Log in



Categories » ‘Politics’

How to Correct Your Political Status and Why

April 25th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/how-to-correct-your-political-status.html

Political StatusBy Anna Von Reitz

Chances are you aren’t obligated to be considered any form of federal Municipal CITIZEN nor as a federal Territorial Citizen, but you have been entrapped in a profit-making scheme that pretends that you have knowingly and willingly agreed to act as a volunteer federal employee— specifically, as a “Withholding Agent” — a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marine Service, and that you have purposefully and knowingly enrolled in the Social Security program which is only available to federal employees in order to receive benefits from the Public Charitable Trust (PCT) which was organized in the wake of the Civil War for welfare relief of former plantation slaves.

What? You never worked a day for the federal government? You were never told that “Social Security” is only for federal employees and dependents? You aren’t a former plantation slave? You never got any benefits?

Well, then, you have to stop calling yourself any kind of “US citizen” — because citizens all work for the government. They have a duty and obligation to obey every statute, code, and whim of the government as a result, and they are also liable to pay federal income taxes. You also have to stop voting in any “US elections” including “State of State” elections, because the States of States are just local franchises of the federal corporation(s) defined at 28 USC 3002 (15).

So, Step One— withdraw and rescind any and all applications and enrollments as a “registered voter”. You have no natural interest in the elections of a foreign corporation that you don’t work for, right?

If you don’t get a paycheck direct from the federal government and you don’t want to function as a for-free Withholding Agent and aren’t interested in any “benefits” that you pay for yourself and don’t want to be held subject to the whims of a foreign entity that is supposed to be providing you with Good Faith Service instead– then read on.

You have been mis-characterized and defrauded and you have prima facie evidence of that readily available. You think of it as your Birth Certificate, but it isn’t. It is a “certification” that a federal MUNICIPAL “PERSON” was created and named after you and that at one point in your life you were a real American. You were born on your birthday, but the MUNICIPAL PERSON has a birth date which is several days or weeks later—the filing date shown on the certificate.

Please note that the “Birth Certificate” is printed on bond paper. It is a security instrument. Please also note that it has been signed by the Registrar — an officer of the probate court. This is prima facie evidence that your earthly estate was probated when you were only a few days or weeks old and that it was seized upon by the State of ___________ or STATE OF_________ and operated for its benefit from that time on.

So, Step Two—- ditch the federal MUNICIPAL PERSON and the responsibilities and obligations associated with it.

You need to get the Birth Certificate authenticated if that is still possible in your state, or certified, if not, and then you need to endorse it and “surrender” it to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury

(Please note the two dots between the “U” and the “S”—– the U.S. Treasury.) and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for IT.

The endorsement is simple but exact. The authenticated or certified Birth Certificate that the birth State Secretary of State sends back to you will have a cover page riveted or hard stapled and firmly attached to the front of the BC. You leave that cover page attached and on the front of the BC itself in the upper left hand corner and in red ink you write: “Accepted by Drawee” and sign it by: Your Upper Lower Case Signature, and date it.

Then turn the BC over and on the back anywhere write: Pay to the Order of the United States of America, U.S. Treasury. Without Recourse. And again, write— by: Your Upper and Lower Case Signature, and date it.

Next comes the Form 56, which is the IRS Form called “Notice of Fiduciary Relationship”. This is your Notice to Mr. Mnuchin that you are making him and his office responsible for the PERSON named after you.

The Form 56 is very simple — the name of the PERSON is the NAME on the BC which you are returning to the Treasury.

The name of the Fiduciary is Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury. You can look up the address online. I believe it is 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.

Section A (f) — “Other” — Public Commercial Trust Administration

Section B(4) — Check (a) (b) and (h) “Other” and just say, “All forms that may be necessary”.

On the back, Part II, 7 (C) “Other” — Surrender of federal “PERSON” to U.S. Treasury

On the back, Part III “Court and Administrative Proceedings” — enter the name and address of the agency issuing the BC. The “date proceeding initiated” will be the File Date which is never your birthday, but a few days or weeks later. The “docket number” will be the State File Number on the BC. The time will be the time you were actually born, and the place of “other” proceedings will be “usa”.

On the back, Part IV, “Signature” —- you write the word “by” like a by-line to a newspaper story—- by: Your Name (Upper and Lower Case), Authorized Representative, and the date.

Underneath the Signature is a blank space. It is appropriate to say that you wish to be indemnified against claims or losses under the sovereign usa Private Registered Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US.

This is basically a bond posted in behalf of all the actual states of the Union and all the people living in those states insuring them against any further claims related to the MUNICIPAL PERSON(S) they have surrendered back to Mr. Mnuchin.

And that is that. You have now surrendered the MUNICIPAL “CITIZEN” back whence it came and you have insured yourself against any further claims or losses or charges brought against that PERSON.

Along with the Form 56 you should include a brief letter stating that it is your instruction to operate exclusively under 100% commercial liability and without benefit of any limited liability or other benefit of the Public Charitable Trust (PCT).

You are going to send this package of documents via Registered Mail to the Treasury. Each red and white Registered Mail label (available with instructions at all Post Offices) is unique and has an alpha-numeric identifier to track it. This includes a nine-digit number that is compatible with the federal system. As part of your assignment letter, instruct Mr. Mnuchin to open a Treasury Direct Account with that number and to please inform you when it is open for business. Also ask him to settle all debts and charges related to YOUR NAME and deposit the remainder and all other credits owed into the new Treasury Direct Account.

Thank him for his time and attention.

Well, that was a Royal Pain and you shouldn’t have ever been entrapped and obligated by your employees in the first place, but now you have taken action to sever the presumption that you are volunteering to act as a federal MUNICIPAL CITIZEN, and nobody can say otherwise. From now on, “IT” is Mr. Mnuchin’s problem and you are indemnified against any further claims or complaints related to “IT”.

Step 3…. Notify both the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service at Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 480, Holtsville, New York, 11742-0480 and the Internal Revenue Office of the Commissioner, Room 3000, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20204-0002, that you have retired from all presumed federal service and you are revoking your election to pay federal income taxes effective October 1 of 2016. Send these Notices via Registered Mail, too. Save a copy and the mailing receipts and the Green Card Return Receipt Requested for your Eternally Done and Over File.

No more Voter Registration, no more obligation to file Federal Income Taxes and no Municipal United States PERSON for the US DISTRICT COURT — that is, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DISTRICT COURT to address.

That much is done and over.

But there’s more.

You also have to rebut and return the allegation of Territorial United States Citizenship. You do this by recording an Act of Expatriation.

This is as simple as saying that your allegiance is to the soil of your native birth state, say, Louisiana, and that you act only as a private American state trading vessel and birthright member of the unincorporated private trade association doing business as The United States of America.

Now, no matter what kind of word-smithing and duplicitous redefining of terms that goes on forever afterward, no incorporated entity or franchise of any incorporated entity can claim that you are operating as a Foreign Situs Trust belonging to them or abandoned for their benefit—- which was FDR’s fraudulent claim against Americans in 1933.

You have declared that at home you are living on the land and at sea your Name is an American vessel engaged in international trade— not subject to federal regulation of commerce and owed all the protections of the actual Constitution and treaties backing it.

So now they have no grounds to “presume” that you are a Territorial United States Citizen, either.

X and X.

Finally, the rats have created “International Organizations” and run them “in your name”. You need to seize upon these organizations and file liens against them. You do this using a UCC-1 Financing Statement Form. The organizations doing business as your FIRST MIDDLE LAST and FIRST M.I. LAST are the DEBTORS and your non-Territorial Lawful Trade Name (aka Christian Name– First Middle Last) is the Secured Party. This is not a Notice of your interest, because you have already given plenty of public notice. You can lien these organizations directly by checking the “Non-UCC” claim in Box 6.

When filling out the UCC-1 Form be sure to write the names in the proper style. Everything related to the DEBTORS including USA should be in all capital letters. Everything related to the Secured Party should be Upper and Lower Case, except that for the Secured Party it should be “usa” — the actual organic states.

And now, finally, you have provided your employees with a fistful of paperwork refuting all their lies and presumptions about you. They can no longer presume anything about your political status, except that it is private and that you are operating lawfully and without any obligation to them or their organization. Quite the opposite— they are in fact your employees and obligated to you.

Your final stop should be the State Secretary of State’s Office to present him with another copy of “your” authenticated/certified BC.

I want you to stare that man or woman right in the eye and say: “This is prima facie evidence of a Public Trust…..”

If necessary, continue on—– “and also prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.”

“I have reclaimed my birthright political status and I want the proper passport I am owed. If you aren’t authorized to issue it, get on the phone and find out who is.”

If they attempt to drag you into one of their courts ask them where they will find the authority to address you? And where will they find a jury of your peers?

The Great Fraud is over.

The international trustees responsible for this Mess know that it is. You know that it is. It is just a matter of time before the whole world wakes up and goes—- WT…..?

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

Political Status

Red Alert Another Bankruptcy Fraud in Progress Please Post Notice! + +

April 19th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/red-alert-another-bankruptcy-fraud-in.html

Bankruptcy

By Anna Von Reitz

Americans—– another Territorial United States “National” bankruptcy FRAUD is in progress and coming at you!

On May 1, 2017, an international day of Communist celebrations and also a Satanic festival, it is the stated intention of the “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” (INC.) to declare bankruptcy and turn over its Puerto Rican Electrical Utility to international bankruptcy courts and bank-appointed trustees.  There is just one little problem.  Mr. Obummer created and named millions of public transmitting utility franchises of this bankrupt Puerto Rican Electrical Utility to stand as sureties for its debts.  And they are all named, nominally, after living Americans. 

Remember how the vermin mischaracterized your estates as ESTATES named after you, so that “John Allen Dunn” became “JOHN ALLEN DUNN”?  

Well, now the limey cretins are trying another trick.  They are trying to redefine and rename JOHN ALLEN DUNN as JOHN A. DUNN — a purported franchise standing as surety for their bankrupt Puerto Rican Transmitting Utility. 

Please note that “JOHN A. DUNN” isn’t even a legal name.  It is no name at all for lack of specificity.  Is that “JOHN ALLEN DUNN”?  Or “JOHN AMBROSE DUNN”? Or “JOHN ALLISON DUNN”?  Or, or, or…..?

I am bringing judgment to the World Court concerning this blatant attempt to defraud Americans and I am writing to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protest this fraud upon the bankruptcy court. 

What I want all of you to do as your part of the effort— those who can afford to do so — immediately put advertisements in the “legal section” of your local newspapers as shown below and upon publication, send a copy of the ad along with the name and address of the newspaper and the publication date to me at:  Judge Anna Maria Riezinger, c/o 1336 Staubbach Circle, Anchorage, Alaska 99652.

*****  NOTICE OF NON-ASSUMPSIT*****

What appear to be names in the form JOHN A. DOE are not names, but Puerto Rican ACCOUNTS belonging to franchises of a bankrupt Puerto Rican Electrical Utility operated by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (INC.).   All such ACCOUNTS are pre- paid in full by Payment Bond AMRI00003 RA 493427653 US on file with the Vatican Chancery Court. 

All re-flagged American Trading Vessels dba under lawful names in the form John Adam Doe operated by the United States of America and its land jurisdiction states operating in undelegated international jurisdiction are now under the beneficial ownership of the united States of America  and are indemnified under sovereign private registered indemnity bond AMRI00001 RA 393427640 US on file with the U.S. Treasury. 

Any billing statements issued to names in the form John A. Doe or JOHN A. DOE are illegal and unlawful and are in violation of United States Public Law and are an illegal conveyance of grammar.  No payment, credit, or debit issued in response to such an improper 

solicitation may be considered an assumption of that debt nor that identity and no legal or punitive action may be taken against anyone for failure to pay or perform any action is response to such solicitation. 

The COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the UNITED STATES (INC.) and United States (Inc.) are hereby given NOTICE/Notice of these facts and are  prohibited from seeking bankruptcy protection under false pretenses, hypothecating debt against American state nationals, making false claims of surety-ship related to American Trading Vessels, or otherwise promoting fraud and racketeering on our shores.   

Notice Posted by: The American States and People

                              c/o 1336 Staubbach Circle

                              Anchorage, Alaska 99562  *****

This, and writing letters to the US Attorney General and President Trump, are the most effective actions you can take to prevent and forestall another attempted “national” bankruptcy fraud scheme of the Territorial United States aimed at the American states and people. 

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com


 Letter to the Hague Prosecutors Office

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/letter-to-hague-prosecutors-office.html

By Anna Von Reitz

18th of April

Information and Evidence Unit

Office of the Prosecutor

P.O. Box 19519

2500 CM The Hague

The Netherlands

Dear Sirs:

We are facing a crisis in the long process to restore lawful government to the actual United States and continue to suffer false claims and insupportable, outlawed practices which the so-called Territorial United States and Municipal United States corporations have been attempting to foist off on the actual states and people. 

On May 1, 2017, they propose to set up a deliberate fraud scheme to attack and defraud millions upon millions of innocent people utilizing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a base of operations.   This has been done before as part of the fraudulent 1930’s bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc., and is apparently being done in preparation for a similar fraud scheme related to the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES, INC.  The scheme has been prepared for by the Obama Administration and is apparently being carried through by the Trump Administration. 

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a member of the Territorial United States organization, is bankrupting its primary electrical utility corporation.  This in itself is hardly worthy of mention on a global scale and would occasion little comment or concern, except that Mr. Obama created millions of purported “franchises” which are supposedly stand as sureties for this particular Puerto Rican public utility. 

These “franchises” are all identified using alphabetic ACCOUNT designators that appear to be the names of living Americans— for example, Alfred T. Krebs or ALFRED T. KREBS.  It isn’t certain yet whether they will attempt to use Glossa against our Judicial Notice of Fraud and Violation issued last May or not, but their intention has been clearly stated in the press.   A copy of the Judicial Notice of Fraud and Violation has been included in a letter (copy also attached) to U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions.

When unsuspecting Americans receive bills addressed to these foreign public transmitting utilities, they pay them under the false assumption that these bills are legitimately addressed to them.  The actual bills are already being paid out of the U.S. Treasury, so the perpetrators pocket the difference and say that these additional payments are “donations” and “gifts”—-but are really the fruits of unjust enrichment, extortion, racketeering, and fraud committed by employees against their trusting employers.

It is international mail fraud, international identity theft, and involuntary conscription amounting to international slavery and racketeering being implemented via similar names deceits and the illegal and prohibited use of Glossas and false names.   Please note that these Accounts/ACCOUNTS which use middle initials are not even legal names for lack of specificity.

This is also constructive fraud on a massive scale which has been prepared with malice aforethought by foreign governmental services corporations operating as crime syndicates on our shores.  The essence of the crime is clearly established.  They kidnap, press-gang, and coerce Americans to sign up for programs that only US Territorial or US Municipal employees are eligible for, then falsely claim that these people are “voluntarily” functioning as either Territorial or Municipal “citizens” and are then subject to their private corporation statutes, regulations, and codes. 

Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, functioning as the U.S. Attorney General, has been given full warning with regard these deliberate anticipated crimes on our shores as well as a copy of our Judicial Notice of Fraud and Violation which was also sent to you last May.

Sincerely,

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

cc: Letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions (two pages)

Copy of Judicial Notice of Fraud and Violation/May 31 2016 (two pages) 


 Business Letter to U. S. Attorney Jeffrey Session’s

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/business-letter-to-us-attorney-jeffrey.html

 

By Anna Von Reitz

April 18, 2017

 

Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, U.S. Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice
 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
 Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Sessions:

I am writing this afternoon —the 242nd  Anniversary of the “Shot heard round the world”—regarding three areas of immediate and urgent concern: (1) the continued forced, fraudulent and inadequately disclosed enrollment of American state nationals in Social Security programs intended exclusively for Territorial United States and Municipal United States citizens and (2) failure of the Territorial and Municipal United States to come to an agreement with the actual land jurisdiction United States regarding proper identification of American state nationals and American State Citizens v. United States Citizens v. citizens of the United States on passports and other international and interstate IDs and (3) the pending bankruptcy of the Puerto Rican Electrical Utility and the fraudulent creation of millions of purported “franchise” public transmitting utilities operated under ACCOUNTS that are deceptively similar in appearance to the names of Americans.

The pretense that people are knowingly volunteering to serve as Withholding Agents, that is, Warrant Officers in the Merchant Marine Service, to help win WWII ran out of steam in September 1945.

The continued international racketeering aimed at deliberately misinformed Americans and their enrollment in “Social Security” under these patently false presumptions of federal employment and Territorial and/or Municipal citizenship have to end immediately.  The Territorial and Municipal Government organizations have been under Notice for going on two years.  The longer you wait to admit the circumstance and release the adhesion contracts the worse it gets— and the more people are harmed. 

Ditto the situation with passports.  The American people are owed competent passport service, but they are being routinely misidentified as United States Citizens and/or citizens of the United States as a result of having been improperly and unconscionably enrolled and conscripted under conditions of fraud as U.S. Territorial and/or U.S. Municipal citizens. 

As you are aware, it is illegal to use “legal names”.  As you should also be aware, it was never the intention of American states nationals to operate in commerce.  Instead, another false presumption was foisted off on us by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration which sought to “redefine” our lawful American Trade Names as U.S. Foreign Situs Trusts so as to palm off the debts of the private, mostly foreign owned “United States of America” Inc. onto the American states and people by an undisclosed process of hypothecation, fraud, and assumption of debt we never owed. 

That boondoggle ended in 1999.  Trillions of dollars-worth of labor and assets were siphoned out of this country as a result.  Let me suggest to you that there isn’t going to be a re-run of it. 

We aren’t putting up with any more “government” racketeering or fraud.

Tell your Boss.  Tell the members of the feckless, treasonous, disgusting Congress. 

They need to drop the whole plan of bankrupting all those purported public transmitting utilities NAMED after JOE Q. PUBLIC Americans and stop hypothecating debt against all those illegal, unlawful, non-specific, but deceptively similar ACCOUNTS that appear to be our names, and stop sending fraudulent bills through the U.S. Mail.  

Tell Mr. Trump— “NON-ASSUMPSIT” in very large letters.  Tell the COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO its electrical utility will have to go bankrupt like any other mismanaged corporation on Earth. 

While you are at it, get ready for all the homebound Americans who are now wise to the scam, returning to the land jurisdiction and surrendering all those millions of bogus U.S. PERSONS that were created by the UNITED STATES, INC. back to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Also be aware that we seized upon the derelict United States of America, Inc. that we bailed out of bankruptcy and paid off and which is ours and when we did so, we also took all 50 American land jurisdiction States with it and rolled the whole enchilada back into our actual land jurisdiction state trading companies.  Look at the extractions on file and made part of the public record. 

All the States of __________ and STATES OF ___________ belong to the  ____________States and the __________States belong to the united States of America which belongs to the States which belong to the actual states and people of this country.  

It’s over, Mr. Sessions.  The Great Fraud that began with the so-called “American Civil War” is over.  The Territorial and Municipal “United States Congress” members need to get their paws out of our pockets and start paying attention to those nineteen enumerated services we are owed, including the national trust indenture owed as the Preamble of that old, musty, dusty original equity contract called The Constitution for the united States of America.  

Beyond that, if Mr. Trump needs money to continue operations, he doesn’t need to borrow any debt from the Israelis and he doesn’t need to borrow credit from the Rothschilds.  He just has to realize where the actual money and credit has gone and assist us in our efforts to recover the assets that are owed to us. He will have all that he needs to operate the governmental services corporations.   Free and clear.

Sincerely,

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

Bankruptcy

No Great Mystery of Judicial Tyranny” + FBI Informers, the Bundys, and Watering Horses

April 12th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/no-great-mystery-of-judicial-

tyranny.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&

utm_campaign=Feed%3A+http%2Fpaulstramerfeedburnercom+%

28http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulstramer.net++++Paul+Stramer+

personal+blog%29

SAVING FREEDOM

By Anna Von Reitz

There is no “great mystery of judicial tyranny”.  There is only a great deal of fustian ignorance and assumption abounding.

The Constitution exists to set up the Federal Government and the Federal Government is responsible for nineteen delegated “powers” — duties to perform services in common for the subscribing states of the union—- all of which, with the limited exception of the Interstate Commerce Clause— take place in the international jurisdiction of the sea.  

As a result the only courts created under The Constitution are Admiralty, Maritime, and Administrative Courts related to the Federal Government and its duties. 

Those courts were never meant to say a single word to us, the actual people.  They were pressed into service when the United States of America, Inc. was fraudulently bankrupted in 1933.  Suddenly, there was no funding for our long-established Common Law Courts. 

So the rats got around this by committing a vast crime of personage and “redefining” us and naming Foreign Situs Trusts and Cestui Que Vie Trusts after us.  These were then incorporated entities that they could address in Admiralty/Maritime and Administrative courts.

[The crime of personage amounts to a form of identity theft and involves deliberately confusing a living man with an incorporated entity named after him.]

They bankrupted the Foreign Situs Trusts as presumed sureties of the United States of America, Inc. at the same time that they started charging off current services provided by the UNITED STATES, INC. against the Cestui Que Vie Trusts. 

Thus their Trustees had their hands in the pockets of “John Michael Doe” Foreign Situs Trust at the same time as the current service provider had their paws in the pockets of “JOHN MICHAEL DOE” —— neither name any longer representing the actual living man

This is a commercial crime of staggering proportions, but it is not a political issue.  It is, as I keep telling you, a commercial crime with political consequences. 

Wake up and smell the java. 

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com


 

FBI Informers, the Bundys, and Watering Horses

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/fbi-informers-bundys-and-watering-horses.html

SAVING FREEDOM

By Anna Von Reitz

Ask yourself this question: if there are any “FBI Informants” operating in the take-down of the Colorado Grand Juries and State Justices— where are they?

Chances are they are in jail with the rest of the folks, so that they can continue to spy on and manipulate them from a position of trust.

They are certainly not standing here as I have been for yea, so many weeks, giving warning and instruction to people so that they might correct their ways and avoid arrest.

I hear that my name and that of Bella Haywood have been taken in vain and certain parties who are in fact to blame for this debacle have been accusing us of being traitors and informers and so on.

The plain fact is that if these people had followed our advice or even just paid attention to the Public Law they wouldn’t be arrested. There would be no big controversy.

I’ve also been getting a lot of mail about the Bundys. Save the Bundys! Save the Bundys!
The Bundys have had the benefit of my advice and the facts since Day One of their arrest. I explained it to them and I will explain it to all of you again.

United States Citizens and “citizens of the United States” have no constitutional rights. At most, they have “equal civil rights”– but those rights are at the discretion of the Congress and the courts. This is why that federal judge felt that she could afford to laugh in their faces and threaten them with contempt of court for mentioning The Constitution.

They are being tried under false presumptions in a court that is totally foreign to them. They are being tried as “US citizens” and with the possible exception of Ryan Bundy, they have done absolutely nothing to rebut that presumption.

They could get an authenticated copy of their Birth Certificate,  accept it as “Drawee” on the front of the document and then endorse it over on the back to the United States of America, U.S. Treasury Without Recourse— and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for AMMON BUNDY, for example.
That would very neatly separate them from the PERSON that is on trial.

They could also post a very hefty Private Registered Indemnity Bond with the Treasury and use that to insure (indemnify) themselves against any charges brought against AMMON BUNDY—- which is just a ledger ACCOUNT that the rats in Nevada are bent on pillaging.

They could ask to see the Bid and Performance Bond related to their case. If they did this in open court the clerk would poop green goo, but have no choice but to produce the incriminating evidence.

They could then accept those Bid and Performance Bonds for Value, charge them off against their Indemnity Bond, and return it to the same laughing Judge and make her laugh out of the other side of her ugly face.
And if no Bid and Performance Bonds were forthcoming, the Prosecutor would have to pay for the whole proceedings out of his pocket and the Judge would have to dismiss.

There have to be two dozen things that they could do to walk out of that court as free men, but no, they won’t listen.

Just like Bruce Doucette wouldn’t listen. And Michael R. Hamilton won’t listen. And Randy Drew wouldn’t listen. And Terry Trussell wouldn’t listen. And Tim Turner wouldn’t listen. And so many, many, many others.
They all insist on calling themselves some kind of United States citizens. They all insist on answering to names. They all insist that they have constitutional rights when United States citizens have never had constitutional rights in over two hundred years…. They all have to try to snow the court under with fancy common law documents that don’t apply and reams of case law that don’t apply.

They just can’t connect to the fact that they are being dragged through a commercial court in international jurisdiction.

And when I try to tell them this, they pause, stare blankly at me, and then go right on with whatever they were doing anyway. It’s like the information hits a “bumper” in their brain and they just reject it like a pinball being tossed aside.

So, please, everyone, this is what I have had to deal with. It isn’t that I haven’t tried or failed my duty to share information or anything else. I have talked and shared until I am blue in the face—- to no avail.

You can lead a horse to water, but….. if the “horse” wants to go to jail, then at a certain point, you just step aside and let him.

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

SAVING FREEDOM

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 – – Reply to Arnie Rosner

April 10th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/article-1-section-8-clause-17-reply-to.html

CONFUSSION

By Anna Von Reitz

Stop putting words in my mouth!  I never said there was no Constitution.  The original one is still in effect—so long as there are any actual American nationals and State Citizens willing to hold the rats accountable. 

Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.    It grants Congress the plenary government of the District of Columbia.  So they created the Territorial Government of the United States, and following the Insular Tariff Cases of 1900-1904, they created the Territorial States of States. 

Within the District of Columbia also exists the Municipality of Washington, DC—- which the Congress also enjoys plenary control of.  So they created the Municipal Government of the United States, too. 

And each of these has “citizens”—- Territorial Citizens and Municipal citizens. 

We are not naturally citizens of anything.  “Citizens” as I have too often tried to explain to you serve the government.  “Nationals” are the people the government is obliged to serve. 

But you all stupidly claim to be “citizens” and are proud of it, too.  Well, so long as you claim to be “citizens” you have no Constitutional rights and never did have in the entirety of the existence of this country.

So far as it goes, everything that they have done, they are allowed to do by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.  That’s what you and the rest of the flatheads down on the farm don’t get.  And that’s how you get in trouble.  You constantly mistake their territorial and municipal governments for the republican form of state government that we are owed, and which no longer operates because we are deluded and confused and have been defrauded into not operating our own government.

Though it is our right and duty to do so. 

I am so frustrated with you and with them that I could slap you all silly.  You are like drunks staggering around raging and butting your heads against the wall and talking nonsense. 

 

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

 

 The Fifty States Claim Update

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/the-fifty-states-claim-update.html

By Anna Von Reitz

It has come to my attention that there are still a lot of people left out in the dark regarding the Fifty States Claim and even some who woke up in alarm and thought that we’d missed the boat.
When all the crappola of the Civil War came down, there were people in America who were aware of the fraud and who objected to it.

In order to make their own actions “legal” but not “lawful” the renegade Rump Congress agreed to “grandfather in” those who were already in this country, if they expatriated back to their original native state jurisdiction. Anyone who didn’t would be presumed to be a “citizen of the United States”.
That’s how it came down in July of 1868 and that’s the way it remains to this day.

So as the vermin were busy liquidating their most recent fabricated government services corporation and bankrupting others in 2015, the American states (together with the people living in those states) were presented as sureties backing all this nonsense and the actual states— our land jurisdiction states— were up for grabs. Unless the Priority Creditors showed up and claimed the states back, the Secondary Creditors would be allowed to come in and seize everything in sight.

The banks and various other nations were slavering at the thought.
So I put out the call for white males above the age of 21 (the requirement back during the Civil War Era) who could prove that their ancestors were here back then. I asked them to execute Acts of Expatriation— which they did. Volunteers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) researched the family genealogies and we invoked the Grandfather Clause and the Expatriation Act to reclaim every sand particle of the fifty organic states of the union for the actual American states and people.

All that got done and done successfully. We made the international claim. We posted the Notices. We posted the Liens. We went back and recorded everything. We posted the sovereign bonds for each one of the fifty actual states and for all the people living in the states.

We also turned our attention to asset recovery, because there were billions upon billions of dollars worth of fungible assets belonging to the actual states that were also in limbo and under threat of being lost. So we alerted the military (which is responsible for safeguarding our money) and they jerked awake.
Since then, the military’s Asset Recovery Team has been responsible for repatriating billions of dollars worth of gold and silver to this country. It is estimated that it will take another six to nine months to collect our stuff back from all over the globe and from offshore accounts.

Someone had to deal with the international and commercial issues and someone had to make the effort to get the counties and states organized and the people educated enough to run their own government again.
Why do you think they had all those FEMA Camps set up, folks?

They were getting ready to open the doors and let their Creditors come in and seize your homes and land and businesses and everything else in sight as payment for their corporate debts.
We saved the land and its assets. We reclaimed the actual states. That much is done.

What remains is to educate and organize the American people and get them back in condition to run their actual government— first at the county level, then at the state level, and finally at the national level.
I have had to rely on volunteers to do this and they have not always known the right thing or done the right thing. It is also likely that to some extent the effort has been undermined by paid agents seeking to keep us all from regrouping and successfully reinstating our lawful government.

Be that as it may, we stand on the cusp of a new era.

Please pray throughout this week in whatever way you can for the well-being of the land and the people of this nation and of all nations.

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

CONFUSSION

Your Mission, If You Decide to Accept It…..

April 9th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/your-mission-jim-if-you-decide-to.html?utm

_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+http%2

Fpaulstramerfeedburnercom+%28http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulstramer.net++++

Paul+Stramer+personal+blog%29

ACTION

By Anna Von Reitz

Everyone –every American– needs to stop a moment and focus on this one true thought: that thing that you have thought of all your life as your government, isn’t your government.  

Say it over and over and over.  Write it down if you need to.  Really, truly, think about this fact and what it means: its not your government.  

Your government has been dormant, left on a shelf for 150 years. 

Repeat as many times as necessary.    

This circumstance was accomplished via fraud and deceit and illegal usurpation; as a result, you have a chance to restore your lawful and actual government. 

Repeat as many times as necessary.  

To restore your lawful government you have to decide to function as an American state national, for example, a Texan or a Wisconsinite,  not as a “United States citizen”.  

You need to inform the federal authorities of your decision and retire from any presumption of federal service. The exact means to do this quickly and cleanly is being refined and will be made available. 

The next step is to form your local unincorporated jural assemblies.  

The jural assemblies then restore your local unincorporated land jurisdiction government, including your county courts.  

The counties then form your lawful land jurisdiction state.  

The states then send delegates to a Continental Congress, and whatever changes need to be made, get made.  

This is the mission.  All other missions are subordinate to and depend on this one. 

This is a lot of work, but it isn’t insurmountable.  In the process of doing this work you will rediscover your history, restore your courts, fill your vacated public offices, and resume operation of your own lawful government.  

Because every county and state is unique and has its own history, this isn’t a cookie-cutter proposition.  

The good news is that other counties have broken the trail for you and they stand ready to help you. 

The Michigan General Jural Assembly hosts a nationwide conference call every Thursday night beginning at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.  The call-in number is: 1-712-770-4160, Access Code: 226823#.  [Please note the change from “4170” to “4160”. I had the wrong number posted in a couple places—typo.]

They also host a website at: http://1stmichiganassembly.info

And from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Thursday, they have established a Hotline: 1-989-450-5522.   

 

Thanks to the Michigan General Jural Assembly, you won’t have to recreate the wheel and won’t have to face this daunting task alone.

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

ACTION

Blood Oath Fulfilled

April 3rd, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/04/blood-oath-fulfilled.html

BLOOD OATH

By Anna Von Reitz

Yes, I have a blood oath standing on the altar of the Universal Catholic Church.  Please note that the Universal Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, but the far, far greater Church at large.  

My Blood Oath clearly states to you— as it did to Cardinal George of Chicago (see the actual letter addressed to him that is part of my archive at www.annavonreitz.com)— that I was putting my life and soul at risk to bring forward the Great Fraud against the American states and people for remedy.

In fact, under ecclesiastical court rules, nobody who isn’t prepared to hazard their own life and soul against me in this matter is allowed to offer rebuttal.  And nobody has. 

Not a peep in rebuttal or denial of what I have said about the cheating and defrauding and press-ganging and breach of trust against the American states and people has ever been heard in the years since I placed my Blood Oath before the Vatican Chancery Court and the Holy See and I am sure that no such denial or rebuttal will ever be made, because what I have said is true and verifiable.

Anyone who tried to come against me would lose not only the argument, but would burn in eternal Hell according to Catholic Doctrine for placing my life and soul at risk for the sake of a self-interested lie.

It’s like playing poker.  When the bid is insurmountably high, nobody takes it.  And I placed the bid insurmountably high for the sake of the truth and my country and my countrymen and my True Lord, Jesus, who is not dead and not a dead body, either.

The Bible teaches that the soul is in the blood. 

So when you seal testimony in blood, it is sealing the truth of it with your soul. 

Most of you have been deposed or given statements before Notary Publics or vows before clergymen— promises that you have made to the best of your ability, oaths to tell the truth under penalty of perjury in admiralty courts, affirmations of truth in civil courts, and all of this is accepted as normal due process that people should be held accountable for telling the truth and should give some sign of consent to be punished if they are found to be willfully prevaricating. 

When you seal testimony in blood before the highest ecclesiastical and equity court in the world—-and you are bringing charges against the Roman Pontiffs and British Monarchs for fraud, theft, and breach of trust and commercial contract for the last 150 years– you had better believe that you have to post a bond backing your testimony in the most absolute and unequivocal terms possible: a blood oath. 

I knowingly, willingly hazarded my life and eternal soul as punishment for any willful lie— but I also called the Cardinals, Pontiffs, and Monarchs on the carpet under the same risk. 

The fact that not one of them offered as much as a whisper—ever—in rebuttal tells you that what I have said is true and that my judgment in the matter stands as The Law binding upon the court, the Holy See, and their property managers at the Vatican and also upon their vassal lords.  They quite literally have nothing to say and therefore have to accept my decisions and pay whatever remedy I demand. 

My decision was to redeem the Kingdom of God they created in the name of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is my Lord’s and founded on His Love, His Blood, His Soul, His Rule of Peace, His Law of Love, and His Father’s Law of Free Will. 

The world is so utterly messed up, so violent, so confused, so deluded, so full of excrement and idolatry and vengeance and stupidity and lies of every kind that it must be remade in a different form. 

The old paradigm of the Holy See was pagan in origin and based on the Doctrine of Scarcity, a cruel yoke which presumes that everyone is guilty and that there is never enough of any good thing.  As a result, all commercial economies were reduced to being run on a premise of eternal debt and indebtedness.  One could only pay one’s debts with more debts, sins with more sins, conflicts with more conflicts, until physical death released us from this Hell Hole that Satan and his servants made of it. 

Thus they had determined to live and force everyone else to live until such time as a physical manifestation of Jesus appeared and released the prisoners and redeemed the kingdom.  That has now been done.  Against all odds, I have appeared as His Fiduciary, fulfilled The Law and the Prophets, bound Satan, and My Lord has put him under my feet according to His Word. 

The new paradigm of the Holy See is to be made wholly in the image of Jesus and based on the Doctrine of Abundance, wherein every being is deemed innocent and there is enough of all things for men to live in peace and in the enjoyment of their own homes and where there is no such thing as debt held against us.  Instead, there will be credit afforded us, more than enough to fulfill the needs of every man, woman, and child, more than enough to build each community, clean up the environmental damage, and ensure that there is no longer any need for war or hunger or want or disease or death or crying. 

The entire debt-based system is being reversed and henceforth for 1,000 years it shall stand until the Final Test and the Lord of Heaven comes again.   

Your only requirement will be to keep the peace, love yourself and others equally, and respect the free will of others insofar as it hurts nothing. 

I would beg each one of you to make it your business to get up each day and make this world a better place, by whatever means you have, both small and great.

Beyond that, there is no true law, for our Father does not demand that you worship Him, though I say that all those who live and breathe and have their being in Him ought to worship our Father, for in All There Is there is nothing more or else or apart from Him to worship and so, all else is delusion—a matter of worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, or worshiping only a part of Him, as if He could be separated from Himself. 

Please bear in mind that aside from my willingness to serve Him, I have no great merit of my own; it is His Merit that has established the Kingdom of Heaven, His Wisdom that established its Law, and His Credit which pays all debts forevermore.  It is the Most Humble of the Most High who has won the Everlasting Victory and it is in His Name and the Name of His Kingdom that I have come and set my blood upon the cornerstone in defiance of The Lie and the Liars. 

So this is the meaning of my “Blood Oath” and this is why it was required of me and also all the many other years and ways of trial that brought me.

Those who are afraid of my Blood Oath have cause to be afraid, for it stands against their Master and his demons and all those who secretly serve him as the entrance to their grave; those who say that I have acted as an “agent of the Vatican” mistake my role and place, for I have not come to argue with property managers but to contend for the Throne of Grace.  

Surely, you have heard all your lives of Evil in High Places?  Surely, you have wondered how such Evil could be overthrown?   How, but for the Truth, issuing forth from His Mouth, who first named them the Synagogue of Satan?  How, but for the willingness of living flesh to obey Him and contest in the realm of the Spirit against the Princes of the Air? 

I am only a foot soldier of the True Lord; the equivalent of a lowly Lieutenant Colonel.

Try to imagine the glory that comes after? 

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

BLOOD OATH

Continental, Federal, Territorial, and Municipal…..

March 26th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/continental-federal-territorial-and.html

Continental United States

By Anna Von Reitz

I know this is confusing, but until we all learn this basic information, there will continue to be confusion and chaos and all efforts to organize the lawful government we are owed will be crippled, so please take note and take the time to thoroughly understand the information:

There are actually four versions of “United States” we deal with all the time— we started out with two and that has grown to four over the past two hundred plus years.

The Continental United States consists of fifty geographically defined states, for example, Ohio, Florida, and Maine.  This is the United States belonging to the “free, independent and sovereign people of the United States” described in The Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783.  This is why Revolutionary War troops were called “Continental Soldiers”.  These states together define the area over which the Public and Organic Law is exercised by the people (that is, state militias) acting as county and state jural assemblies—when and if they assemble and do their duty to self-govern.   These states defined and created The Constitution for the united States of America and that agreement in turn created both the Federal United States and the Territorial United States by splitting their own international jurisdiction  into “delegated” and “un-delegated” powers (Articles of Amendment X).

The Federal United States operates as fifty unincorporated politically defined States under names like “Ohio State” and “Florida State” and “Maine State” and these states control the undelegated portion of the international jurisdiction owed to the Continental United States.   These are all owed a “republican form of government” and operate under the United States Statutes at Large in international jurisdiction and State Session Laws at the state level.  These States are owed the Constitution of the United States of America

The Territorial United States operates as 57 entities— 50 “inchoate” incorporated States of States like the “State of California” and 7 Insular States (Guam, Puerto Rico, et alia)– that in turn administer the delegated “powers” in international jurisdiction.  These are all operated as franchises of the United States, Inc., and under the plenary power of Congress granted at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, they are operated as democracies. They operate under State of State Statutes and Federal Code.  These states also operate under the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Municipal United States has also grown out of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17— this is a network of approximate 10,000 municipal city-state governments organized as municipalities and boroughs and STATES OF STATES  like the STATE OF LOUISIANA and incorporated counties like JACKSON COUNTY all organized under the Municipal Law of Washington, DC, which is an independent international city-state akin to the Vatican or the Inner City of London, and again, under the plenary power granted to Congress, these are run as oligarchies subject to whatever whim Congress may have. They operate under Public Policies and Martial Common Law.  These various municipal entities operate under the Constitution of the United States, and although this is a document we seldom see, it is the “constitution” that all the members of the Congress take their oaths to.

It is up to each one of us to know our correct political status and declare it.

Are we state nationals (not employed by any government in any capacity) or State Citizens (acting in some official capacity for our states) of the Continental United States?

Are we Federal Citizens?  (that is, employees, public officials, or dependents of the United States of America?)

Are we Territorial Citizens? (that is, employees, public officials, or dependents if the United States, Inc.?)

Are we Municipal Citizens?  (that is, employees, public officials or dependents of the UNITED STATES, INC.?)

You have a right to be confused.  And if you are reading this, you will shortly have cause to be outraged, too.

It is up to you to exercise dominion over the Continental United States by actively participating in your local county and state jural assemblies and acting as deputies in support of your locally elected land jurisdiction Sheriff and also joining your state militia. Most of us have been blissfully unaware of the necessity of doing this and our state republics have languished in a condition of zombie-like disuse for three generations, largely unoccupied and disserved.

The Federal United States has struggled along, but with fewer and fewer state nationals and State Citizens acting in support of the effort of maintaining our international presence as states and people of the Union, it has gradually dimmed away, unable to operate effectively for lack of funds.

Instead, the foreign Territorial United States and the Municipal United States run as profit-making commercial corporation enterprises have coerced their forms of “citizenship” on you and have seized upon your assets and have hypothecated debt against your labor, your businesses, your land, and your children’s children’s children.

As a result of similar names deceit and coercive action, you have applied for and the perpetrators have issued franchises in your NAME—- JOHN MICHAEL DOE and most recently, JOHN M. DOE—- and until you return the BIRTH CERTIFICATES related to these entities to the Secretary of the Treasury and appoint him your Fiduciary and tell him to return this (re-venue) these to the United States of America, U.S. Treasury, without recourse—- you continue to be “presumed” either a “United States Citizen” (Territorial) Corporation or a “citizen of the United States” (Municipal) Corporation.

And all your assets are held in thrall as collateral backing these foreign corporations, instead of supporting your actual lawful government.

Please bear in mind that there are no laws against raping, pillaging, murdering, press-ganging, pirating, or committing genocide against corporations.

Please bear in mind that mischaracterizing a living man as a corporation is a crime known as “personage”.

Please also bear in mind that the act of bringing charges against such a “PERSON” is also a crime known as “barratry”—-most infamously practiced by the Bar Associations.

This treason began in 1861 with the onset of the illegal commercial mercenary conflict mis-named “The American Civil War” and has been carried on ever since by the rogue members of Congress and the various corporate CEOs heading up both the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc.

It’s time to put an end to it, and that can only be done by informing, educating, motivating, and properly organizing literally millions of Americans.

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

Continental United States

Our mission is to restore the lawful government that is owed to us.

March 25th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/our-mission-is-to-restore-lawful.html

Lawful Government

By Anna Von Reitz

Our lawful government, sometimes called the “de jure” government, is called the United States of America.  The United States of America has been undermined from within by a commercial corporation calling itself the United States, which is under contract to our states to provide “essential government services”.  (See the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783 and Article IV.)

The United States is controlled by the Pope and the British Monarch and operated by a Board of Trustees calling itself the United States Congress.

The United States went rogue during and after the so-called American Civil War and just neglected to tell anyone.

Ever since, the United States has been in one kind of “war” after another— the war on poverty and the war on drugs and the war on terrorism— as well as endless nasty political and police actions for profit.

Yet the Civil War wasn’t really a war at all.  It was an illegal commercial mercenary action carried out on our shores.  It was never declared by the Congress.  It was never ended by a peace treaty.

President Andrew Johnson declared peace in public three times, and created a contract for peace, but that’s not the same thing as a peace treaty.

Obviously, the Popes and the British Monarchs and the people we so trustingly sent to Congress to represent us have failed to do the job. They have acted in Breach of Trust and commercial contract for 150 years right under our noses.

They have used us as “muscle” to carry on endless wars for profit and illegal police actions throughout the world.  They’ve neglected our country’s needs and stolen it blind while at the same time killing millions of innocent people and they have blamed us for it all.

Now they are targeting the people of China to take our place as the Bully Boys of the world.  They have sent their bankers and lawyers and tons of our gold to China, intending to set up shop again and pull the same old crap over there.

We’ve been stupid, folks, for a very long time.

None of us remember a legitimate and fully functioning American government. All we know is the slow parasitic rot imposed on us by the British Monarchs and the Pope and the politicians in control of the United States.

It’s no wonder that millions of Americans detest what they think of as their government, but what everyone worldwide needs to understand is that that thing in Washington, DC, isn’t our government.

The United States, Inc., is a foreign corporation in the business of providing governmental services—hence the reason it is called a “de facto” government.

It is really just an adjunct to our lawful government, like a catering service or housekeeping service, that our ancestors subscribed to.

Given all this, it is apparent that America has been tragically deceived and defrauded and off track for a very long time.

People around the world have grown to hate Americans and we have been blamed for the actions of the United States, which is nothing but a gigantic multi-national commercial corporation gone wild.

It should surprise no one that the United States has used crooked bookkeeping to embezzle trillions of dollars out of our economy, and then, on top of it, has claimed that we didn’t pay them and that they are trillions of dollars in debt, and are seeking bankruptcy protection because of it.

This is the complete and utter mess that Donald J. Trump has inherited, and it is all directly attributable to the Popes, the British Monarchs, the treasonous members of Congress and the puppet Presidents who have run this country into the ground and worked to enslave the American people for the last 150 years.

The “frog” is now well and truly boiled, but still alive.  And the “frog” is angry. That’s understood.  It is painful and scary to wake up and realize that the men and institutions you placed your faith in all your life have grossly betrayed you.

Bear in mind that the men and institutions guilty of these horrific crimes against us and against the entire rest of the world, have no friends left.

They are trapped with the Americans on one side and the rest of the world on the other.  The British people have been just as shamelessly abused as we have, quite possibly more.

From both within and without, then, these hateful monsters have carried out their war against Mankind and have used the churches and what appeared to be lawful governments as storefronts for their parasitic activities.

At the end of the day, who is responsible?

As a short list– the Popes, the British Monarchs, the Lord Mayors of London, the Lords of the Admiralty, the British Parliament, the US Congress, the government corporations of the European nations, Japan, Canada, Australia—-are all in the frying pan.

The entire Earth is overdue for a political housecleaning, and Donald J. Trump has landed himself in one helluva position to be in.

We, Americans, like the rest of the world have every reason to despise the renegade United States.  We have every reason to rise up and murder the members of Congress and desecrate Washington, DC, yes, every reason to raze it to the ground and piss on the graves of those who would defend it.

We have cause to do that, but we would be supremely stupid to do that.

Instead, we need to keep calm and get even.

The entire world now knows what has gone on here.  They know who the guilty parties are.  They are looking to us for leadership to find the way forward and they won’t be disappointed.

We’ve looked back to our roots to find ourselves again.  All across the country county and state jural assemblies are gathering.  Day by day, Americans are waking up and returning the false gift of “US PERSONS” that have been foisted off on us.

Those who have defrauded and abused us are being recognized as international criminals.  Their foreign duplicitous Satanic religion is being recognized for what it is— a reprise of Ancient Babylon brought forward like a cancer concealed in the Roman Catholic Church.

Even the members of the US Congress are beginning to wake up.  Trey Gowdy and Rand Paul aren’t the only ones speaking our language anymore.

Quietly, with great resolve, America — the real America—-is on the move.

Our goal isn’t to destroy the United States, but to take back our rightful control of it and get to the bottom of the criminality infesting it.  As we go, we are learning our own history and filling the vacated offices that our lawful government is owed.

We are going to completely restore our lawful Common Law court system, which is owed to the people of this country.  We are going to sort out the crooked government bookkeeping and dispose of the “National Debt”.  We are going to bust the foreign media cartels.  We are going to secure our borders, mind our business, and let the chips fall as they may.

In the midst of this humongous endeavor, it is imperative for everyone to stay grounded and think things through.  None of this is rocket science, but it took 150 years for this situation to develop. We can expect the clean up to last more than a decade.  Meantime, the sky is not falling.  We are not broke.  We have the power to change things peacefully using Due Process and our own Public Law.

What could go wrong?

We could trust the wrong people again.

That is the chief danger we face. There are among us paid provocateurs and an equally common breed of opportunists eager to seize power for power’s sake.

These Bad Actors always show their colors eventually, so pay close attention to both words and deeds.

We now have among us men who are preaching a False Gospel.  They are saying, “Hey, we are the people!  We can do anything we want!”

The same thing can be said of any gang of outlaws— until the rest of us catch up with them.

Men who have been oppressed by a commercial corporation masquerading as their own government have a right to be angry, but our power and our just cause lies in restoring our rightful and lawful government, complete with its system of checks and balances intact, so that nobody and nothing can oppress any of us again.  Otherwise, we merely jump from one oppression to another.

Our very greatest danger is that some demagogue like Hitler will arise from our disillusionment and discontent and like the Pied Piper, lead the world down the road to senseless war again.

We’ve heard that tune and followed it too many times before.

The greatness of America does not lie in our force of arms, but in our generosity of heart.  Our future does not lie in the mind of any one man, but in the hopes and dreams of us all.

I have done my level best to clue you in and teach you right from wrong. I have been a faithful guide and defender of the innocent, a proponent of peaceful and orderly and lawful change.

God willing, I will be here a while longer to help guide the work, but in the meantime it is imperative for every American to study their own history, learn the structure of their own government, and stop being gullible.

Turn your Shinola Sensors on “High”.

And like the song says, “Don’t get fooled again!”

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

Lawful Government

Mayhem and Misunderstanding in Illinois

March 21st, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/mayhem-and-misunderstanding-in-illinois.html

MayhemBy Anna Von Reitz

Illinois lies in the Midwest on the Great Lakes and is politically dominated by the massive Chicago urban center, yet for all the numbers of people in the City of Chicago and Cook County in particular, Cook County remains a county like any other, limited by its own geographic parameters.

This is part of the genius of the American Way.  Cook County may have far more people in it than other counties in Illinois.  It may be wealthier by far.  It may have different problems and different options for solving its problems. At the end of the day, it’s still a county circumscribed and limited by its own borders.

Like every other county in America, it may choose to conduct its day to day business using an incorporated franchise of the United States, Inc. — or not.  

The county becomes eligible for federal corporation kickbacks known as “federal revenue sharing” when it “enfranchises” itself,  but it also becomes liable for federal taxation and federal regulation, becoming a virtual rubber stamp for whatever policies the privately owned and operated foreign corporation doing business as the “United States” decrees.

Like every other county in America, Cook County is ultimately and actually owned by the people living in Cook County.  They get to decide whether or not to operate their county government as a federal franchise or not.  This unincorporated body politic gets to assemble itself whenever an American state national living in Cook County gives a 30 day Notice and announces a public meeting of the Land Jurisdiction Cook County Assembly. 

This is not the corporate version of “Cook County Assembly”. 

This is the actual Body Politic as opposed to a “representational” body. 

Instead of handing their proxies to an agent elected to act in their stead as a member of the Board of Directors of Cook County, Inc. calling himself an “Assemblyman”, the people have the absolute retained right to conduct their own business and to bypass the use of any agent to do their business.  It’s the difference between sending your servant to town to conduct your business for you, and doing it yourself.

Whereas anyone can be elected to serve as an “Assemblyman” for Cook County, Inc., including lawyers and US CITIZENS, not just anyone can be a member of the actual Cook County Assembly. 

The actual unincorporated Cook County Assembly is composed of American state nationals and Illinois State Citizens living in Cook County, Illinois.  They have to be either natural born or naturalized Illinoisans and they have to be claiming that political status in order to be members of the actual, unincorporated Cook County Assembly.

The people properly claiming their birth right political status are then enabled to crack the whip and tell the members of the Cook County Assembly, Inc. what to do and how to do it, and can even tell the “Assemblymen” elected to serve on the board of Cook County, Inc. to dissolve Cook County, Inc. and resume operations as an unincorporated county.

This means an end to federal corporation kickbacks, but it also means an end to federal taxation and federal debt obligations, federal regulation and corruption in general.

As in all other counties, Cook County is defined by its geographic borders.  It is a recognizable land mass. The American people living within its borders make up its Assembly.  There is only one Assembly per county in America, by definition. 

A county may have townships or, in the Deep South, it may have parishes; these are smaller political subunits within the county that often have their own Town Halls or Parish Centers and these may be organized to locally select delegates to the County Assembly, or not.  It just depends on how the local government within the county structures itself and how Assemblymen are chosen. 

All the same circumstances apply to organized townships and parishes.  The people living in those townships and parishes can choose to run their township or parish as an incorporated franchise of the private, mostly foreign-owned United States, Inc. and let anyone serve as their “Assemblymen”— or they can assemble themselves, foreswear federal kickbacks in favor of freedom from federal taxes, debts, and regulations, and run their own local government at both the township/parish level and the county level.

These American people are not “United States Citizens” nor are they “citizens of the United States”.  They are native born or naturalized Americans living in their geographically defined state of the Union. They are known as Illinoisans, Texans, Wisconsinites, and so on.  They are the actual owners of everything in sight, the sovereigns of the land jurisdiction states. 

And it is long past due for them to return home to the land they are heir to.

Okay, so now we have Cook County, Illinois, back on the map.  The actual people have given the necessary public notice of a meeting of the Land Jurisdiction Cook County Assembly. 

The people attending this meeting must provide proof of their declared political status. This proof includes a Witnessed and recorded Act of Expatriation, renouncing any United States or other citizenship, and claiming back their political status as Illinoisans.  It also includes proof that they have surrendered any US PERSON(S) issued to them via Birth Certificates, by returning and endorsing these Birth Certificates back to the Secretary of the Treasury, crediting the United States of America, U.S. Treasury, without recourse.

They are now free of any presumption of voluntarily acting as United States Citizens or as citizens of the United States.  They emerge as the Priority Creditors and Underwriters of the United States, Inc. and all its Territorial States of States and all its Municipal franchises.

They are free men and women, attending to the business of their own county, acting through a lawful County Assembly and there is only one each such Assembly owed to every county in America.

This County Assembly is enabled to elect its own Sheriff to serve the land jurisdiction county, to uphold the public and organic law of Illinois and the United States of America.  He is then the top peacekeeping officer in Cook County.  He outranks – by far – all the hired police, all the detectives, all the commissioners on the incorporated “Cook County, Inc.” payroll.

The actual Cook County Assembly can also elect its own justices (Justices of the Peace) and its own Court Clerks and its own Bailiffs, Coroners, and other court officers. 

There isn’t a corporation anywhere, inside or outside of the borders of Cook County, who has a right or a word to say otherwise, because within the borders of Cook County, the actual Cook County Assembly holds the absolute power of self-determination for that county and the people living in it. They can purge and pitch any law or statute put in place by “Cook County, Inc.” and they can choose to dissolve Cook County, Inc. and put an unincorporated business that is under their direct control in its place.

It should now be clear just how vital your participation in your own local government is, and how that participation or lack thereof impacts every aspect of your daily life. 

It also makes clear how important your political status is.  As a United States Citizen you are “presumed” to be a federal corporation employee.  As a “citizen of the United States” you are presumed to be a slave owned by the federal corporation doing business as the “United States”. 

Unless you are actually employed by the federal government as a military or federal civilian employee, why would you ever claim to be a United States Citizen, subject to federal Territorial law?   Unless you were truly desperate for political asylum or other aid of some kind, why would you ever agree to be considered a slave and chattel owned by the United States, Inc.?  Nobody in their right mind would knowingly and willingly choose that fate, instead of being a free man.

In the last several days I have been in communication with several assemblies beginning or having begun their meetings and organization efforts in Illinois.  Many questions have surfaced about how to create an assembly, how to establish correct political status for its members, how to give public notices, hold elections, and in general—-how is everything supposed to work? 

Does the Assembly have the power to unseat a Grand Jury member or administrator?  — And so on.

[Grand Juries are totally independent of Assembly action once they are created and functioning on their own. They direct their own affairs, hire and fire their own administrators, etc. The County Assembly can impeach a whole Grand Jury that proves ineffective or unwilling to perform and can replace it with a new Grand Jury, just as a Trial Jury can be replaced from the jury pool for cause— but an Assembly is not allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of a sitting Grand Jury.  Any other arrangement would quickly render the Grand Jury a political tool instead of an instrument of justice.

These and many, many other questions have already been answered by the longest-running Post-Civil War American State Jural Assembly—the Michigan General Jural Assembly.  They have written the book on the subject that everyone needs to know more about.  They host a National Assembly Training Call every week on Thursday nights: 1-712-770-4170, Access Number 226823#, and they can be reached via email at http://1stmichiganassembly.info

As you reorganize your county assemblies and state assemblies and take back control of your counties, your states, and your lives— make use of the knowledge, experience, and resources of the Michigan General Jural Assembly.  

A new handbook about the Grand Jury as an institution is on the way. 

See this article and over 500 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

Mayhem

The Banking Secret, Which Makes the Fatcats Richer, While Destroying the Real Economy

March 16th, 2017 by

That Neither Economists nor Laypeople Know…

Washington’s Blog

Private Banks – Not the Government or Central Banks – Create 97 Percent of All Money

Who creates money?

Most people assume that money is created by governments … or perhaps central banks.

In reality – as noted by the Bank of England, Britain’s central bank – 97% of all money in circulation is created by private banks.

Bank Loans = Creating Money Out of Thin Air

But how do private banks create money?

We’ve all been taught that banks first take in deposits, and then they loan out those deposits to folks who want to borrow.

But this is a myth …

The Bank of England the German central bank have explained that loans are extended before deposits exist … and that the loans create deposits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw

The above is from an official video released by the Bank of England.

The Bank of England explains:

Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

  • Rather than banks receivingdeposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates

***

One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers, for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.

***

In reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money …. Rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.

***

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.

***

This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics” in the 1960s stating:

[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.

Monetary expert and economics professor Randall Wray explained to Washington’s Blog that:

Bank deposits are bank IOUs.

Economics professor Richard Werner – who obtained his PhD in economics from Oxford, was the first Shimomura Fellow at the Research Institute for Capital Formation at the Development Bank of Japan, Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies at the Bank of Japan, Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Monetary and Fiscal Studies at the Ministry of Finance, and chief economist of Jardine Fleming – was granted access to study a bank’s books, and confirmed that private banks create money when they simply create fictitious deposits into a borrower’s account.

Werner explains:

What banks do is to simply reclassify their accounts payable items arising from the act of lending as ‘customer deposits’, and the general public, when receiving payment in the form of a transfer of bank deposits, believes that a form of money had been paid into the bank.

***

No balance is drawn down to make a payment to the borrower.

***

The bank does not actually make any money available to the borrower: No transfer of funds from anywhere to the customer or indeed the customer’s account takes place. There is no equal reduction in the balance of another account to defray the borrower. Instead, the bank simply re-classified its liabilities, changing the ‘accounts payable’ obligation arising from the bank loan contract to another liability category called ‘customer deposits’.

While the borrower is given the impression that the bank had transferred money from its capital, reserves or other accounts to the borrower’s account (as indeed major theories of banking, the financial intermediation and fractional reserve theories, erroneously claim), in reality this is not the case. Neither the bank nor the customer deposited any money, nor were any funds from anywhere outside the bank utilised to make the deposit in the borrower’s account. Indeed, there was no depositing of any funds.

***

The bank’s liability is simply re-named a ‘bank deposit’.

***

Banks create money when they grant a loan: they invent a fictitious customer deposit, which the central bank and all users of our monetary system, consider to be ‘money’, indistinguishable from ‘real’ deposits not newly invented by the banks. Thus banks do not just grant credit, they create credit, and simultaneously they create money.

***

Instead of discharging their liability to pay out loans, the banks merely reclassify their liabilities originating from loan contracts from what should be an ‘accounts payable’ item to ‘customer deposit’ ….

How Can Banks DO This?

Professor Werner explains the reason that banks – but no one else – can create money out of thin air is that they are the only institution exempted from normal accounting rules.

Specifically, every other company would be busted for fraudulent accounting if they conjured new money out of thin air by reclassifying a liability (i.e. an accounts payable) as an asset (i.e. a deposit).

But the banks have pushed through exemptions so that they don’t have to follow normal accounting rules:

What enables banks to create credit and hence money is their exemption from the Client Money Rules. Thanks to this exemption they are allowed to keep customer deposits on their own balance sheet. This means that depositors who deposit their money with a bank are no longer the legal owners of this money. Instead, they are just one of the general creditors of the bank whom it owes money to. It also means that the bank is able to access the records of the customer deposits held with it and invent a new ‘customer deposit’ that had not actually been paid in, but instead is a re-classified accounts payable liability of the bank arising from a loan contract.

***

What makes banks unique and explains the combination of lending and deposit-taking under one roof is the more fundamental fact that they do not have to segregate client accounts, and thus are able to engage in an exercise of ‘re-labelling’ and mixing different liabilities, specifically by re-assigning their accounts payable liabilities incurred when entering into loan agreements, to another category of liability called ‘customer deposits’.

What distinguishes banks from non-banks is their ability to create credit and money through lending, which is accomplished by booking what actually are accounts payable liabilities as imaginary customer deposits, and this is in turn made possible by a particular regulation that renders banks unique: their exemption from the Client Money Rules. [Werner gives a concrete example on British law for banking and non-banking institutions.]

Sound fraudulent? Professor Werner thinks so, also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

But he also makes some more important points …

What Does It All Mean?  The Implications of Money Creation By Private Banks

Mainstream economists believe that private debt doesn’t even “exist as a force that acts on the economy.  For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman assume that huge levels of household debt don’t hurt the economy because more debt among households just means that savers have loaned them money … i.e. that it is a net wash to the economy.  To make this assumption, they rely on the myth debunked above … that banks can only loan as much money out as they have in deposits.  In reality, 143 years of history shows that excessive private debt – in and of itself  – can cause depressions.

Moreover, Professor Werner points out that attempts to shore up the banking system with capital requirements (such as the Basel accords) are doomed to failure, since they don’t recognize that banks create money at will:

Basel rules were doomed to failure, since they consider banks as financial intermediaries, when in actual fact they are the creators of the money supply. Since banks invent money as fictitious deposits, it can be readily shown that capital adequacy based bank regulation does not have to restrict bank activity: banks can create money and hence can arrange for money to be made available to purchase newly issued shares that increase their bank capital. In other words, banks could simply invent the money that is then used to increase their capital. This is what Barclays Bank did in 2008, in order to avoid the use of tax money to shore up the bank’s capital: Barclays ‘raised’ £5.8 bn in new equity from Gulf sovereign wealth investors — by, it has transpired, lending them the money! As is explained in Werner (2014a), Barclays implemented a standard loan operation, thus inventing the £5.8 bn deposit ‘lent’ to the investor. This deposit was then used to ‘purchase’ the newly issued Barclays shares. Thus in this case the bank liability originating from the bank loan to the Gulf investor transmuted from (1) an accounts payable liability to (2) a customer deposit liability, to finally end up as (3) equity — another category on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet. Effectively, Barclays invented its own capital. This certainly was cheaper for the UK tax payer than using tax money. As publicly listed companies in general are not allowed to lend money to firms for the purpose of buying their stocks, it was not in conformity with the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in public company). But regulators were willing to overlook this. As Werner (2014b) argues, using central bank or bank credit creation is in principle the most cost-effective way to clean up the banking system and ensure that bank credit growth recovers quickly. The Barclays case is however evidence that stricter capital requirements do not necessary prevent banks from expanding credit and money creation, since their creation of deposits generates more purchasing power with which increased bank capital can also be funded.

Moreover, Werner points out that banks create the boom-bust cycle by lending too much for speculative, non-productive purposes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

By failing to take into account the fact that banks create money, economists and governments are sowing the seeds for future crashes.

But the economics field is very resistant to change …

Economics professor Steve Keen notes in Forbes:

In any genuine science, empirical data like this would have forced the orthodoxy to rethink its position. But in economics, the profession has sailed on, blithely unaware of how their model of “banks as intermediaries between savers and investors” is seriously wrong, and now blinds them to the remedy for the crisis as it previously blinded them to the possibility of a crisis occurring.

A wit once defined an economist as someone who, when shown that something works in practice, replies “Ah! But does it work in theory?”

And a 2016 IMF paper notes:

Around [the 1960s] banks began to completely disappear from most macroeconomic models of how the economy works.­

This helps explain why, when faced with the Great Recession in 2008, macroeconomics was initially unprepared to contribute much to the analysis of the interaction of banks with the macro economy. Today there is a sizable body of research on this topic, but the literature still has many difficulties.­

***

Virtually all recent mainstream neoclassical economic research is based on the highly misleading “intermediation of loanable funds” description of banking …

***

In modern neoclassical intermediation of loanable funds theories, banks are seen as intermediating real savings. Lending, in this narrative, starts with banks collecting deposits of previously saved real resources (perishable consumer goods, consumer durables, machines and equipment, etc.) from savers and ends with the lending of those same real resources to borrowers. But such institutions simply do not exist in the real world. There are no loanable funds of real resources that bankers can collect and then lend out. Banks do of course collect checks or similar financial instruments, but because such instruments—to have any value—must be drawn on funds from elsewhere in the financial system, they cannot be deposits of new funds from outside the financial system. New funds are produced only with new bank loans (or when banks purchase additional financial or real assets), through book entries made by keystrokes on the banker’s keyboard at the time of disbursement. This means that the funds do not exist before the loan and that they are in the form of electronic entries—or, historically, paper ledger entries—rather than real resources.­

***

This “financing through money creation” function of banks has been repeatedly described in publications of the world’s leading central banks—see McLeay, Radia, and Thomas (2014a, 2014b) for excellent summaries. What has been much more challenging, however, is the incorporation of these insights into macroeconomic models [how true].

What’s the Solution?

We’ve seen the problems created by failing to take into account the fact that private banks create money.

But there are solutions …

Initially, Professor Werner notes that preventing banks from creating new money to loan for speculation and mere personal consumption would prevent booms and busts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

Werner says that the “Asian Miracle” happened for exactly this reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

Additionally, allowing small community banks to grow would cause the real economy to flourish … since small banks loan to small businesses (which create most of the jobs), while big banks only loan to giant companies and speculators:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

Indeed, big banks are virtually out of the business of traditional lending … and small banks are the only ones funding Main Street.

Werner says this is the secret of Germany’s economic success:

Postscript: Due to their unique money-printing powers, banks now literally own the world … including the entire political system.

There’s a war raging in connection with banking.  Remember that the giant banks tried to kill off community banking through the Trans Pacific Partnership. And as Professor Werner points out, the European Central Bank is currently in a war to destroy community banks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MechH0ebs_c

One of key battles for prosperity and democracy today is decentralization of the banking system.

Olddogs Comments!

I have said this a hundred times: The whole world is under the thumb of these monsters, and nothing but misery is ahead unless some militaries take these bastards out. Ours is obviously under their control!

What We Know About YOU”

March 8th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/what-we-know-about-you.html

The IRSBy Anna Von Reitz

Here is what we know so far— the “UNITED STATES” subrogated our NAMES under an insurance policy.  This was required because they are still operating under the Reconstruction Acts and trying to pretend that we are “unknown” babies “found” on a “battlefield” by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE which is obligated then to issue an insurance indemnity receipt under the provisions of the Lieber Code.  The Birth Certificate is an insurance indemnity receipt and it identifies YOU as being a ward of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, in their custody. 

But what is “YOU”— ?  

It’s an ACCOUNT, as in bank ACCOUNT set up in your name….. first of all.  And from that meager beginning they have spun off an array of “associated” names and accounts—- until in 1976 they had redefined “YOU” as an “International Organization”.  That same year, they passed the International Organizations Act granting “YOU” immunity. 

Okay, so your NAME is an ACCOUNT belonging to an International Organization which is immune from prosecution…..and all this is news to you, right? 

Well, howsoever that may be, this explains two things that have long been a matter of curiosity and debate.

When you look up the federal government “Masterfile” associated with your NAME you find that “YOU” are always without exception involved in some kind of nefarious occupation having to do with Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms.   When I tunneled through the red tape and the “Special Code Book” that deciphers all the numerical codes found in “YOUR” Masterfile, it turned out that “I” was running a rum distillery on the island of Barbados……and my husband was an arms dealer in South America!     

This was big— and at the time—-baffling news to us.

Obviously, neither one of us had ever done any such thing, but that is what the Masterfile attached to our NAMES said.

Please note that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are all federally controlled substances—-they can tax these for revenue and control transportation of these products and license people engaged in these industries. 

So now you can understand why the Masterfiles associated with our NAMES were involved in producing alcohol and selling firearms —- to bring our NAMES under US Government control and subject “US” to their codes, regulations, controls. 

So if our NAMES are international organizations that are supposed to have immunity from prosecution— how is it that these NAMES are being prosecuted as DEFENDANTS in all these courts?

Remember that these things that appear to be NAMES aren’t.  They are ACCOUNT designators.  Just like you can arbitrarily create an account designator using numbers — for example, bank routing numbers — you can use letters, too.  And that is what these unspeakable vermin did.  They used the letters of your name to create an ACCOUNT.   They could just as well have used “SSRDAEGR” as your account designation or “1442351-BA445” or anything else in the wide world, but instead they infringed upon your given name and used those letters in that particular sequence as the account designator for the express purpose of confusing you (and nearly everyone else) and defrauding you. 

So, thinking of “YOUR NAME” as an ACCOUNT designation instead of as your name, what immediately appears? 

Ah, so….. an ACCOUNT has a plus side and a minus side.   Assets come in one side as additions to the ACCOUNT and debts come in the other side of the ACCOUNT as subtractions to the ACCOUNT.  When you subtract the debts from the assets you “balance” the account and can see how much you have left after paying off the debts and you will either have a positive remaining balance or you will be overdrawn. 

So what did the rotten vermin do?  They set your ACCOUNT up as two separate linked ACCOUNTS. 

All the debts are posted against the ACCOUNT that appears to be your name, for example, JOHN MARK BROWN and placed under a numbered sub-account that you will recognize as “YOUR” Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: 123-45-6789. 

All the assets are posted to the ACCOUNT that appears to be your name, for example, BROWN, JOHN MARK and placed under a numbered sub-account that is the same as “YOUR” Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number in this form: 123456789.   Same number, just without the dashes. 

Then to make the fraud scheme complete, you create two different agencies to do the bookkeeping.

You make the IRS responsible for tracking and collecting the debt side account.  And you make THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE responsible for tracking the asset side of the account.  Two completely different agencies, different addresses, different offices, different job assignments —both working under deceptively similar names—-and for the most part unaware of the other’s activities, and then heavily compartmentalized within each agency so that one hand really doesn’t know what the other is doing for the most part—–and you make sure that the accounts never get balanced

The debts just keep accruing until the Account Holder pays them out of his own pocket, and the assets never get applied.  And since the “Account Holder” — the real man named John Mark Brown doesn’t know a thing about any of this, he never gets to use or enjoy any of the assets being socked away in slush funds under his NAME. 

Only one “side” of the ACCOUNT is immune—- the asset side.  It has to be that way, because remember that the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE is on the hook guaranteeing that YOU come to no harm. 

The debt side of the ACCOUNT is totally open to attack.

So the vermin bring their claim as a debt addressed against the debt side account, JOHN MARK BROWN, and drag “HIM” and the Account Holder into court demanding payment.  And good ole clueless Account Holder John Mark Brown pays it out of his own pocket, because they force him to do so.  He either pays it, or they turn off HIS lights stop picking up HIS garbage and send armed robbers acting under color of law to evict HIM from HIS house. 

The IRS does the same thing— they address their claims of tax indebtedness to HIM and unless the Account Holder pays, “HE” gets hauled into court and accused of all sorts of crimes and assessed all sorts of fines and late fees and if these aren’t paid up and settled, the Account Holder gets thrown in jail. 

Are you all following along here and grasping how this has been done to you and how you have been endlessly fleeced, coerced, defrauded, cheated, bilked, and extorted by this “System”? 

Oh, it’s a “System” all right—- in true gangland terminology, it’s a “System” that would make the Mafia blush. 

And it has been here operating full tilt on your soil without a valid excuse in the world for being here since 1934.

It has been cranking away with the full knowledge of the Roman Pontiff, the Holy See, the Vatican, the British Crown, the Lord Mayor of London, the Queen, and the various “US Presidents” who are all fully responsible for defrauding the American states and people.

How have they gotten away with it?  By coercive abuse of power — extortion, racketeering, kidnapping, identity theft, copyright infringement—- and all under the false pretense of still being at “war” ever since the so-called American Civil War and having “War Powers”.

As long as we are on the subject of fraud— which has no statute of limitations at all — the so-called “American Civil War” was not a war.  It was an illegal and unlawful mercenary conflict carried out on our shores.   How do we know this?

In order to be a true war and to fall under the international Laws of War, it would have to have a formal Declaration of War made by the national body competent to make such a declaration.  No such declaration exists.  Oh, Abraham Lincoln made “a” declaration beginning the hostilities, but he wasn’t authorized to actually declare war —- and he didn’t.  Likewise, there is no actual Peace Treaty ending any such war.  And there is absolutely no provision for any special “War Powers” or “Emergency Powers” granted by the actual states and people to the United States Congress, either. 

So how have they been cooking all this crap up?  That is the subject of our book, “You Know Something is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” available on amazon.com.

Olddogs Comments!

I have been cussed out, belittled and threatened for what the idiots call a lack of patriotism, but it is insanity to love your enemy, so please consider I can love my country without worshipping the vermin running it. I have paid for the privilege of being an American many times over, so stick your insults where the sun don’t shine, and continue bowing down to your masters since you are so patriotic. OR, you can do a little reading and rub a couple brain cells together to stimulate some common sense and send these bastards to hell, where they came from.

The IRS

THE CONSTITUTION

March 2nd, 2017 by

This article is posted on both sites today due to its importance, as some of you read only what you are interested in.

http://annavonreitz.com/theconstitution.pdf

CONSTITUTIONBy Anna Von Reitz

There are a number of questions that must be asked— and answered— by each one of us.  Before asking the first and most fundamental question and not inviting anyone to blurt out any answers at this point, I want to make my own position clear.

I do not now and have never advocated any act of violence, insurrection, or treason against the Constitution.

I view the actual Constitution as a flawed contract, but a contract that provides us with protections and guarantees we would not have otherwise.  Those protections and guarantees are supremely valuable once we place ourselves in a position wherein we can exercise them.

So let’s begin with what the actual Constitution is— and let’s make it clear that when I say “The” Constitution or use the singular form of the word, I am talking about the real American deal —and when I use the plural form of the word, I am talking about constitutions in general as a class of legal instruments.  

All constitutions, then, are debt agreements— and so is ours.

These debt agreements are generally divided into two classes— equity constitutions and service constitutions, and in some cases, like ours—-both equity and service are involved in the contract itself.

The equity is in the nineteen rights known as “powers” which the states delegated to the federal government.  The debt is owed to the federal government for performing the stipulated services and accepting the associated liabilities of the states, which would otherwise have to provide these services.

The parties to this odd agreement are not our actual land jurisdiction states, but corporations they set up to act for them in the international jurisdiction of the sea. These are known as “states of states”, such as the State of Vermont; thus you will see that the “States of America” are mutually and collectively a party to The Constitution for the united States of America, and the word “united” is merely an adjective describing the fact that they are acting in common. 

So the states “united” acting through commercial companies known as “states of states” made an agreement with another entity, whose identity is purposefully obscured: the newly created “United States”.   Unknown to the public then and to most Americans still, this was the United States Trading Company, which was formed from the old British colonial investment companies— the Virginia Company, the New England Company, and others. 

Our fledgling union of states contracted away nineteen of their duties —and the related rights— to a British-owned and operated commercial company.  They could hardly tell the rest of the people that after eight long years of war, they were getting back into bed with the British king and giving up a large portion of all that they had won including control of American commerce, American treaty-making, American trade policy, American defense capability, and much more.

Our states were thus effectively controlled by the British king and emasculated, indeed, castrated in international jurisdiction, even while our country was being born.  By controlling our international defense forces, our foreign policy, our commerce, our currency, and our trade policies, the British king could do exactly what subsequent Monarchs have done—- use and abuse our resources, use our men and boys as gun fodder in wars for profit, use our women as factory and agricultural slaves, devalue our currency, and control our votes in every international assembly. 

From the Founding Fathers’ side of it, their deal probably saved more than half the loaf and forestalled yet another war with England.  The crux of the matter was that the Americans had no Navy to protect shipment of their cotton, tobacco, ore, timber, wheat and other raw materials to Europe and the British stood at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, starving for those commodities.  Our lack of a navy to protect our commercial shipping and Britain’s lack of raw materials were the driving forces behind the adoption of The Constitution.

It was a gross sacrifice of power, autonomy, and wealth on our part and a liability laced with rich benefits for the British king and the colonial investment groups— which included Americans, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others you might know—on the other.

That said, and the motives of the Constitutional Convention fully exposed, the participants did manage to save the entire land jurisdiction and also a very substantial portion of undelegated powers in the international jurisdiction of the sea for future generations. They chained the British king to an extent by setting limits on what we have fallaciously called the “federal government”, and by securing guarantees and obligations, including the obligation of the British Monarch to act as the international trustee of Americans on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways.  

The Constitution was executed by a group of Americans calling themselves “We, the People”.  To grasp what this implies requires us to go back over two hundred years and learn some things we are never taught in school. 

The word “people” means “militia” in Hebrew. 

When Joshua conquered Canaan he led his “people” in battle—-he was leading his “militia”.   Our Forefathers knew this, and so, when they said, “We, the People” they knew that it meant “We, the Militia”—an important point that tends to be lost on us today.

Unlike an army, a militia has civilian officers.  Also unlike an army, membership in a militia is a birthright.  

You are born as a member of a state militia.  

You will also notice that the word “People” in “We, the People” is capitalized.

In contract law, capitalizing a word indicates a position of servitude or inferior political status. 

The men signing the Constitution were functioning as Fiduciary Deputies acting in behalf of their states, and thus were both “people”— that is, members of their respective state militias, and, at the same time, public servants.  That’s why in referring to themselves they used the capital “P” on “People”.  Yes, they were members of the American Militia, but they were acting in a servile capacity while conducting the public’s business.

So what “We, the People” communicates is really quite different from what everyone assumes.  Unless you are claiming to be a member of a state militia serving as a business agent or fiduciary, you really shouldn’t be ramming around using “We, the People” to describe yourselves.

All that said, all the lies and self-interest and double-dealing and double-speak revealed, if we sort ourselves out and assert our proper political status, The Constitution offers us a bulwark against tyranny even today and we would be foolish to cast it aside or undermine it in any way.

Without the Constitution, we would be facing a most ruthless, powerful, and immoral adversary: a desperate rogue international commercial conglomerate which is highly motivated to murder its Priority Creditors—-us, in other words.  

If we give the Federal Government an excuse to kill us by operating outside The Constitution they will profit five different ways:

  1. First, they won’t have to pay us back what they already owe us—-which is many, many trillions of dollars.   
  2. Second, they will collect on million dollar – often multi-million dollar life insurance policies– they’ve placed on each one of us, naming their own precious corporation as the beneficiary.
  3. Third, they will seize and profit from all the “abandoned property” that would result from a Civil War.
  4. Fourth, they will avoid paying the retirement benefits they owe to millions of Baby Boomers.
  5. Fifth, they will charge the survivors for the “service” of killing us.

They’ve been trying for several years to get some kind of conflict going.  They’ve tried race hatred, religious hatred, sovereign citizen phobias and false flags— all without success.  They would like nothing better than to have us start something for them.

The one thing standing in their way is the Constitution.

That is why any reckless talk against the Constitution or actions undermining the Constitution plays into the hands of those who have defrauded and misused us for so long and who in fact owe us so much. 

In my opinion, whatever fault there may be in the Constitution, it is subject to far gentler and more intelligent and certain means of reform than that provided by any sort of insurrection.

The first question then, that each of us must answer is—-do we support and defend the Constitution, and proceed within its established framework to restore a fully functioning American government, or do we, as some have suggested— throw the Constitution out with the bathwater and tread the same bloody road our forefathers were forced to endure for eight long years?

My vote is to support and defend the Constitution, while seeking its full enforcement and eventual reform, but there are voices raised among us who would have us abandon the necessities of obeying The Constitution.  These voices appeal to our egos and our anger.  They preach their own new gospel and they say that the people can do anything they wish to do, change anything they want to change, simply by taking a vote and a show of hands—- even such a sloppy ad hoc show of hands as you can get on a teleconference call.  This, we are told, is sufficient to set new national frameworks in place. 

I must ask of which nation, because it certainly isn’t mine.

No need, they tell us, to build an actual functioning restored government for the organic states.  No need to consider the tens of millions of Americans who have no inkling of what we are discussing, who are not participating, and who have just as much right to know and to take action in the own behalf as we do.  No responsibility to conduct honest elections.  No need to honor anything from the past. No need for Due Process.  No need to respect the requirements of The Constitution.  No need for the Rule of Law.  Everything, they say, is just whatever we say it is. 

No doubt that these same people believe that we have rights without responsibilities, and protections without duties, and can rule without obligation to anything or anyone but ourselves.  They are, mostly without knowing it, preaching anarchy and insurrection and the destruction of the union of states— not restoration and empowerment of the actual counties and states, not the resumption of effective Checks and Balances.

To me, the American Government is like a magnificent V8 engine that is presently running on only two cylinders.  I view it as our job to restore it and get it running right.  It requires us to be good mechanics, know our job, and use the right tools.  And we have inherited all the necessary tools.

Just as it would be foolhardy to try to fix a gas engine without understanding its parts and how it works, we cannot restore our rightful government without understanding its parts and how it works, yet the Pied Pipers among us want us to believe that no such hard work on our parts is required. 

I have the unenviable and unpopular duty of telling everyone that a lot of hard work, soul-searching, and education is necessary, that you can’t just hand-wave your way to a fully functioning American Republic after 150 years of fraud and neglect.  It’s going to take a lot of effort by a lot of people to restore America, and if we don’t do it right, there is the very real danger that our remaining two cylinders will blow up in our faces.

The American Government — as opposed to the US Government — is set in a much larger framework than just the structures and provisions established by The Constitution.  Remember that The Constitution deals only with the set up and running of the United States—- a corporation responsible for providing nineteen delegated services.  Important as that chunk out of our loaf is, it says nothing about our land jurisdiction and says nothing much about our retained non-delegated powers in the international jurisdiction of the sea, beyond the bald statement provided by Article X.

The Constitution tells us how the delegated services are to be provided and organized and monitored and paid for and how the “Federal Government” is to be limited and all that it is obligated to be and do— and says nary a word about our own state and county governments ruling the land jurisdiction, nary a word about the exercise of the non-delegated powers retained in the international jurisdiction of the sea by our union of states.  

Why is that?  It’s because those topics are simply not the subject matter of The Constitution. 

The Constitution is all about our deal with King George and who gets the juicy government services contracts pertaining to that agreement and who controls what aspects of international affairs, what the states are owed, and what they pay in return.

Why, then, would The Constitution talk about our own national state governments operating the land jurisdiction of this country?  Or even about the undelegated powers in international jurisdiction retained by the people and the states under Article X? 

It wouldn’t and it didn’t. 

Generations of Americans have scoured The Constitution looking for answers how to fix our broken government, but that is like reading a book about Barn Building, when what we really need to know is How to Raise Cows.  The subjects are somewhat related, but only obliquely. Instructions for building hay mows and stanchions and waste gutters give information by inference, but don’t directly instruct us in what we need to know.

So in Article IV, The Constitution defines the evils of Bills of Attainder and forbids them, and in Amendment VII makes it clear that the American people are owed Common Law Courts, and in Article X it mentions that the states retained undelegated powers not granted to the new United States government, but doesn’t tell us how to object to Bills of Attainder, or which kind of “Common Law” Americans are owed, or give us a list of the powers that the states and people retained.

So far as the writers of The Constitution were concerned it was assumed and we were expected to know all that for ourselves—but somewhere in the mass confusion, deceit, and fraud of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Acts—- we forgot.  

We forgot who we are, what our states are, what their jurisdiction is, how their powers are exercised, how they are meant to operate, and how to exercise the power of checks and balances.  And it’s the same way with our counties.  We forgot that the counties are the domain of the people and that the counties in turn control the states. 

Instead, the self-interested vermin in DC contrived to turn everything around and upside down, to usurp upon our lawful counties and states and replace them via fraud and deceit with corporate franchises willing to do anything and everything their parent corporations in the District of Columbia demand.  They even contrived to mischaracterize us and our political status, to demean and defraud us by the use and abuse of unilateral and undisclosed contracts to entrap, ensnare, and enclose upon the very people these monsters are hired and paid to protect.

So here we are in 2017, finally dispensing with the fog and corruption and destruction of the Civil War, finally getting rid of the carpetbaggers, and working to see our rightful government restored. 

Let it be noted that the Missing Pieces are all on our side. 

The US Government created by The Constitution is corrupt and arrogant and lawless after 150 years of running wild, but it is still kicking.  It’s the American Government that is MIA. 

It’s the actual American states that no longer answer roll call and act to prevent federal usurpation of their power.  It’s the actual American counties that no longer lawfully assemble and do the job of directing the states.  It’s our government that is on the ropes, firing on only two cylinders—-and it’s because our counties and states have been enfranchised and unlawfully converted by the so-called “federal government” into mere franchises of their own commercial corporations that Checks and Balances no longer work to prevent federal overreach, usurpation, and oppression. 

It is because we have ignorantly allowed ourselves to be called “citizens of the United States” and allowed our political status to be misrepresented and mischaracterized, too, that we are oppressed and abused and presumed upon by these foreign interlopers.

If we are to restore our rightful government and learn to use the power of The Constitution we are owed, we must first restore and hone the American Government— the lawful, unincorporated counties and states of the land jurisdiction, and restore ourselves as the people of our respective fifty nation-states. 

The key is in our hands.  It is up to us to turn it in the lock.  

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

Olddogs Comments!

Not having the intellect of someone like Anna, I cannot imagine the amount of reeducation that has to be done in the entire country, before a delegation of learned people can assemble a group of teachers and spread them throughout the America States. Mind you this is for sure step number one because as it stands, there are millions of egotistical empty headed wordsmiths that think they know everything. Keeping these scumbags out of the united assembly of instructors is going to be a bloody mess. But, this must be done to stay on the straight and narrow objective of creating a majority of reeducated Americans. Don’t be insulted folks, but the truth is we have all been dumbed down to kindergarten level concerning the advantages of a Republic over a spastic corporate democracy.

CONSTITUTION

MANY GUN OWNERS POLITICIANS AND MEDIA AGREE

February 28th, 2017 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=629

By Michael Gaddy

(Author’s note: I originally wrote this article some 7 1/2 years ago, thus the reference to Obama. I have made a few modifications to the original article for clarification purposes and removed broken links. Many states legislatures are still proposing more and more restrictions on our inalienable right to have the necessary tools to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Many times they offer to the uninformed partial rights based on age or the ability to pay for the privilege. For this reason, I believe the tenets of this message to still be most relevant. Our rights are inalienable because they were granted by our creator. Why do we continue to beg and pay government to exercise the rights we already have? 

As a government grows more and more intrusive on individual liberties, that government’s fear of the armed citizen increases exponentially, just as an armed robber fears a well-armed potential victim. Here, in America, in the last seventy plus years, our government and their stooges in the media have sought to relegate the right of a free people to keep and bear arms into a privilege, subject to government approval, rather than an inalienable right. Sadly, many gun owners have agreed to participate in this madness.

I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if, and when, I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have an inalienable right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe?

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change.

In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah.

If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege.

I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights.

An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently (2009) became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?

What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.

What a masterstroke it was for the government to get Ignoramus Americanus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the “reasonable” restrictions of his masters and his/her ability to pay the required fee. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!

If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the government, bought and paid for.

Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.

Resistance, anyone?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Olddogs Comments!

LET’S FACE THE FACTS FOLKS! The truth is, according to the corporate government, we are not protected by any rights period. I will let Anna von Reitz say it better than I can.

 You are “gifted” with the PERSON, for example, JOHN MICHAEL DOE, to enable you to operate in commerce and thereby become subjected to federal regulation and federal taxation.  Oh, jolly!  We all wanted that, right?  We were just never told anything about it and forced into it when we were still babes in our cradles and didn’t have a clue what was going on.  Our Mothers were never told, either, so they couldn’t tell us.

 Our identities and our property were stolen literally “like candy from a baby” and the bastards got away with misrepresenting our political status, too.

 That’s how little John Michael Doe became a ward of the UNITED STATES and became identified as a US CITIZEN operating the commercial “vessel” JOHN MICHAEL DOE.

 That’s how we were press ganged and enslaved by the Queen of England and the Roman Pontiff, even though they are both supposed to be acting as our International Trustees.

Really folks, you simply must read and understand that we are (according to the corporation we think is an elected government) nothing but an instrument. They have used every kind of non applicable laws to design a secret system of artificial debts to replace living soul people. Yes, it is complicated, but you either study and learn what you are in the corporation’s eyes or you remain a slave to their system of repulsive laws. There is no way to regain your status as a living soul that is protected by the original Constitution for the United States until you understand the process and file the forms. And even then the ignorant people who rely on the corporation for their livelihood will constantly harass you. BUT, with study you can sidestep their illegal authority. The bottom line is we do not have any GOD given rights in the eyes of the corporate government. So yes, you are a slave!!!  You can remain a slave to this unspeakable travesty, or you can become a free human soul as God intended. Your choice! For those with courage start here. You Know Something is Wrong When….. An American Affidavit of Probable Cause by Anna Maria Riezinger and Paul Alan Snover

https://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong-When/dp/1491279184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486047612&sr=1-1&keywords=YOU+KNOW+SOMETHING+IS+WRONG+WHEN

Here are some real facts you are unaware of.

 The United States is still under the authority of the Queen Of England and the Pope.

 We are not recognized as human beings, but fictional corporate documents that are traded for profit.

 As crazy as it sounds, it is a proven fact, and there is only two ways to redeem your status, civil war, or some confusing reading and action on your part.

 So your choices are

SLAVERY,

WAR

OR STUDY AND ACTION

For over four hundred of Anna’s articles you can go here: http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/02/the-final-end-of-fraud-hail-emperors.html

READ, LEARN, AND EDUCATE

 If you are still not convinced, watch this:

http://www.ini-world-report.org/2017/02/25/the-most-informative-video-yet/

GUN CONTROL

Four Agencies to Abolish along with the Dept of Education

February 24th, 2017 by

https://mises.org/blog/four-agencies-abolish-along-dept-education

by Ryan McMaken

In the wake of the Senate’s confirmation of the appointment of Betsy DeVos, the protests from the left prompted Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to offer them a way to get rid of DeVos: eliminate the Department of Education

According to Massie, he’d been planning to introduce the bill for more than a year, and the controversy over DeVos appeared to be as good a time as any. 

There’s no harm in Massie introducing the bill, of course, although as I’ve noted here, the odds of Republicans offering much help to Massie in passing the bill are pretty low. 

But as long as we’re identifying cabinet-level agencies for the chopping block, why stop with the Department of Education

There are plenty of other Departments which oversee activities that could easily be done by state and local agencies, or which should just be reduced to their former less-exalted positions in the federal ecosystem. 

For starters, we’ll just address some of the low-hanging fruit. Here are agencies that can be eliminated with relative ease, either because they are recently-created, redundant, or utterly unnecessary. 

One: The Department of Homeland Security, $51 Billion

Somehow, the United States managed to get along for more than 225 years before this Department was created by Congress and the Bush Administration in 2002. 

The Department Quickly became a way for the federal government to spread federal taxpayer dollars to state and local law enforcement agencies, thus gaining greater control at the local level. The DHS administers a number of grant programs that have helped to purchase a variety of new toys for law enforcement groups including new weapons, and new technologies. Also included in this is the infamous military surplus program which is supplies tanks and other military equipment to police forces everywhere from big cities to small rural towns. The crime-free town of Keene, New Hampshire made sure its police received a tank through this program as have many larger cities. 

When the Orlando gunman opened fire in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, the police eventually rolled up in a tank — which did nothing to stem the bloodshed inside the club. 

Police claim they need these half-million-dollar vehicles from the DHS to deal with civil unrest. Never mind, of course, that every state already has a National Guard force specifically for that purpose. 

While the Department was created in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Department does nothing to address anything like a 9/11-style attack, and all the agencies that were supposed to provide intelligence on such attacks — the FBI for instance — already exist in other departments and continue to enjoy huge budgets. 

DHS also includes agencies that already existed in other departments before, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the agencies that handle immigration and customs. Those agencies should either be returned to the departments they came from or be abolished. 

And, few would miss the Transportation Security Administration — an agency that has never caught a single terrorist, but has smuggled at least $100 million worth of cocaine. 

Two: The EPA, $8.3 billion. 

It seems at least one member of Congress already beat me to this one, and a bill to “terminate the Environmental Protection Agency” was introduced on February 3. 

Created under Nixon in 1970, this agency largely exists today to push around small-time business owners, entrepreneurs, and mom-and-pop organizations that run afoul or some obscure federal regulation. More recently, The EPA dumped three million gallons of toxic sludge into a Colorado river, poisoning the Navajo Nation’s watershed. Meanwhile, the agency is suing a city in Colorado because the city’s storm drains aren’t exactly right.  

Local property owners and local governments already have a large incentive to avoid the destruction of rivers and air used by local communities. In the modern era of nature-based recreation, destroying a mountain river — as the EPA has done — is an easy way to destroy the local economy. 

Moreover, most of the environmental cleanup we attribute to federal regulation today was simply the result of growing wealth in the US. As Americans became wealthier, they began to value clean air and water more than the jobs associated with the “dirty” industries. Does anyone seriously believe that the Cuyahoga River would start catching on fire again without an EPA? It’s not going to happen.

Three: Department of the Interior, $14 billion

The most notorious agency within the Department of the Interior is the Bureau of Indian affairs. The BIA controls 55 million acres of land which is — to use the darkly euphemistic term employed by the Feds — “held in trust” by the US government. That means the Indian tribes can’t control their own land unless a bureaucrat at the Department of the Interior says so. 

Given that the tribes should be totally independent of federal regulation, the BIA should be abolished immediately. Any relations between the tribes and US government should be handled by the State Department, which is the appropriate place to deal with organizations that are supposed to be governed primarily by treaties with the United States. 

The other main purpose of the Interior is the control of immense amounts of “public lands” including national parks. The Department is unnecessary here as well, given that public land should be administered by the communities that are economically dependent on those lands. Moreover, whether we like the idea of public lands or not, the chances of public lands being privatized — if made into state lands — is approximately zero. State parks, national forests, and national parks are very popular with voters and moving them from federal control to state control won’t change this.[1]  

Four: The Department of Agriculture, $153 billion

This is the most expensive of the Departments funded here — primarily because the USDA oversees the Food Stamp program — now known as SNAP — which costs more than $70 billion. The reason the SNAP program is in the USDA is that SNAP has always largely been a subsidy program for farmers. One of its original selling points was that it would get people to buy more food. SNAP could be rolled into the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon, and virtually no one would notice or care. the USDA bureaucracy simply adds more cost. 

That wouldn’t do anything to eliminate that $70 billion food stamp spending, of course. But it would make it much easier, politically speaking, to get rid of the remaining 80 billion of the USDA’s budget. 

The rest of the USDA is composed of pork projects for farmers, researchers, and other corporate interests that continually receive the taxpayer’s largesse. 

The USDA also administers its own affordable housing programs, even though several major programs for affordable housing already exist in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  

The Problem with Cabinet Level Agencies 

A lot of what we’ve discussed here falls short of totally abolishing the government spending associated with these Departments. These are all extremely mild reforms and mere baby steps toward a more human-sized federal government. 

But ending cabinet level status for many of these agencies is a crucial first step in cutting these agencies down to size. It is likely not a coincidence that no cabinet-level agency, with the exception of the Postal Service, has ever lost its cabinet-level status, and certainly none have ever been abolished. 

When a government agency is lifted to the cabinet level, it gains political prestige, permanence, and direct access to the President. In other words, it makes that agency more easily able to lobby Congress, the White house, and to fight budget cuts. The fact that abolishing the Department of Education — without even abolishing all its programs — is now seen as some sort of wildly radical position — illustrates the power of the cabinet-level agency. 

Olddogs Comments!

HOORAY, HORRAY The un-educators are on their way

OUT!

That would be the best thing that ever happened to America!

Next is, out with corporate governments!

EDUCATION

ONLY FOOLS TRUST GOVERNMENT ACADEMIA AND THE MEDIA

February 22nd, 2017 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron289.htm

GOVERNMENTBy Ron Ewart
February 22, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

The crack of FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi’s sniper rifle echoed across the forest as it tore through Kevin Harris and then passed through Vicki Weaver’s head, as Kevin dove through the door of the Idaho cabin in August of 1992. The FBI sniper had already wounded Randy Weaver. Vicki was cradling her infant daughter in one hand and holding the door in the other. Her older daughter was standing next to Vicki and as the bullet ripped through Vicki’s brain, pieces of her hair, scalp, skull, skin and blood splattered the older daughter standing next to her.

Because of an earlier event where a U. S. Marshal was killed by Randy Weaver’s 14-year old son, and the son was killed by the other U. S. Marshals, an FBI “kill order” went out to all FBI agents that had descended on the scene. The Weavers were to be killed on sight. The wholly preventable tragic episode lasted 11 days. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bo Gritz was successful in negotiating an end to the standoff. The event stemmed from Randy Weaver trying to sell two sawed off shotguns to an ATF informant and then not showing up for his court hearing, leading to U. S. Marshals showing up at the cabin.

Rumors that the FBI had engaged in a cover-up regarding the Ruby Ridge operation were verified when E. Michael Kahoe, former chief of the FBI’s violent crimes section, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1996. Kahoe, who had destroyed an official bureau critique of the standoff, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Weaver and Harris won a $3.1 Million dollar settlement from the government.

The well-known government siege that occurred at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas between February 28th and April 19th in 1993 was a similar event of out-of-control government power. It resulted in the death of 76 people, including young children living in the compound, burned to death by the ensuing fire. The memory of that event is burned into the minds of conservatives all over America.

Also burned into the memory of millions of Americans, especially Japanese Americans, was FDR’s February 19, 1942 Executive Order 9066, which interned (jailed) upwards of 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry in military camps on the West Coast. The government used the military to round up these Americans and don’t think for one minute the government wouldn’t do it again. Now do you still trust government?

Never forget that government is force and it is power. Thomas Jefferson warned us that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Has the U. S. Government become tyrannical? You decide.

But this government over-reach and abuse of power doesn’t stop there. In a much more recent case, FBI agents and Oregon County Sheriffs and State Patrol Troopers staged an ambush on a desolate, snowy stretch of Oregon highway to apprehend Ammon Bundy and the others that occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest the incarceration of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The ambush led to the assassination by the officers of Lavoy Finicum, one of the occupiers of the wildlife refuge. A jury would later acquit the surviving occupiers, to the dismay and disappointment of the government prosecutors.

We wrote about the event in a recent article: “Over the last several decades, small, local skirmishes, sometimes violent, started erupting in different parts of the West, in response to the government and environmental land grab, which led to the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970’s. The skirmishes started to grow in size, which culminated in the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 at Bunkerville, NV between 200 heavily armed BLM agents and several hundred private citizens carrying guns. A shooting war where private citizens would start dying in the desert for all to see at the hands of federal agents, wouldn’t play well with public opinion. The event was widely covered by the news media and the government wisely stood down.”

As Americans push back against rising government abuse, harassment, interference and growing regulations, government responds with overwhelming force, totally out of proportion to the event, in an overt act of tyranny, as they did in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; Waco, Texas; Bunkerville, Nevada and Burns, Oregon.

But it’s not just government that Americans can’t trust. The lack of trust also extends to the news media and even academia. Both lie extensively, distort events to fit their agenda and infuse events and even science with a rabid Progressive mindset, man-caused global warming being a glaring example.

A few days ago the Associated Press reported a bogus story that the President was going to use the National Guard to round up illegal aliens and deport them, whether criminals or not. The story was an outright fabrication, in other words, fake news.

In a recent article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, he wrote: “Ladies and gentlemen, we were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. That most recent attack didn’t involve a horrible loss of lives, but it was devastating in its own way.”

Devastating Mr. Friedman? How? Devastating to Progressives maybe. Friedman purposely fails to recognize and attacks the 63,000,000 Americans in the 30 states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. They voted for a candidate that was going to shake up the status quo and rattle the timbers of the establishment elite. They voted for Trump because they had grown tired and angry over decades of failed Progressive policies. Trump, as flawed as he may be, was and is the flag bearer of that shake up and Friedman, the New York Times, academia and the rest of the national Progressive crowd are crying like a hungry baby with a dirty diaper because they didn’t get their way.

How can you trust columnists, reporters and news outlets that purposely distort the news, make up the news ….. or lie?

But let’s not forget those liberal colleges that pretend to teach your college-age children. These liberal professors are so brainwashed into thinking that liberalism and Progressivism are sacrosanct, they do everything in their power to silence any other avenue of thought. No, not every college professor is a rabid liberal carrier of the Progressive disease, but unfortunately, most of them are. We’ve selected a few quotes from college professors that illustrate the institutionalized liberal and often radical bias that exists in almost every college in America.

“Simply put: Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers. …How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?” — Robert Jensen, University of Texas at Austin

“On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die — and to kill — for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity.” — Shahid Alam, Northeastern University

“I live to harass white folks.” — Derrick Bell, Harvard

“The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God d*mn you.” — David Guth, University of Kansas

“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” — John Daly, Warren County Community College

“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military…I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” — Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.” — Bill Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago

“As to those in the World Trade Center…Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” — Ward Churchill, University of Colorado at Boulder

The foregoing is just a sample of what liberal professors actually think. We found many more comments just as egregious.

But our educational institutions don’t begin and end with liberal indoctrination in America’s colleges. It goes all the way back to Kindergarten and through 12th grade public education that has now been infected with Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We described CCSS in our August 7, 2013 article entitled: Common Core Standards – Suspicions Confirmed.” Common Core State Standards are riddled with United Nations internationally defined social justice and radical environmentalism. One of the standards includes this all-illuminating phrase: “CCSS must respond to equity as a meaningful process to address the social justice issues of race, language, gender and class bias.” This statement was in a math class directive. A math class!?

The other words and phrases that caught our eye in CCSS were “social interactionist theories”, “social and cultural theories”, “social contexts” and “equity.” The words “social” and “equity” are recurrent themes in everything we read about Common Core State Standards. These words come right out of United Nations socialist policies, parroted by liberals and you won’t find them in the U. S. Constitution.

Social justice and social equity have now become more important and have greater priority in the public school curriculum than Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic.

The point of all this discussion is, how can you trust the utterances of academia, or even teachers in K-12, when a huge majority of the professors and teachers are steeped in only one ideological, philosophical and political point of view that vehemently rejects any other point of view?

How can you trust government when it abuses its power so readily, so often and with deadly force against its own citizens? How can you trust the news media when it creates false news and outright lies to their viewing, reading and listening audiences?

If the people cannot trust their government, or the news media, or academia, or public education, then these entities have become the enemy of the people and must be resisted by any and all means.

Finally, there is a president who will bring that resistance to the front doors of these entities in open and notorious defiance. If he succeeds, that could be the turning point that conservatives have been waiting and praying for, ever since the days of President Woodrow Wilson and the 16th Amendment.

Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, after over 100 years, Progressivism is so embedded in our institutions and the mindset of the people, it may be that only a revolution will break the strangle hold it has on our culture, our economics and our freedom. At this time, there simply is no organized and well-financed resistance to unravel Progressivism and like all Republics before us, the people will wait until it is too late to mount an effective challenge. All the words and utterances in all the conservative venues won’t change anything. In contrast, The Other Side is well organized and well funded. Hopefully, some day, the people will come to realize that Progressivism is as much a danger to freedom as the atomic bomb is a danger to the entire human race.

Let us know if you LIKED this article.

© 2017 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America“. Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. Affiliated NARLO websites are “SAVE THE USA” and “Getting Even With Government” . Ron can be reached for comment HERE.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

GOVERNMENT

JEFFERSON OR HITLER WHOSE PLAN ARE WE FOLLOWING?

February 20th, 2017 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=625

OPINIONSBy Michael Gaddy

When James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”

In opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.

So, why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people, ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Unfortunately for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats and a huge majority of people in this country.

So-called “conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual states.

On the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:

“…(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Giving the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat.

On this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention:

“If the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . . If they are not given up, where are they secured?

I do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national” government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered and finally extinct.

So, how is this connected to Adolf Hitler you ask? The answer can be found on page 572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf.  While lamenting that Bismarck had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler said:

“And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . .”

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.

Abraham Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with the limits of a constitution.

Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.

The candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil, murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty that they are.

Contrast please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson.

“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 578

“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798

As you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most closely resembles the government we h

Who do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

Olddogs Comments!

I would like to add my two cents to this great article, and that is how utterly stupid, traitorous lovers of democracy are! How can anyone be so stupid to not see the damage caused by practicing democracy in a country where every idiot believes their opinions are sacred rights? When has anyone witnessed an army win a war where every John Dick and Harry in uniform had an equal right to enforce his action plan? History is nothing more than absolute proof that strong absolute leadership must be enforced to win wars, but it is just the opposite in the administration of Nations, where men of high intellect band together in solidarity to manage the economy, and hundreds of other important decisions, ALL UNDER THE GUIDE LINES IN THE CONSTITUTION. Give me a Republic, or give me death! Those of you reading this that firmly believe your OPINION must be law need to tie a rope around a tree and the other end around you worthless neck and jump off the cliff. Your type of scumbags is the reason Christianity has no solidarity. Every Preacher now believes he is the only one preaching truth. Every Church you go to preaches a different philosophy, because the preachers are theologically ignorant. Such is the power of divisive multiculturalism.

If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American’s,  suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed. “From the Redemption Manual”

OPINIONS

Coming Soon to a City Near You: The U.S. Military’s Plan to Take Over America

February 15th, 2017 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/coming_soon_to_a_city_near_you_the_u.s._militarys_plan_to_take_over_am

CHAOSBy John W. Whitehead
February 13, 2017

“Our current and past strategies can no longer hold. We are facing environments that the masters of war never foresaw. We are facing a threat that requires us to redefine doctrine and the force in radically new and different ways. The future army will confront a highly sophisticated urban-centric threat that will require that urban operations become the core requirement for the future land-force. The threat is clear. Our direction remains to be defined. The future is urban.”— “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command

The U.S. military plans to take over America by 2030.

No, this is not another conspiracy theory. Although it easily could be.

Nor is it a Hollywood political thriller in the vein of John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May about a military coup d’etat.

Although it certainly has all the makings of a good thriller.

No, this is the real deal, coming at us straight from the horse’s mouth.

According to “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. military plans to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems.

What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future—a future the military is preparing for—bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.

And then comes the kicker.

Three-and-a-half minutes into the Pentagon’s dystopian vision of “a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers,” the ominous voice of the narrator speaks of a need to “drain the swamps.”

Drain the swamps.

Surely, we’ve heard that phrase before?

Ah yes.

Emblazoned on t-shirts and signs, shouted at rallies, and used as a rallying cry among Trump supporters, “drain the swamp” became one of Donald Trump’s most-used campaign slogans, along with “build the wall” and “lock her up.”

Funny how quickly the tides can shift and the tables can turn.

Whereas Trump promised to drain the politically corrupt swamps of Washington DC of lobbyists and special interest groups, the U.S. military is plotting to drain the swamps of futuristic urban American cities of “noncombatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within.”

And who are these noncombatants, a military term that refers to civilians who are not engaged in fighting?

They are, according to the Pentagon, “adversaries.”

They are “threats.”

They are the “enemy.”

They are people who don’t support the government, people who live in fast-growing urban communities, people who may be less well-off economically than the government and corporate elite, people who engage in protests, people who are unemployed, people who engage in crime (in keeping with the government’s fast-growing, overly broad definition of what constitutes a crime).

In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. military, noncombatants are American citizens a.k.a. domestic extremists a.k.a. enemy combatants who must be identified, targeted, detained, contained and, if necessary, eliminated.

Welcome to Battlefield America.

In the future imagined by the Pentagon, any walls and prisons that are built will be used to protect the societal elite—the haves—from the have-nots.

We are the have-nots.

Suddenly it all begins to make sense.

The events of recent years: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.

This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out.

Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities and persuade them that there is nothing they can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.

Before long, no one will even notice the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, the police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns.

It’s happening already.

The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.

Few seem to care about the government’s endless wars abroad that leave communities shattered, families devastated and our national security at greater risk of blowback. Indeed, there were no protests in the streets after U.S. military forces raided a compound in Yemen, killing “at least eight women and seven children, ages 3 to 13.”

Their tactics are working.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.

Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that labelled right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) and called on the government to subject such targeted individuals to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance. Almost a decade later, after spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.

Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.

It’s astounding how convenient we’ve made it for the government to lock down the nation.

So what exactly is the government preparing for?

Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.

I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.

This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

What is the government preparing for? You tell me.

Better yet, take a look at the Pentagon’s training video.

It’s only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset, the way its views the citizenry, and the so-called “problems” that the military must be prepared to address in the near future. Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution, about the rights of the citizenry, and about the dangers of using the military to address political and social problems.

The future is here.

We’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front.

By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence has become almost inevitable.

Be warned: in the future envisioned by the military, we will not be viewed as Republicans or Democrats. Rather, “we the people” will be enemies of the state.

As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re already enemies of the state.

For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist. What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, whether intentional or not.

“We the people” have become enemy #1.

CHAOS

Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles But They Need Our Help

February 10th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3124-globalists-want-to-destroy-conservative-principles-but-they-need-our-help

CIVIL WAR

By Brandon Smith

For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:

“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”

I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on.  As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.

Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2TkEqnp-2w

Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwA_0FKR9f4

The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”

I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.

This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.

That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?

I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.

But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.

As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.

There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.

Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.

Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.

What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”

I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.

As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:

“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”

“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”

“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”

“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”

And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.

I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.

Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.

As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”.  The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.

The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.

This is the globalist’s long game.

While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”

The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.

It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.

The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy.  No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders.  The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.

Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.

This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.

It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.

Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.

 If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

 You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

WANTED:

One hundred million AMERICAN’S

capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!

Contact olddog@anationbeguiled.com

FOR INSTRUCTIONS!

CIVIL WAR

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG ! PART ONE

February 7th, 2017 by

 

— The “United States” is NOT the “united States of America”

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/everything-you-know-about-the-united-states-and-

its-laws-is-wrong-the-united-states-is-not-the-united-states-of-america/

PART ONE

 by JohnHenryHill

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG !

 The “United States” is NOT the “United States of America”

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

April 26, 2013; Revised August 24, 2014

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine

If you wish to open and/or download this 106 page essay as a Microsoft WORD document, please click here:     The_US_Is_Not_the_USA__8-24-2014

 

Preface

Almost everything you think you know about the government of the United States of America (the Union) and its laws is WRONG. Not just a few things– but rather almost everything!

When the Union of the various states was formed, the American people were NOT illiterate peasants. They understood very well the meanings of the words and terms used in the Constitution; and they knew the difference between the Common Law, Equity (Contract) law and Admiralty law – which are the ONLY types of law allowed by the  Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and the people in general understood in such great detail the concepts on which the Union was to be founded that they put us to shame by our ignorance

The Importance of Definitions

In order to communicate more effectively many professions have developed specific vocabularies containing very precise definitions. The vocabulary in every-day English as used by the public changes greatly over relatively short periods of time. Conversely, in order to maintain precise meanings of words, the vocabulary of certain professions is very stable – words tend to retain their meanings over long periods of time. For example, in medicine the phrase “heart attack” is often used by the public. However, for a medical doctor the term “heart attack” means little – instead he would refer to a very specific cardiac event, such as a “myocardial infarction” (death of heart tissue due to insufficient blood and oxygen), an “arrythmia” (irregular heart beat caused by abnormal electrical conduction within the heart), a “ventricular fibrillation” (a specific type of arrythmia – called a “can-of-worms” electrical conduction phenomenon – in the lower-left pumping chamber of the heart which renders the pumping action completely ineffective), or some other specific term. Similarly, a very precise and stable vocabulary has developed for law and the legal profession – what some have called “legalese”. Indeed, in law many definitions have remained fairly static over centuries – and when a new term is used or a new meaning is given to an existing term or word, that term is usually explicitly defined within that new statute. The problems arise when the definitions of specialized terms used by a profession depart from the definitions used by the general public, so that the terms become misleading or totally inaccurate.

For example, the term “client” in ordinary English refers to a customer. However, in law a “client” is a man who is mentally incompetent to act on his own behalf in court. In ordinary English a “person” refers to a man, woman or child. In law, a “person” is defined as a legal fiction and a corporation. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. by John Bouvier. Published 1856.) Likewise in law a “human being” is defined as a “monster”; a “citizen” is defined as an “officer or employee”; the word “must” means “may”; the word “including” is inclusive – meaning it means only the items following the word “include”; and even the term the “United States” has at least very different THREE legal definitions within the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions.

Examples:

1.) SHALL – The following court decisions leave no doubt about the legal meaning of “Shall”. “Shall” means MAY – thus, when a statute states that you SHALL do something, it is in truth stating that you MAY or MAY NOT do that something. You are NOT obligated to do it: the choice is yours!

As against the government the word “shall” when used in statutes, is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court

“Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt. George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may” …. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136

2.) AUTOMOBILE and MOTOR VEHICLE – There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.’”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

“Driver” is defined as a person operating a vehicle in commerce. (that is, being paid for doing so)

Transportation” is defined as the movement of goods or people in a vehicle engaged in commerce. (A “carrier” is defined as a business engaged in the movement of goods or people in commerce – that is, being paid to do so.)

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or for hire. State and the federal governments have the authority to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions because any business (corporation) is a “creature of the state”.  Since a corporation is a “legal fiction” created by the state, that corporation’s use of public roads for financial gain may be regulated by the state via legislated statutes. (The legal concept of financial “gain”– often called simply “gain” – is important to understand, as it means profits derived from investments and/or from the labor of other people; it does NOT mean money earned by a man’s own labor) However, under the Common Law (still the primary law in America, superseding all statutes) and numerous Supreme Court rulings, a man traveling upon a public road in a private automobile who is NOT being paid for doing so is exercising his Common Law right to travel; and is NOT subject to any legislated acts (statutes) or any regulations derived therefrom – and therefore is NOT subject to speed limits, car registration, or any of the other regulations derived from legislated statutes (acts). In Common Law, legislated statutes (acts) are NOT Law; these statutes only gain the “force of law” upon the CONSENT of each  individual man. Under the Common Law a man  commits a crime ONLY if he injures another man or that man’s property (technically, in law a man’s rights and his body are considered his own property); or causes a “disturbance of the peace”. Under the Common Law a man has the unlimited right to enter into a contract or, conversely, to NOT enter into a contract..No contract forced upon a man is considered valid, but instead is considered null and void ab initio (from its beginning). The key factor is that a man may WAIVE some of his  rights under the Common Law by entering into a CONTRACT with another party for “consideration” – the mutual exchange of things of approximately equal value. A man’s rights under the Common Law are waived to the extent specified in that particular contract; and the ancient maxim under Commercial Law then applies: “The contract makes the law.” In short, this maxim means that the terms within the contract upon which two parties voluntary agreed become the Law on which disputes regarding that contract will be settled. Applying for and receiving a state-issued “Driver’s License” is such a contract – in which you voluntarily admit that you are a “driver” operating a “motor vehicle” engaged in commerce. Therefore, by obtaining a state-issued driver’s license, you voluntarily confirmed that you are a driver engaged in commerce and thereby submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the state’s statutes and regulations. Of course, even though you may possess a driver’s license (perhaps you are a taxi driver) you may not have been getting paid for transporting people when the police stopped you for “speeding”. However, because you have a “driver’s license”, the PRESUMPTION exists that you are engaged in commerce and therefore subject to statutes and their jurisdiction. And since you probably do NOT rebut this presumption to the court (in a written, sworn affidavit prior to going to court), this unrebutted presumption is accepted as a fact in law by the court. Two maxims of law apply here: “A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” And “He, who does not object, agrees.” But let us not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The United States v the United States of America

The Constitution was a commercial compact (a CONTRACT in the form of a TRUST) between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”   — Thomas Jefferson

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution: common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

Jurisdiction has many facets dealing with the various aspects and modalities of law and justice, i.e., Tort (Civil) law, Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law, Real Property law, Statute law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional law, to name a few of the fields of jurisprudence. The court must be sitting in the proper jurisdiction to render Justice. No court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Most local courts today sit in the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law utilizing the

Uniform Commercial Code as the authority for their moving.

1865 – 13th Amendmentpeople could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.

1868 – a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the “United States” was created and incorporated in Delaware.

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both  subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States  AND  2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of  D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the “United States” incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term “United States” meant ONLY the “District of Columbia”; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.

1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, “U.S. citizens” as defined in the 14th Amendment

1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply “discharged”

March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.   (YIKES! Read that again.)

1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.

1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.

1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.

1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first section of  STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. The word “person” is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a “person”.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

  1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
  2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
  3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
  4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
  5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of great importance is that BOTH conditions must be met in order for a man to be a “citizen of the United States”: (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]. If you were born in Vermont but never agreed by contract to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then you can assert that you are a citizen of Vermont, but NOT a citizen of the United States. By doing so, you are NOT subject to any statutes (acts) passed by Congress or any Federal regulations. The “catch” is that when you walk into any court, that court makes the presumption that you are a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to that court’s jurisdiction. And under the Common Law, “a presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” – meaning that you must OBJECT in writing (and verbally, often many times) to their presumption and make them prove it, since any presumption challenged (objected to) by a man in a court must be proven by that court, as the “burden of proof” always falls upon the one making the claim. Further, you could assert that you are neither a citizen of any state nor a citizen of the United States – and both that state and the United States would have to prove otherwise.

You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person.”

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.” The “person” or “persona” is NOT the real man or woman; rather it is an artificial representation;  a false image of the man or woman.

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

 Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courtsmay hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Executive Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction also denotes the area over which the executive or legislative powers or laws of a government extend. Similarly, the term also denotes the territory over which a state exerts or claims sovereignty or power (sometimes known as territorial jurisdiction).

In private international law, a supranational organization (e.g. the European Union), a nation-state, or a province (i.e. a subnational “state”) in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States), may all exercise jurisdiction although the problem of forum shopping is growing.

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

 “To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.

“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

 When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land [the Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 (1905)

We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

“..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier [corporation] in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

and…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and…

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of

 1938 – Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years, Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which was a very similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Swift v Tyson was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Further, since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court.

You must realise that the Court you are standing in is an Admiralty/Law Merchant Court under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which recognizes only two classes of entities, “Creditors” and “Debtors.”, dealing only in the terms and conditions of “Contractual Obligations.” It is NOT a Constitutional Court of proper jurisdiction to secure the Rights of Sovereign Citizens.

YOU MUST ESTABLISH THE PROPER JURISDICTION!

Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits of equity where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. [NOTE: ONLY a Common Law court can be a “court of record“ and thus a court of general jurisdiction.] In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of special or limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. These controversies between states or between people from different states are called “jurisdictional diversity” cases and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.” (Note – of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

“Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy.” – 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

“Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

“Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides………..use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power.”

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that its use indicates that our Constitutional Republic no longer exists. Our system of law was changed without the public’s knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God’s Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. Formerly, you were able to own property (allodial title) and to do whatever you wished on that property, with no need for any licenses or to pay property taxes. Since 1933 people do NOT own their property, but rather possess “equitable title” which grants them the “right of use” of that property, but NOT true ownership. Thus, they are no longer the true owners, but are legally considered tenants on the land. If you still think you own your property, stop paying taxes – and soon thereafter, your home and property will be seized by the government under the “prize law” under Admiralty jurisdiction.

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership’ is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” – Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts payable in Gold” written in 1933.

By our allowing these military flags to fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you’ll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law: the Common Law (the “law of the land”), Equity Law (legislated acts; as statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.) and Admiralty Law (the “law of the sea”; “Law Merchant”; “Maritime-Admiralty Law”; the “Law of Commerce”; or “commercial law”). The familiar “Stars and Stripes” flag is NOT the official U.S. flag. Indeed, before World War 2, most public and private buildings within a state flew ONLY their state flag. Each state considered itself a “sovereign nation” with respect to the other states and with respect to the United States – and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this as a fact in law. Therefore, for a state-owned building to fly a U.S. flag would mean that it had surrendered its sovereignty and was now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Only Federal buildings under civilian control, such as the Post Office, flew the “U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime”, most notable for its vertical stripes and its blue stars on a white field (background) This U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime (pictured immediately below) is the true official flag of the United States of America.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONMost Americans are unaware of this fact; and those who are aware believe it to be meaningless. However, under U.S. and international Maritime law, the “Law of the Flag” (which is a legal concept first developed under Maritime-Admiralty Law) is still of major legal importance, since the flag you display signals the nation under whose legal jurisdiction you are governed, on land and, most importantly, on a ship at sea. Operating a ship at sea using an unauthorized flag (not registered with a particular nation) was a most serious offense; it was called a “false flag” or “false colors” or not showing your “true colors”. If a ship was caught flying a “false flag”, the ship and its cargo were subject to confiscation and its captain (and possibly even its crew) subject to the death penalty by an Admiralty court hearing issuing a “summary judgment” – no trial by jury. Only two issues were considered: the fact that the ship flew a “false flag” and whether the captain possessed the proper Certificate of Registration from that nation authorizing him to fly that flag. That ship and its captain (and often its crew) were thereby considered “outlaws”, meaning that they were “outside the law” and therefore had forfeited all their rights and legal protections under the law. So-called “pirates” were an example of such “outlaws”.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONThe following is a legal definition of the term Law of the Flag.

“…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it [that is, if he consents], there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Don’t be misled by the fact they are talking about the sea, and presume that the “law of the flag” does not apply on land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come onto land. Next a court case:

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

When you walk into a court and see this flag (with yellow fringe) you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign. You’re probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here’s how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that’s what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)   U.S. Supreme Court

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.— Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…” “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” — Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” — Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

All district courts are admiralty courts,   see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” — Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American’s aren’t aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the Constitution does NOT apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, he will probably state that it is statutory law and he has “statutory jurisdiction”. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don’t exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing its procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder, etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It’s up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king’s government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don’t it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again, where is the injured party or parties? – There are NO injured parties and thus this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

“Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?…. Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.” — Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

As mentioned above, on April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning the “Common Law” in the federal government. (ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938))

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938) In short, in Erie RR v Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that henceforth within the United States, ALL crimes would be considered COMMERCIAL crimes – that is, subject to Contract Law (Commercial Law; Maritime-Admiralty); and NOT to the Common Law, thereby voiding the Constitution and all legal precedence since Colonial times. Further, under Commercial Law, rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution were OPTIONAL upon the courts (“privileges” that the court may or may not see fit to grant) – so a 12-person “trial by jury” under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution was no longer required. A judge could decide on his own whether to issue a “summary judgment” upon a defendant with no trial by jury; or he could decide to offer a defendant a “jury trial” (composed of as few jurors as the judge wished; thus NOT a true “trial by jury” of 12 people; or the judge could offer the defendant a “jury trial”, but any “verdict” of this jury was no longer lawfully binding on the judge, but instead was considered only an “advisory opinion” to the judge, which the judge could accept or reject as he wished. Thus, if a man was found “not guilty” by the jury in a “jury trial” under Commercial Law, the judge legally could ignore the jury’s verdict and declare that man “guilty”. To repeat, since the 1938 Erie RR v Tompkins case, ALL crimes and offences in the United States are considered to be “commercial crimes” in relation to the 1933 Bankruptcy Act of the United States and under which ALL U.S. citizens are considered “debtors” as surety for the debt owed by the U.S. government to foreign banks.

On May 18, 1951 during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product. One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). By 1968, the U.S. government, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands had enacted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) — the only exception being Louisiana. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, judges will often refer to it as “Statutory Jurisdiction”.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

Please read carefully the following definition regarding Social Security to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

Contribution: Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of “contribution,” a tort-feasor [wrong doer] against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor [wrong doer] whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note – tort feasor means wrong doer; what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer’s share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. — (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did NOT affect citizens of the United States:

“Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.” [thus: the PEOPLE of America became the “alien enemy”]

Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

“My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.” — Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nation’s 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said “money is the root of all evil” The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

“That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our children’s fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

“In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

“Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”

Here is the legal phrase ”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

“As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES (emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” – United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death….But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers.” – Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this, so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency….Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years [since 1917], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency….from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” – Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you’ll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed.” – (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as:

One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. – 1 Kent 73.

He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during time of war; – 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we’ve been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

“The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as “alien enemy” within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship.” – Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

“Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an “alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder.” – Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

“By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy’ as if he were born there.” – Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress’ actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

Letter of Marque: A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914.

Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

“The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” — Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I’m not even talking about the obvious, which we have already covered, read the following:

“The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.” — Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

How about Clinton’s new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

“The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)”

How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

“…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” — (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

While former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was simultaneously the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States:

Submitted January 28

Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” — Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.

At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don’t know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Mexico, without Congress’ approval. Secretary of Treasury Rubin previously had been president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico. Later, when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, he had the Treasury Mexico’s interest on its debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of interest (entrust) to me.

“Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final.” — Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn’t make up this information; it is the government’s own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

In Which Court Do You Practice Law?

It is very important to appreciate the fact that District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are NOT the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional judicial courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are territorial tribunals that originate in

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Territory Clause); OR legislative (administrative) courts, that originate in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

 Paul Mitchell’s opening brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Gilbertson in

USA v. Gilbertson in District Courts of the United States, DCUS – Minneapolis #4-96-65” cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. Mitchell’s opening brief in

Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269 (especially in section 7d -7f) was even more extensive in scope.

Mitchell cites, for example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories only; not in the states. Thus the USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.

foreign municipal corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C. called the “United States”

“… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State.” in re Merriam’s Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.

The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional

Article III DCUS inside those States.

 FROM: Opening Brief by Plaintiff Paul Mitchell in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269

7(d)      The abrogation clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) cannot retroactively amend federal statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”):

 This honorable Court of Appeals will please take formal judicial Notice of Appellant’s proper and timely challenge now filed in this appeal against 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the ex post facto prohibition.

See legislative history of 1988 amendments, Rep. Kastenmeier: “unwise and potentially unconstitutional”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “separation of powers” as follows:

… [A] power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.

[Williams v. United States]

[289 U.S. 553, 580 (1933)]

However, the high Court in that case erred by defining “Party” in Article III to mean Plaintiff only. This definition contradicts the definition of “Party” as found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) (“Party” embraces both plaintiffs and defendants).

Accordingly, an FRCP amendment effective October 20, 1949, was strictly limited to those rules and could never have altered any existing federal statutes, whether retroactively or otherwise. See further discussion at 7(e) infra.

In particular, see Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938) (term “District Courts of the United States” in its historic and proper sense); Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, § 2(b) (“continuations of existing law”) and § 9 (“the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States”).

7(e)      The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., is vague and deceptive in several of its key provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

By way of introduction, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the instant case, nor do any of the courts situated in any of the federal Territories or Possessions.

California is neither a United States Territory acquired under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (“4:3:2”), nor is it an enclave acquired under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (“1:8:17”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

It is clear from the original Statute at Large quoted above (60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39) that the DCUS is the only federal court with original jurisdiction competent to hear claims arising under the Lanham Act, when the venue is a judicial district of California (or any other State of the Union, for that matter). See 28 U.S.C. 84(b).

The DCUS and the USDC are decidedly not one and the same.

Appellant now supplies further conclusive proof.

The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., contains provisions deliberately written and implemented to foster the false and misleading conclusion that ‑‑ in all matters arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States ‑‑ these two courts are synonymous and identical in all respects whatsoever. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) and the Supremacy Clause in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Appellant honestly trembles at the mere thought of challenging a comprehensive revision, codification, and enactment of all laws that have governed the conduct of the federal courts in this great nation for 54 years.

However, a careful review of the relevant evidence, as found in various sections of Title 28, U.S.C., has rendered that challenge necessary and inevitable.

That careful review now follows:

It is now abundantly evident to Appellant, and Appellant hereby offers to prove, that:

(1)        the Article III DCUS inside the several States were never expressly abolished by Congress;

(2)        Congress knows how to abolish federal courts when it intends to do so; and,

(3)        the Act of June 25, 1948, attempted fraudulently to conceal the DCUS, and to create the false impressions that they had been re‑defined as, replaced by, and/or rendered synonymous with, the USDC.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 132, 451, 610.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are decidedly not favored. See U.S. v. United Continental Tuna, 425 U.S. 164, 168 (1976), for example.

As of this writing, Appellant has assembled an exhaustive list of all statutes in Title 28 that expressly mention either the USDC, the DCUS, or both. For the convenience and edification of all, Appellant now advises this honorable Court, and all interested parties, that the results of this research have been published at Internet URL’s:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.in.28usc.bold.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/usdc.in.28usc.bold.htm

In any Act of Congress, words importing the plural include the singular, and words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things. See 1 U.S.C. 1.

Therefore, the rules of statutory construction strictly bar intermingling of “United States District Courts” with “District Courts of the United States”. Confer also at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

On the other hand, the term “district courts” [sic] does embrace both the DCUS and the USDC, since there appears to be a hierarchical relationship between this term and the courts constituted by Chapter 5 of Title 28. See 28 U.S.C. 451.

This Court is respectfully requested to recognize, and to take formal judicial notice, that the ex post facto restriction in the U.S. Constitution (“1:9:3”) emphatically bars Congress from retroactively re-defining the meaning of “district courts of the United States” as that term was used in all federal legislation prior to June 25, 1948 A.D. See, in particular, the Lanham Act at

60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; other examples abound.

Appellant’s Immunity from ex post facto legislation is a fundamental Right. See the Privileges and Immunities Clause

(“4:2:1”). Federal copyright and trademark laws protect Appellant’s Rights uniformly in every State of the Union.

7(f)       The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional Article III DCUS inside those States.

For example, see all predecessor statutes of 28 U.S.C. 132 for its territorial origins, i.e. § 641 of Title 48, U.S.C, 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions.

Think of it as a clear plastic overlay.

Also, see further discussion on this crucial point in

AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS, Page 6 of 10, lines 3‑27 inclusive (Docket #164), concluding:

Plaintiff has carefully reviewed the history of amendments to this latter statute [60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39], and believes He is legally correct to conclude that the federal court with original jurisdiction of Lanham Act claims has remained unchanged in California and is still the constitutional Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”), and not the legislative

Article IV United States District Court (“USDC”).

A rules amendment effective December 29, 1948, amended the title “Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States” to read “Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts” [underlines and bold added].

And, a rules amendment effective October 20, 1949, substituted the words “United States district courts” for the words “district courts of the United States” throughout the FRCP.

However, the exact scope of these substitutions was limited to the FRCP and could not have affected any federal statutes. See Notes to FRCP Rule 1.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise unaffected by these rule changes, and could not have been affected by these rule changes, notwithstanding the abrogation clause supra.

Moreover, repeals by implication are decidedly not favored by the courts. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987); 74 Am.Jur.2d 21-22 citing Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (1907) and U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213

(1902); Jackson v. Stinnett supra, 102 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 1996); also “Separation of Powers and Delegation of Authority to Cancel Statutes in the Line Item Veto Act and the Rules Enabling Act,” by Leslie M. Kelleher, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, Feb. 2000.

7(g)      In the opinions of recognized constitutional scholars, such as Justice Story, the Congress has affirmative obligations to create and to maintain constitutional district courts, proceeding in judicial mode.

The reasons for this proposition are simple, if not immediately obvious:

The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is quite limited under Article III, as compared to its appellate jurisdiction unde

r Article III.

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article III embraces matters that arise under the

Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States). See also the Arising Under Clause at

3:2:1 in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331 supra.

Cases that arise under the Supremacy Clause, as mirrored by 3:2:1 and by 28 U.S.C. 1331, would need to originate first in an inferior constitutional court, before those cases could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

The exact same argument can be extended to this Court’s appellate jurisdiction: specifically, civil litigation under the Lanham Act must first originate in an inferior constitutional court, before such a case could ever reach the Ninth Circuit on appeal! In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit must proceed in constitutional mode.

The conclusion is inescapable, therefore, that Congress must first create constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode, and then it must also perpetuate them, in order to satisfy Article III and the

Fifth Amendment.

To do otherwise would constitute a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which mandates due process of law (among other things). This mandate is also embodied in numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United States treaty rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause. See Article 14 in that Covenant, for example.

The entire thrust of that Covenant is to guarantee independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction (and not Star Chambers, or other tribunals where summary proceedings are the norm, and where due process is not a fundamental Right (read “shall”) but a privilege granted at the discretion of those tribunals (read “may”)).

In pari materia, compare the language in Rules 201(c) and 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FREv”): the former is discretionary (“may”); the latter is mandatory (“shall”). Confer at “Fundamental right” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (analogous to “shall”).

(Incidentally, Appellant is protesting the Seventh Edition of Black’s, because it has conspicuously omitted any definition of the term “United States” ‑‑ a term which figures prominently throughout federal laws and throughout the U.S. Constitution!)

7(h)      Appellant therefore asserts a fundamental Right to due process of law, which necessarily mandates courts of competent jurisdiction in the first instance. Within the 50 States of the Union, these are the DCUS and only the DCUS.

The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional courts vested by law with competent jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to the federal district courts must be strictly construed [cites 5(c) supra].

Appellant argues that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed as well.

See 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) in the context of interlocutory orders.

Inside the several States of the Union, the United States District Courts (“USDC”) are not constitutional courts vested by law with original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act. Confer at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Sixth.

Inside the several States of the Union, the courts vested by law with competent, original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act are the DCUS.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to these courts have used language and terminology that enjoy a well established historic meaning. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (the term DCUS in its historic and proper sense). Confer at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Sixth.

Within California State, therefore, the DCUS is the only federal court with competent jurisdiction to originate the instant case.

7(i)       Federal municipal law cannot be usurped to switch the instant proceedings from constitutional mode to legislative mode.

The 50 States of the Union are not “United States Districts” [sic]; they are judicial districts! Federal municipal law does not operate, of its own force, inside those judicial districts. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 (the federal zone).

Even though the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are likewise judicial districts, federal municipal law can operate there because neither is a Union State. 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 119.

Nevertheless, federal municipal law is likewise bound by all pertinent restrictions in the U.S. Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution was expressly extended into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively (hereinafter “extension statutes”).

In this context, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

 “It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and even predates it.”  Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

“A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience.” U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338] [(9th Cir. 1984)

Appellant alleges that the nomenclature “United States District” [sic], as found on the caption pages of all federal court orders today, is now being used to trigger legislative mode without adequate notice to litigants, in violation of the

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments (read “fraud”).

This dubious mechanism is called “silent judicial notice” [sic] ‑‑ surely a misnomer, if ever there was one. It would be entirely more accurate to call it “silent legislative notice”, since this practice is a deceptive device now rampant within legislative courts, and the DCUS are currently vacant.

But, has Congress been silent, or merely vague?

7(j)       The extension statutes are monumentally important, in light of highly successful efforts by the federal government, since the year 1866 A.D., to create an absolute legislative democracy within the several States of the Union.

The Guarantee Clause does not require the United States to guarantee a Republic Form of government to itself, but only to the 50 States.

Strictly speaking, Congress was free to create such a democracy, but only within the federal zone, and not within the State zone. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. The territorial reach of such a democracy is necessarily limited to the federal zone, and not beyond. See also the 1866 Civil Rights Act (an early example of federal municipal law) and IRC 3121(e).

Legally speaking, the population of federal citizens now “residing” within the several States of the Union is an absolute legislative democracy, by Congressional intent. Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Sixth.

Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45

(1885). In this context, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is correctly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acquiesced to this questionable legislative intent. Under the Downes Doctrine, the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States that are united by, and under, it. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. This Doctrine is demonstrably specious, because it is contrary to Law.

Another deceptive device, perhaps?

The Downes Doctrine was later extended in the case of Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court ruled that the guaranties [sic] of the U.S. Constitution extend into the federal zone only as Congress makes those guaranties applicable ‑‑ by enacting federal statutes. Under this Doctrine, the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution would not extend into the federal zone without specific legislative action.

This latter presumption is conclusively rebutted by the extension statutes, however. Clearly, all guarantees in the U.S. Constitution have already been expressly extended into D.C. and into all federal Territories, without exception, effectively destroying the Downes Doctrine 30 years before the fact.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law.

It would only compound the ubiquitous errors that have already been made under the Downes Doctrine to treat the States of the Union as federal Territories in any manner whatsoever, least of all by convening territorial courts inside those States.

In this context, therefore, legislative tribunals like the USDC are entirely out of place, and wholly lacking jurisdiction, to entertain any cases that arise under the Lanham Act when States of the Union are the “judicial districts” where the violations are alleged to have occurred.

For now, California is a judicial district, not a legislative district, and original jurisdiction over such cases is clearly vested in courts specifically created to exercise the judicial Power of the United States.

This latter phrase is controlling, because it introduces Article III and forms the basis for all Clauses that Article contains.

Accordingly, for all of the substantive reasons stated above, the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) still remain the only federal courts with original jurisdiction legally competent to hear cases arising under the Lanham Act, when violations of that Act are alleged to have occurred inside States of the Union and across State lines.

7(k)      Vagueness, once fully documented wherever it occurs, will be shown to conflict directly with the stated legislative intent of the Act of June 25, 1948.

The stated legislative intent of that Act is clear enough: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States Code, set out in section 1 of this Act, … shall be construed as continuations of existing law …” [bold emphasis added].

Moreover, “No loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any of such courts on the effective date of this Act shall result from its enactment.” [bold emphasis added]

See Miscellaneous Provisions, Act of June 25, 1948, C. 646, §§ 2 to 39, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, as amended.

In good faith, Appellant constructs these Miscellaneous Provisions to read: “No loss of Rights and no interruption of jurisdiction shall result from its enactment.”

What, then, is meant by the term “existing law”?

If Congress had intended to abolish the DCUS, they would (and they should) have said so. The period between 1789 A.D. and 1948 A.D. spans 159 years of judicial history! Hiding a herd of elephants under a rug would be easier than hiding the DCUS under a pretense.

To reiterate these all important points: Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Repeals by implication (or magic carpets) are decidedly not favored. The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law; without it, courts cannot proceed at all in any cause. Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., __ U.S. __ (1999), No. 98‑470, May 17, 1999 A.D.

In 1946 A.D., two years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the several DCUS. These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Inside the several States of the Union, the DCUS are the only federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Lanham Act.

This is the existing law!

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464

(1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516

(1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50

(1982).

To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC ‑‑ a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date ‑‑ then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

(1)        it exhibits vagueness on this obviously important point;

 (2)        it violates the ex post facto prohibition;

 (3)        it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,

 (4)           it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, summed it up nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

7(l)       There are essential facts in this case which were either too subtle, or too voluminous, for the Magistrate and Judge Shubb to appreciate fully; neither has read and understood the whole docket file. Appellant now highlights these essential facts, to ensure that they are not also overlooked by this honorable Court:

(1)        On August 2, 1998 A.D., certain Defendants defaulted in response to Appellant’s DEMANDS FOR AUTHORIZATION (Exhibit “K”), thus satisfying the 3-year statute of limitations in the Copyright Act. Others defaulted after that date.

(2)        The acts of removing Appellant’s README file, containing His SHAREWARE POLICY, were acts of fraudulent concealment (“active misconduct”) and false designation of origin that resulted in tolling all pertinent statutes of limitation.

(3)        Withholding the identities of subscribers suspected of infringing Appellant’s exclusive copyrights was also an act of fraudulent concealment, making it impossible for the district court to assess actual damages. See Exhibit “J”.

(4)        Withholding the computer activity logs of ISP’s, in response to valid SUBPOENA’s issued under

17 U.S.C. 512(h), was tantamount to further fraudulent concealment and probable cause for contempt of court, and sanctions.

(5)        Counterfeits of the subject book remain on the Internet to this day, e.g. at Internet domain 9X.TC, proving conclusively that the threat of continuing wrong is substantial, premeditated and malicious. See Taylor supra.

(6)           Further retaliations against Appellant, e.g. denial of service attacks on Appellant’s website, physical assault and breach of the contract to serve SUMMONSES, justify immediate relief in the form of preliminary injunctions during pendency of this action

(see RELIEF REQUESTED in the Initial COMPLAINT).

(7)        Appellant’s primary emphasis in preparing the Initial COMPLAINT was to organize the electronic evidence, to preserve it intact, and to make it readily accessible via the Internet and its most popular search engines, e.g. the View | Source option in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

(8)        Printing hard copies of electronic evidence, particularly files coded in HTML, results in hiding the underlying markup codes where crucial evidence of hyperlinks and associated domains is to be found.

(9)        Appellant’s hard copy files contain many additional documents which Appellant has not had time to enter and which should be entered into evidence in the district court, e.g. the written amnesty offers that were mailed to certain suspects in the summer of 1999 A.D.

(10)      The Lanham Act was enacted expressly to enforce treaties like the Declaration and the

Covenant: “The intent of this chapter is … to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.”

See 15 U.S.C. 1127, last paragraph (uncodified).

(11)      Appellant’s Common Law Rights are expressly reserved by the Seventh and Tenth Amendments, the terms of which Congress is barred from re-defining. Thus, to suggest that Congress has abolished common law copyrights necessarily results in infringing Rights guaranteed by those Amendments, in this case. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

(12)      To refer to any of the issues discussed above as “frivolous” is an obnoxious insult to Appellant. Matters that arise under the Supremacy Clause are never frivolous. Why would State and federal laws impose solemn oaths of office on all public officials, if the State and Federal Constitutions were frivolous? Reductio ad absurdum.

Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior to filing your complaint in the district court?

Answer: (not applicable in this civil case)

The 4 United States: Which One Are We Talking About?

 Are you a Citizen, a National, a Resident Alien, or Non-Resident Alien

“United States” as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

(1)     United States* or U.S.* (first meaning)

  The name of the sovereign Nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

 (2)     United States** or U.S.** (second meaning)

  The federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority.

 (3)United States-Corp or US-Corp as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

 

(4)     United States*** or U.S.***

The collective name for the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.

28 U.S.C. 1603(a)(3) states as follows:

(3)        which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title ….

Section 1332(d). The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

 Examples of Two Definitions

of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C.

 First Definition

 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9):

(9)        United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Second Definition

 26 U.S.C. 4612(a)(4)(A):

In general. — The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

[emphasis added]

The Supreme Court stated in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey, 6 U.S. 445, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed 332, that the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, it is apparent that the meaning of the term “States” in the first definition above can only mean the territories and possessions belonging to the “United States”, because of the specific mention of the District of Columbia and the specific absence of the 50 States (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution (see Hepburn supra). Therefore, the 50 States are specifically excluded from this first definition of the term “United States”.

Congress has no problem naming the “50 States” when it is legislating for them, so, in the second definition of the term “United States” above, Congress expressly mentions them, and there is no misunderstanding. If a statute in 26 U.S.C. does not have a special “word of art” definition for the term “United States”, then the First Definition of the term “United States” is always used (see above) because of the general nature of that term as defined by Congress.

When citizens or residents of the first “United States” are without the geographical area of this first “United States”, their “compensation for personal services actually rendered” is defined as “foreign earned income” in 26 U.S.C., Section 911(b) and 911(d)(2), as follows:

911(b) Foreign Earned Income. — …

(d)(2) Earned Income. —

(A)       In general. — The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

A citizen or resident of the first “United States” does not pay a tax on his “compensation for personal services actually rendered” while residing outside of the first “United States”, because Congress has exempted all such compensation from taxation under 26 U.S.C., Section 911(a)(1), which reads as follows:

911(a) Exclusion from Gross Income. — … [T]here shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation … (1) the foreign earned income of such individual ….

When residing without (outside) this “United States”, the citizen or resident of this “United States” pays no tax on “foreign earned income”, but is required to file a return, claiming the exemption (see IRS Form 2555).

26 C.F.R., Section 871-13(c) allows this citizen to abandon his citizenship or residence in the “United States” by residing elsewhere.

26 C.F.R., Section 1.911-2(g) defines the term “United States” as follows:

United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states4, [Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc.] the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, the territorial waters of the United States, the air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law ….

None of the 50 united States comes under the sovereignty of the “United States”, and subsection (h) defines the 50 States united by the Constitution as “foreign countries”:

Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.

[26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h)]

All of the 50 States are foreign with respect to each other and are under the sovereignty of their respective Legislatures, except where a power has been expressly delegated to Congress. The Citizens of each Union State are foreigners and aliens with respect to another Union State, unless they establish a residence therein under the laws of that Union State. Otherwise, they are nonresident aliens with respect to all the other Union States.

The regulations at 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1(a) state, in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

26 U.S.C., Section 1 imposes a tax on “taxable income” as follows, in pertinent part:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … every married individual … who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 ….

The regulations promulgated to explain 26 U.S.C., Section 1 are found in 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1, and state in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

And, for declarations made under the penalties of perjury, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 separately defines declarations made WITHIN and WITHOUT the “United States” as follows:

If executed WITHOUT the United States: I declare … under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare … that the foregoing is true and correct.”

A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques, November 1990 edition, page 146

[emphasis added]

In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of “guilty”, for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written U.S. Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.

Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, “No fiction can make a natural born subject.” Milvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the “United States” as a political entity that the “United States” is sovereign over its creators.

A Ticket to Liberty by Lori Jacques, Nov. 1990, p. 32]

Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein they reside.

[United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]

[emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the “c” is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines “citizens of the United States**” and “citizens of the State wherein they reside”! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. IRC section 1 is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a “citizen” as follows:

Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the use of the term “its jurisdiction”. This leaves no doubt that the “United States**” is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.

Not only did this so-called “amendment” fail to specify which meaning of the term “United States” was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15,641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment’s “adoption” in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not “CA”). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use the foreign address format found in USPS Publication 221 instead).

Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress.

The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed, because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever.

The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and federal citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the “void for vagueness” doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases

 [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

[emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]

[21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

[emphasis added]

 

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]

[affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]

[emphasis added]

The Slaughter House Cases are quite important to the issue of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law:

We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word “citizen” and the word “people.”

 [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

In the fundamental law, the notion of a “citizen of the United States” simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

 [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

[emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term “Citizen of the United States” as used in the original U.S. Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the federal offices of Senator, Representative and President.

No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).

If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible to be a Senator for nine years after its adoption.

Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald’s electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”), explains away the problem very simply as follows:

The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of “one of the United States***,” and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else.

 [Studies in Constitutional Law:]

[A Treatise on American Citizenship]

[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]

[emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for “representatives” to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows:

… Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; ….

[Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]

[The Confederate Congress]

[emphasis added]

Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for the federal offices of President and Representative:

As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

Thus, the phrase “Citizen of the United States” as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase “Citizen of one of the United States***”, i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. Federal citizens were not even contemplated as such when the organic U.S. Constitution was first drafted. For authority, see the case of Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), as quoted in the Preface.

With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case “c” in the clauses which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. This is another crucial facet of the federal tax fraud.

There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax.

 Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a “citizen of the United States”, whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State’s sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

[emphasis added]

This right is reserved to each of the 50 States by the Tenth Amendment.

In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

Indeed, just as one may be a “citizen of the United States” and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ….” At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: “Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term

[Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]

[emphasis added]

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any one of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so‑called 14th Amendment:

[Please see next page.]

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and “Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law” at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way:

… [A]s long as the territories are not admitted to statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

[The Law of Citizenship in the United States]

[Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. … The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.  

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

The political rights of the federal zone’s citizens are “franchises” which they hold as “privileges” at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a “citizen of the United States**” under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law:

There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]

[emphasis added]

Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. “Driving”, on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. “Passengers” are those who pay a “driver” to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any “privileged” or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. (“Unalienable” rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your automobile outright, without any lawful requirement that you “register” it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal “interest” which they obtained in your car, by making it appear as if you were required to register the car when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don’t believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer’s statement of origin (“MSO”) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”) and Internet website. There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to “download” text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text “compression” program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which “decompresses” the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file “14AMREC.ZIP” contains the documentation which proves that the so‑called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his work (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882). His website is at Internet domain

http://www.state-citizen.org .

As you peruse through McDonald’s numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

Under the Constitutions, “… we the People” did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers “delegated” do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the “LAW” is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a “crime” or a civil damage.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, “a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people” [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of “United States” as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the “United States of America”, where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. … It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]

defining “United States of America”

People as Sovereigns

The Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America does not specifically define the word “People.” Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

END OF PART ONE

FOR PART TWO GO HERE: http://wp.me/p1jN4X-1Oi

CURRUPTION

The First President Trump Joke…

January 21st, 2017 by

A large earthquake with the strength of 8.1 on the Richter scale

hit the Middle East.Two million Muslims died and over a million were injured.

Iraq, Iran and Syria were totally ruined and the governments

asked for help to rebuild.

The rest of the world was in shock. Great Britain sent troops to help keep the peace.

Saudi Arabia sent oil and monetary assistance.

Latin American countries sent clothing.

New Zealand and Australia sent sheep, cattle and food crops.

The Asian countries sent labor to assist in rebuilding the infrastructure.

Canada sent medical teams and supplies.

The new American President, Donald Trump, not to be outdone,

sent two million replacement Muslims.

God Bless President Trump!

I knew Trump would get us a good deal!

 AND FOR THE NON READERS

HERE’S MORE

NEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSNEWSENJOY YOUR NEW DICTATOR!

NEWS


SEO Powered By SEOPressor