886) (with >150 cites to date)
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to 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."