Log in



Categories » ‘Politics’

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

BUILDING THE CASE

January 19th, 2017 by


http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm

 

THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM OF

MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW

HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A)

PRESENTED IN THIRTEEN PARTS

PRESENTED AND EDITED BY ELDON G. WARMAN

Any guesses as to which flag
is the true flag of
the People of the united states of America?
The Answer

For those who would like to have, and fly a ‘TRUE’ usA Flag
Click Here

PROLOGUE

 The following brief is believed to have been presented to a Grand Jury in the State of California circa 1982 in an attempt to correct judicial abuse of people involved in patriot and income tax protest movements. Many people were being incarcerated as political prisoners of what is apparently a “shadow government” now in control of the USA. These patriots were attempting to educate as many of the general public as would hear their message. Unfortunately, short-sighted self-interest and apathy seem to have prevailed.

This narrative is based upon the American system, however, for Canadian readers, the American system of government and the Canadian system, are but “slips”, or more appropriately “suckers” off the same plant, the British limited monarchy. Most of the following is, therefore, also directly applicable to the Canadian dilemma.

Before proceeding, you should know that there is a vast difference between ‘British Common Law’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon Common Law’. To learn which is the true Common Law and which is the hoax; and, which version you may have been attempting to access in attempts to get out of ‘admiralty law’, go to:

Treason

Learn the facts about the Vatican’s and British Crown’s continued claimed ownership of the USA; and, their continued collection of ‘tribute’ from Americans through the Pope’s ‘Holy Roman Empire’.

Read about this here.

Additional, and VERY IMPORTANT information on this topic is available through LINKS at the end of PART THIRTEEN.

Editors notes:

Apologies to the original author of this treatise. It came into my possession with author anonymous.

New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is , therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law ‘operating orders’ or ‘ship’s orders’; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.

The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a ‘body politic’ – both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire.  All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are ‘ship’s orders’ of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a “notwithstanding” clause (In the US Constitution, it is the ‘general welfare’ clause). This allows the “captain of the ship”, the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. ‘The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY ‘rules or regulations’ when he DEEMS it necessary for the GOOD of the ship.’ That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the ‘common sense’ realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.

Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a ‘contract’ in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: “I do not accept your sentence.” Or, where applicable: “I do not accept your offer of contract.” The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.

INTRODUCTION

We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing–playing the wrong ball game.

We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution — in fact, we’re not in Equity under the Constitution — we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce – Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).

Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war — such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property — both real and personal, etc.

Another way to understand admiralty law – it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700’s. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments – the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.

Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don’t have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law — and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.

Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction — only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.

For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case — the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There’s no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways — but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business — only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain’s regulations.

Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.

In marshaling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution — when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King — when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King’s men came over to collect their taxes. They didn’t use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us — arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.

This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) — but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies — where many died of fever in the holds of ships — and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.

What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. It is/was the Golden Rule (Rule of Common Justice) that in the negative form reads: “Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you.” The positive Golden Rule deals with Social Justice.

Where did this law come from — this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity’s introduction to England? Apparently not.. It is on record in the Vatican — The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany “already have the law”. It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ. The Law or Hebrew word for Law, the TORH (pronounced Tor-ah) was the basis of Hebrew religion and society.

So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. — then there’s the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.

William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William’s soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded “the “Lex Mercantoria” [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner city of London has its special law where the Merchant’s Law is the law of the City of London.

Protection of their shipping industry was one of the primary reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious entities called “persons” – men under contract to be limited liability (natural persons), as military personnel; and artificial persons (companies). The elite desired to maintain absolute control and subjugation of the People within London. The Anglo-Saxon Common Law recognized only full liability men with volitional and moral minds. Common Law deals with the “mind” of man. Roman Law is based upon good order and discipline on a ship. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.

At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day. However, the 1215 Magna Carta was promptly voided by the Pope of Rome. The Magna Carta was instituted voluntarily by King Henry III in 1225, making it the lawful Magna Carta of England. The other documents are the Petition of Rights[1628] and the Bill of Rights[1689]}.

The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.

The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of “Independence”, Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations — and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.

Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason’s ‘Virginia Declaration of Rights’ (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific ‘property rights’ included by George Mason. Read here.

After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.

Editor’s note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.

Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights — thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.

How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights — our substantive rights in the Constitution?

Now, to understand the Constitution — we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law — they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age or reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.

Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the U S Constitution cites “Freedom of Religion” that in actual fact is “Freedom of Education” since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.

Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!

END PART ONE

PART TWO Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

The first step in building any case which has a chance of winning is to analyze the problem. A common pattern for doing this is to recognize a problem that needs answering; analyze the problem by first stating it; reach a satisfactory judgment; and then defend our judgment. In preparing our case, our legal research will be determined entirely by the facts of the case for, without facts, the law is meaningless. In marshaling our facts we need to keep a few guiding principles in mind so we aren’t led astray: we must discount preconceptions; postpone judgements; and we must observe for a purpose, know why we are observing and stick to relevant facts about the case. The answers must be based on evidence, premises and inferences.

THE COMMON LAW

Let’s explore the Common Law in depth; and, its embodiment in our Constitution. Probably one of the best ways of explaining what this Common Law is, is to explain what it is not — to compare it to its antithesis. There are, fundamentally, two competing systems of man-made law in the world that are in constant ideological conflict against each other. One is the Common Law and the other is the Civil Law, or Roman Civil Law. For example, the Magna Carta (1215) used the antithesis method. Most articles are statements of normal practise in Roman law – with a “thou shalt not” added.

A brief study of the philosophic background is presented in order to grasp the significance of the differences in the two systems. A tri-unity of God (or, Supreme Being) concepts, composed of:

  1. God Is [the God out there],
    2. God Within [God indwelling each individual], and,
    3. Within God [the person being a part of God, a cell in the body of God, etc],

are the basic building blocks of religious understanding, the basic elements of man’s religions and religious institutions. A balanced tri-unity, regardless of concept quality, would make for a harmonious religious and social structure. [Some of the North American Indian tribes achieved such a reasonably balanced plateau in their culture]. However, some socially dominating cultures, such as Judaism, are dominated by # 1, and a bit of # 3. Buddhism calls mostly on # 3 with some #2. Consider where one would place Communism, Oligarchic dominance, American republicanism, the Renaissance?

One can find these concepts ruling ancient civilizations, and extending into the very roots of our current concepts of statehood. The ancient Greek city states developed in two, and opposing directions because their philosophic thought gave some the “God is” concept in isolation to the other two concepts, while the other took the “God within” as their sole concept. One was Oligarchic, the other was Republican. Aristotle was a spokesman of the first, Plato, of the second. The first leads to the final conclusion that man is an evolved animal; and, as such, must be controlled by a (divinely?) appointed chosen few. This thread of belief structure comes down to our current era.

One of the strongest of such belief structures resides within the current humanist mind-set — the Universe is [supposedly] deteriorating and returning to basic elements, — so too would man revert to lower forms of animalism, if left on his own, without divinely appointed leaders, the oligarchs, the captain of the ship. The cult of Mother Earth [Environmentalism] falls into this school of thought.

The Republican “God within” society believes in the worth and responsible nature of the individual. In a true Republic, representatives are appointed and given responsibility for the public good as “servants”. Democracy is an oligarchic mechanism to appease those people who by nature really are Republican. A Democracy allows the people to choose their “leaders”, their slave-masters. The Oligarchs manipulate the economic and social structures so as to create a turmoil to keep their subjects constantly striving for the basic human institutions: self-maintenance, self-perpetuation and self-gratification; and, never allow these to reach a point where Republican thought, creativity and altruism, may become established.

So, with this background, you might better understand the difference between the oligarchic Maritime Law and the Republican enhancing Saxon Common Law. The oligarchic entrepreneur’s overthrow of ancient Israel’s republican form of government is recorded in 1 Samuel, Chapter 8 [some worthwhile reading].

To consider the value of the “God within” concept to society, study the effect of the results of the Council of Florence [1439] called by the Pope of the Roman Church of that time, at which the Doctrine of “The Filioque” [Christ indwelling] was established (Actually, it was a revival of the teachings of St. Augustine and Philo of Alexandria).

The anti-Philo intrigues surrounding the Nicene Council and its resulting Nicene Creed is a study in itself regarding the imposition of oligarchy and its accompanying Roman dictators type of rule over the Church. Even though it was not accepted by the Eastern [Byzantine] Rite and the Jesuits, it resulted in the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, great artistic expression, and the republican movements in Europe and America.

  1. Reuben Clark, a former US Under-Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, succinctly stated the principles and applications of these two systems of law when he wrote: “Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles. In the Civil Law, the source of all law is the personal ruler, whether, king, or emperor; he is sovereign. In the Common Law, certainly as developed in America, the source of all law is the people. They, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms: the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. The Constitution of the United States embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of this exalted concept.”

“Thus, our heritage of freedom is a direct and proximate result of the Common Law, deriving its authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity. The Common Law is the legal embodiment of practical common sense, and, its guiding star has always been the rule of right and wrong -the Golden Rule.

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law – [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] – the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.

Evidence will be further presented to show how other parts of the US Constitution dealing with the totally different jurisdictions of Admiralty and Maritime Law, have been used to subvert the people into, or under this jurisdiction, and bar access to the substantive Common Law.

The basic element of the substantive Common Law is you [the individual man (m/f)]. In this jurisdiction, you are the sovereign and the captain of your own ship. The restoration of that exalted concept, and access to the law by which men have established liberty and free institutions – is the object of this brief.

END PART TWO

CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

AND RELEVANT FACTS:

PART THREE Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

The facts that appear relevant to this case cover a sequence of events beginning with the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776. We will introduce and discuss these facts in sequence of occurrence. We will show you, by the facts surrounding these events, and by the law, how our courts have been converted to courts of Admiralty that have no jurisdiction to hear Common Law [Bill of Rights] issues brought before them.

These events are:

  1. Declaration Of Independence [1776]
  2. US Constitution [1787]
  3. Judiciary Act [1789]
  4. George Rapp Harmony Society [1805]
  5. DeLovio v. Boit [1815]
  6. Dr. List’s Letters [1825]
  7. Swift v. Tyson [1842]
  8. Limited Liability Act [1851]
  9. Tontine Insurance [1868]
  10. Federal Reserve Act [1913]
  11. House Joint Resolution 192 [1933]
  12. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins [1938]
  13. Victory Tax Act [1942]
  14. US v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association [1944]
  15. McCarren Act [1945]

The facts presented in this sequence will show:

  1. That the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are ordinances within the Law of Nations.
  2. That the primary, and compelling reason for the Declaration of Independence was to eliminate Admiralty Law and Admiralty jurisdiction from the Domestic Law of the colonies.
  3. That the Judiciary Act of 1789 clearly recognized a distinct, and separate jurisdiction of Admiralty Law from that of Domestic Law{Common Law}.
  4. That the formula and blueprint of the Federal Reserve System is identical, in its essential features, to that of the George Rapp Harmony Society; and, to the Tontine Insurance schemes [which are pure wagering policies; and, are specifically forbidden in the constitutions of several States].
  5. That the Federal Reserve is a maritime lender and insurance underwriter to the United States; and, as such, has no risk in the maritime venture as a lender, or as insurer, has no vested interest in the subject matter insured.
  6. That the subject matter insured by the Federal Reserve is the Public National Credit System, which is a maritime venture for profit under limited liability for payment of debt.
  7. That, for the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt, anyone who benefits from the Public National Credit [provided by the Federal Reserve] has an insurable interest in a maritime voyage -and is, therefore subject to, and can be required to, make premium payments under the Law of Admiralty and Maritime [the income tax] – as long as the contract is in force.
  8. That all the resources of the USA have been hypothecated, or pledged, to the Federal Reserve as a security for the Public National Credit System.
  9. That the House Joint Resolution 192, passed by Congress on June 5, 1933, made it impossible for anyone to pay a debt at law; and, this fact makes anyone who benefits from the Public National Credit System a sole merchant, subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction in all controversies involving said credit.
  10. That, because of House Joint Resolution 192, we have lost access to substantive Common Law, we have lost our allodial land titles – and a foreign jurisdiction of Admiralty Law has been imposed upon our domestic law – just as occurred a bit over 200 years ago. Naturally, we can expect these facts to generate more questions that must be answered. We will be raising some questions ourselves as we proceed.

Editors note:  Another mechanism used to entrap the people of the USA into admiralty jurisdiction was the Social Security Act of 1933. The Social Security Act, a retirement benefit for residents of Washington,D.C. and employees on Federal Property entraps the free people of the States into Admiralty jurisdiction by assumpsit contract. By the act of a free state citizen taking a Social Security number, a supposed contract is made making that person an assumed Federal citizen and therefore under Admiralty jurisdiction.

As we proceed, we will apply the law to these facts and show:

  1. That the maritime venture for profit, by way of the Public National Credit System is based on a false and fraudulent premise that this voyage is a lawful one.
  2. That this voyage is, in fact, is in direct violation of the Positive Law of the Law of Nations; and, therefore, is, and always was void from its inception.
  3. That, because of this fact, no agency of government, and no court in this land has lawful jurisdiction to enforce any claim arising out of, or involving the Public National Credit System.
  4. That the de facto jurisdiction currently being exercised by our government agencies [and psuedo-agencies such as the IRS, CIA, and FBI] and especially Federal District Courts will continue being exercised until successfully challenged with relevant facts and issues, in a court of proper jurisdiction.
  5. Finally, we will show, by way of these facts and law, just what we have to do to regain access to our substantive Common Law – and regain our allodial land titles.

Now, we are ready to go into more detail of the relevant facts surrounding this sequence of events:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – July 4, 1776:

As previously stated, many reasons impelled the American colonists to separate themselves from Great Britain, but the more obvious reasons were given in the Declaration itself. Written in the style of a formal complaint, or action at law, it contains a Declaration, a Common-Law Bill of Particulars or Counts, and a prayer to the Supreme Judge of the world.

The stated purpose of the declaration was to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God entitle them, and that, out of respect for the opinions of mankind, they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For our purposes, we will zero in on the 13th Count where it is stated that: He (King George) has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving assent to their acts of pretended legislation:” The Declaration then goes on to define the foreign jurisdiction referred to as follows :

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
  • for protecting, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes upon us without our consent:
  • For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in our neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

What then, was this jurisdiction foreign to their constitution? Every itemized complaint listed in the 13th count falls under the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law and the Law of Nations. Although the colonists were British subjects, they were being treated as if they were a conquered nation –such treatment, if such were the actual case, being sanctioned in one jurisdiction only — and that is the Law of Admiralty.

The Declaration goes on to state that (those United Colonies) “as Free and Independent States, they have the full power to levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

Thus, upon the signing of the Declaration, they openly declared to all the nations of the world that they were of equal status — and that, thereby, they were bound by the Law of Nations when dealing with other nations. The Declaration also clearly expressed the intent to ban the Admiralty jurisdiction from within State borders, or from the domestic law of the states — the main purpose and reason for separation.

An equally significant event is that it broke the hold of English feudalism over colonial land and instantly converted all land title to allodiums. This fact was clearly analyzed by the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania in the case of Wallace V. Harmstad in 1863, when the court said: “I see no way of solving this question, except by determining whether our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal. –” “I venture to suggest that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails on this subject has come from our retaining, since the American Revolution, the feudal nomenclature of estates and tenures, as fee, freehold, heirs, feoffment, and the like.” “

Our question, then, narrows itself down to this: is fealty any part of our land tenures? What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by openly and humbly kneeling before his lord, being ungirt, uncovered, and holding up his hands both together between those of the lord, who sat before him, and there professing that he did become his man from that day forth, for life and limb, and certainly honour, and then receiving a kiss from his lord? This was the oath of fealty which was, according to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the very notion of a feud. “We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of soil of Pennsylvania from the grand characteristics of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprietaries (city of Philadelphia) themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial.”

  1. S. CONSTITUTION – 1787

Admiralty jurisdiction of Congress is defined in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts …of the United States…” To borrow money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. To raise and support armies…

To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for…Land and Naval forces. To provide for calling forth the militia… To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia…

— The powers listed here are all within the jurisdiction of Admiralty and Maritime Law and encompass most of the powers granted to Congress.

Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III, Section 2: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Minister and Consuls; to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; … ”

The full scope and meaning of Article III, Section 2, was addressed by Justice Story in the case of De Lovio v. Boit in 1815: What is the true interpretation of the clause– all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction?” If we examine the etymology, or received use of the words “Admiralty” and “Maritime jurisdiction,” we shall find, that they include jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea, or, in other words, all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea.

In all the great maritime nations of Europe, the same “Admiralty jurisdiction” is uniformly applied to the courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime contract and concerns. We shall find the terms just as familiarly known among the jurists of Scotland, France, Holland and Spain as of England, and applied to their own courts, possessing substantially the same jurisdiction, as the English Admiralty in the reign of Edward the Third.”The clause however of the constitution not only confers Admiralty jurisdiction, but the word “Maritime” is superadded, seemingly ex_industria to remove every latent doubt. “Cases of Maritime jurisdiction” must include all maritime contracts, torts and injuries, which are in the understanding of the Common Law, as well as of the Admiralty,…”

In Article VI, it is stated: “All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the Confederation. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Clearly, the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction granted to the Congress and the Judiciary is very broad and extensive. So, what provisions were made in the Constitution to prevent the encroachment of this Admiralty jurisdiction into our Domestic law — the substantive Common Law –pursuant to the Declaration of Independence? The answer is in Article I, Section 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 — but, first, a little background may be helpful: Beginning as long ago as 1690, the colonies had periodically experimented with credit and unbacked paper as a form of public money.

The results were always the same –gold and silver coin disappeared from circulation, commerce stagnated, unemployment grew by leaps and bounds, etc. The war for independence exhibited a new development in the system of credit, by the reckless disregard of its bounds. In the words of John Adams, `promises of money were scattered over the land alike by the States and by the United States, until “bills became as plenty as oak leaves.” The results were recorded by Peletiah Webster as follows: “Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.”

Question: What had happened to the domestic, substantive, Common Law fought for in the War For Independence — the Law that establishes and preserves free institutions?

Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, shortly before the Constitutional convention, Washington wrote to Madison: “The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present.” And on February 3, 1787, Washington wrote to Henry Knox: “If any person had told me that there would have been such a formidable rebellion as exists, I would have thought him fit for a madhouse.”

The Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, May 14, 1787 and George Washington was elected President. Randolph, Governor of Virginia, drew attention to paper money in his opening speech by reminding his hearers that the patriotic authors of the confederation did their work “In the infancy of the science of constitutions and of confederacies, when the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen.” The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the Constitution, was as follows: “The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States.” By refusing the power of issuing bills of credit, the door was shut, but not barred, on paper money by constitutional law. Although Congress was not authorized to issue notes of the United States, the borrowing clause (thought absolutely necessary for emergencies) left a means of borrowing notes of another entity into circulation. (e.g., a private bank).

On the 28th of August, the convention took steps to remedy that situation and, thereby, guarantee a substance for our domestic Common Law to function on matters involving money. The first draft of the constitution had forbidden the states to emit bills of credit without the consent of Congress.

In convention on the 28th, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words “coin money” the words “nor emit bills of credit,” nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and in their words, “making these prohibitions absolute.” Mr. Sherman went on to say that he “thought this a favorable crises for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money, would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it.” After discussion, Mr. Wilson’s and Mr. Sherman’s motion was unanimously agreed to by the convention. The result of this action appears in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Its most salient feature is “No State shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”

After the constitutional convention, it took nearly a year for the states to ratify the Constitution — primarily because they insisted on certain substantive Common Law rights and principles being specified in the Constitution. These rights and principles appear as the first ten Amendments, called the Bill of Rights. Common Law, operating on money of substance, brought quick relief as documented by George Washington: In a letter, dated June 13, 1790, he wrote to Marquis de LaFayette: “You have doubtless been informed, from time to time, of the happy progress of our affairs. The principle difficulties seem in a great measure to have been surmounted.” In a letter, dated March 19, 1791, he again wrote to LaFayette: “Our country, my dear sir, is fast progressing in its political importance and social happiness.” On July 19, 1791, he wrote to Catherine McCauley: “The United States enjoys a sense of prosperity and tranquillity under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” And on July 20, 1791, he wrote to David Humphrey, “Tranquility reigns among the people with the disposition towards the general government, which is likely to preserve it. Our public credit stands on that high ground which three years ago it would have been considered as a species of madness to have foretold.

 JUDICIARY ACT (1789):

On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act. Section 9 of this Act dealt with equity, admiralty and maritime jurisdictions of our courts. Congress said that “the forms and modes of proceeding in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to the course of Civil Law.”

Section 34 dealt exclusively with the Common Law jurisdiction of the Federal courts wherein Congress said: “That the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at Common Law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply.”

By congressional action in 1792, the form and modes of proceeding in such cases were directed to be “according to the principles, rules and usage, which belong to courts of equity and to courts of Admiralty respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of Common Law.”

Thus, in 1792, Congress recognized three separate and distinct jurisdictions of the federal courts; Equity, Admiralty and Common Law. By “jurisdiction” we mean lawful authority to act on the subject matter involved in a controversy, a particular thing within that subject matter, and authority to act against a particular person associated with the subject matter.

END PART THREE

THERE ARE ONLY THREE JURISDICTIONS–

AND NO MORE!

PART FOUR Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

All three of these jurisdictions have cognizance over civil matters, as contradistinguished from criminal matters, depending on the subject matter in controversy and nature of the cause.

If, it is an action at Common Law properly brought into a common law court, the court is bound by the principles, rules and procedures of Common Law. If the action is properly brought before an Equity or Admiralty court, the court is bound by the principles, rules and procedures of the civil law dealing with the subject matter.

Equity has no cognizance over criminal matters and, therefore, in criminal cases there are only two jurisdictions — every criminal case must be prosecuted either in the jurisdiction of Common Law, or that of the Law of Admiralty. In criminal cases, Common Law courts are bound by the principles, rules and procedures of the Common Law. In Admiralty cases, the court is bound by the principles, rules and procedures of Admiralty and Maritime Law.

You will see, subsequently, that State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in both Common Law and Maritime law concerning certain types of cases and subject matter. You also will see that in these cases, f the subject matter or nature of this cause is Maritime that, even if it is heard in a Common Law court, that court is bound to apply the Maritime Law to the case. We also will show that no Admiralty court in the land as any jurisdiction to hear Common Law issues.

Briefly, here are some distinctive differences between the principles, rules and procedures of common law and civil law:

COMMON LAW

* Right to trial by jury 

* 12 judges – the jury   

* 12 judges:
> control the trial
> judge justice of law
> determine admissibility
of evidence
> applies law to facts
> renders verdict according
to conscience, with reference to
the negative Golden Rule

 

CIVIL LAW

* No right to trial by jury

* ONE judge (chancelor)

         * One chancelor controls trial:
> jury is advisory to chancelor
> chancelor determines
admissibility of evidence
> jury must accept the law
as given by chancelor
> jury renders verdict
according to law dictated
and evidence presented

The Supreme Court analysed these two sections of the judiciary act in the Huntress case in 1840: The Huntress case was a libel in personam against the owners of the steamship Huntress. The Court said: “In these, and in analogous cases, the only question that can be considered as an open one is, whether they come within that clause of the Constitution that says, the judicial power of the United States shall extend to “all causes of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction.” If they do, then the original cognizance of them is by the ninth section of the Judiciary Act, given to the district court” …. “The argument, that this clause is controlled by the Seventh Amendment, which secures the right of trial by jury in all suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, has no application to the constitutional grant; because these are not suits at Common Law”;

And, in the DeLovio vs. Boit case, Justice Story said: “And, the ground is made stronger by the consideration, that the right of trial by jury is preserved by the constitution in all suits at common law, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars; and by the statute this right is excluded in all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction.” Here we have a clear statement, by the Supreme Court that there is no access to Common Law in courts of Admiralty.

In 1832, the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania very ably addressed the meaning and intent of the 7th amendment in the case of Bains v. The Schooner James and Catherine, as follows: “…by attempting to introduce the admiralty jurisdiction of the civil law, … a foundation is laid for interminable conflicts of jurisdiction between the courts of the State and the Union.” “It is vain to contend that the Seventh Amendment will be any efficient guarantee for the right, in suits at Common law, if an Admiralty jurisdiction exists in the United States, commensurate with what is claimed by the claimant in this case. Its assertion is, in my opinion, a renewal of the contest between legislative power and royal prerogative, the Common and the Civil Law, striving for mastery; the one to secure, the other to take away the trial by jury, … judicial power must first annul the Seventh Amendment, or judicial subtly transform a suit at Common Law, into a case of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, before I take cognizance as such a case as this without a jury.”

Thus, Admiralty is Civil Law, and, once again, Common Law is not accessible in courts of Admiralty — and, as J. Reuben Clark said: there is a constant ideological conflict between Civil and Common Law for the control of society.

In the preface to his book “Honest Money”, Dr. Norburn wrote: “What a marvellous country was this new world — AMERICA. Its coastline, dotted with deep harbors, seemed endless. It had great mountains and great rivers. There were magnificent forests and vast fertile plains. Its earth was rich with minerals. Those who came to live in this veritable paradise were of sturdy stock. They were industrious, saving and ingenious. They had the best government ever devised. How does it happen that now, after more than three hundred years of intense toil, the inhabitants of this nation find themselves more than ten trillion dollars in debt? They have received no benefits to justify this debt. To whom do they owe it? How were the claims acquired?

As you will see, the factual answers to Dr. Narburn’s questions, and proper application of the appropriate law to these facts, provide us the necessary fact and law to build a winning case that can restore our access to Common Law; and can restore our allodial land titles.

 

INTRODUCTION OF THE GEORGE RAPP SOCIETY:

First Successful communistic, religious, organization in the United States.

The society was designed for profit making (for some) and its formula included a controlled economy under limited liability, which, as you will see before this rresentation is over, is the same ingredients of the Federal Reserve formula that is running this country today! This is the formula that brought admiralty inland and has barred our access to substantive Common Law.

George Rapp Harmony Society – 1805 (Re: Schriber v. Rapp, Pa. Supreme Court, 351) George Rapp founded the “Harmony Society” in 1805, at Harmony, in Beaver County, Pa., subsequently moved to Harmony on the Wabash, in the state of Indiana, and then moved to “Economy” in Beaver County, Pa. The nature of this society was brought to light in the case of Schriber v. Rapp in 1836. This case was an action of account brought by Jacob Schriber, administrator of Peter Schriber, deceased, against George Rapp and others, doing business in company under the name of Harmony Society. To sustain the action, the plaintiff proved by testimony that the Harmony Society possessed a great deal of wealth in the form of personal property, real property, factories, etc. It was a pool of property.

Witness, Dr. Smith, once a member of the association stated: “They intended to make money when they entered into it; it was a part of their object. I believe there were Articles at Harmony, but everyone was not obliged to sign it. Equal rights, equal enjoyments and equal profits. Rapp said it should not be incorporated, for that would take too much power from him. Rapp was not elected. He assumed the power that Moses and Aaron had. If anyone would not do what he said, he would say, `What have you to do about it? I have the power — I could crush you. All you have to do is obey.’ He got worse as he got wealthy.”

George Rapp was a preacher — and a very persuasive one. Adam Shelly testified on behalf of the plaintiff respecting the first articles of association on the Wabash. “The people were directed to come in companies, one of them read it and the rest signed it. As to the article signed at Economy, Rapp made a long speech. Said any one who would sign it would have his name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. If they did not, their names would be blotted out, and God would ask him about it.”

Defendants, to sustain the issue on their part, produced in evidence the articles of association. Some pertinent excerpts are as follows:

Article 1: We the undersigned, for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do hereby give, grant and forever convey, to the said George Rapp and his associates, and their heirs, and assigns, all our property…for the benefit of said association or community.

Article 2: We do further covenant and agree to and with the said George Rapp and his associates, that we will severally submit faithfully to the laws and regulations of said community, …thereforeholding ourselves bound to promote the interest and welfare of the said community, not only by the labor of our own hands, but also by that of our children, our families and all others who now are or hereafter may be under our control.

Article 3: …that we will never claim or demand either for ourselves, our children, or for anyone belonging to us, directly or indirectly, any compensation, wages or reward whatever, for our, or their labor or services, rendered to the said community, …

Article 5: The said George Rapp and his associates further agree to supply the undersigned severally with all the necessaries of life…and to such extent as their circumstances may require.

Article 6: If any of the undersigned…should withdraw from the association, then the said George Rapp and his associates agree to refund to him or them the value of all such property without interest, as he or they may have brought into the community… Said value to be refunded…as the said George Rapp and his associates shall determine.

The court ruled for defendant George Rapp on the basis that “an association for the purpose expressed is prohibited neither by statute nor the common law.” And the court also stated: “It is supposed, however, that as the intestate had power, by the articles, to secede from the society and take out whatever he brought into it, the successor to his personal rights may exercise it as his representative. Such, however, are not the terms of the articles… The right of accession, therefore, is intransmissable.” The court also stated that “the law knows no duress by advise and persuasion”, and, therefore there was no fraud in the inducement to sign the article.

In analyzing this case, we see that: 1. The complaint was brought under the jurisdiction of common law. 2. The plaintiff lost because of the common law and constitutionally protected right to contract. 3. Under the common law, the only way to break the contract was to prove fraud. 4. According to testimony, the members of the association “intended to make money when they entered into it.”

The witnesses did not explain how they expected to “make money” under the terms of the contract. The only reasonable explanation is that they were gambling that they would be last survivors in the Association — and share in the distribution of assets; and/or they expected to benefit from limited liability by sharing any loses of the association with the other members. Last survivors take all is a wagering policy, and mutual sharing of losses is insurance. 

In analyzing the George Rapp Association formula, we see:
1. The contract contained a forfeiture clause. (Members would “never claim compensation;” upon withdrawal, value of property would be refunded “without interest” — The right of accession of property donated to the Association is intransmissable to heirs of the decedent.

2. Rapp and his associates had no risk as the insurer. They not only had nothing to lose in the event of death of a contributor and member — but gained all property donated with no possible claim from heirs of the decedent.

3. It was a controlled economy — under the exclusive control of George Rapp and his associates.

4. There was no accountability to members of the Association…

You will see, later on, that if Schriber had taken these facts into an Admiralty court and applied the proper Admiralty Law to these facts — he should have won his case.

One additional note on George Rapp –  George Rapp continued to gain affluence and prestige — and dignitaries came from all over the world to his mansion at “Economy” to marvel at the fantastic success of his society.

Why shouldn’t he be successful? By contract, he had slave labor, donations of untold wealth from members who, if they chose to withdraw before they died, could only get back the equivalent of what they had donated without interest; and, if they died as a member, the property and assets donated remained in the society as long as it existed.

George Rapp died in 1847; however, the society went on. Evidence will show that the tremendous wealth accumulated by this society was subsequently used to fashion a George Rapp Society on a much larger scale – with plans to ultimately encompass the world in a “superstate” controlled and governed by mercantile interests, under the law of admiralty — a superstate wherein all the property in the world, and all the people on space-ship “Earth”, are pledged to the benefit of this World-wide mercantile association. The “New World Order?

 DeLOVIO VS. BOIT [1815]:

In 1815, in the case of DeLovio v. Boit, the Supreme Court ruled the following: [Opinion written by Justice Story]: “The Admiralty, from the highest antiquity, has exercised a very extensive criminal jurisdiction, and punished offenses by fine and imprisonment. The celebrated inquisition at Queensborough, in the reign of Edward lll, would alone be decisive. And, even at Common Law it had been adjudged, that the Admiralty might fine for contempt… Appeal, and not a Writ of Error, lies for its decrees.. Yet, it is conceded on all sides, that of maritime hypothecations of the Admiralty depends, or ought to depend, as to contracts upon the subject matter, i.e. whether maritime or not; and as to torts, upon locality…

Neither the Judicial Act nor the Constitution, which it follows, limit the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the District Court in any respect to place. It is bounded only by the nature of the cause over which it is to decide. On the whole, I am, without the slightest hesitation, ready to pronounce, that the delegation of cognizance of `all civil cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction’ to the Courts of the United States comprehends all maritime contracts, torts, and injuries. The latter branch is necessarily bounded by locality; the former extends over all contracts, (wheresoever they may be made or executed, or whatsoever may be the form of the stipulation) which relate to the navigation, business or commerce of the sea.

The next inquiry is, what are properly to be deemed “maritime contracts.” Happily, in this particular there is little room for controversy. All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation are included, among other things, marine hypothecations …and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance… My judgement accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within (though not exclusively within) the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the United States.”

END OF PART FOUR

Back To PART ONE TWO THREE

INTRODUCING

PROFESSOR FREDERICH LIST:

PART FIVE Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

We will now address the subject of Dr. List’s letters. The letters of Dr. List, and the economic theories he espoused in those letters, will become very significant to you when you see that his economic theories are being applied against you today by the Federal Reserve — and are, thereby, controlling every aspect of your life.

Professor List represented the society of German merchants and manufacturers for the purpose of obtaining a German system of national economy. His plans of reform proving obnoxious to the government, he was accused of high treason and thrown in prison, and was subsequently exiled from Germany. He settled in Pennsylvania and studied and lectured on the doctrines of political economy. During his attention to that subject, he voluntarily addressed a series of letters which were published in the National Gazette. Professor List was also a member of the George Rapp Harmony Society. In his first letter he tells us what he means by the term “National Economy.” Editor’s Note: The author’s negative opinion of List’s economics is not shared by L. LaRouche, economist and an advocate of the original American System of economics.

Information on Lyndon Larouche can be found on his website at:
Lyndon Larouche Presidential Campaign

“National Economy” teaches by what means a certain nation, in her particular situation, may direct and regulate the economy of individuals, and restrict the economy of mankind, either to prevent foreign restrictions and foreign powers within herself,…without restricting the economy of individuals and the economy of mankind more than the welfare of the people permits.”

It is common knowledge that we have a “National Economy” today that directs and regulates the economy of individuals, and that of mankind — and that this economy is controlled and regulated by the Federal Reserve System.

Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842)

In 1842, in the case of Swift v. Tyson, the Supreme Court held that there was a general Federal common law (i.e., at that time, access to substantive common law existed at the federal level).

Limited Liability Act – 1851

On March 3, 1851, the Congress of the United States enacted the Limited Liability Act, (codified at 46 USC 181-189), as amended in 1875, 1877, 1935, 1936, and the Act of 1884 cover the entire subject of limitations. The Purpose of this act was to limit the liability for the payment of debts of persons who were ship owners involved in maritime commerce. This act was the result of a U. S. Supreme Court decision titled, “The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. vs. the Merchants Bank, 6 Howard 42, (1848).” In the New Jersey Steam Nav. Case, the High Court ruled that under the Common Law, ship owners were liable for the acts of their ship masters. In other words, if a party were to ship goods on board a ship and something happened to the goods such as being destroyed or damaged by the perils of the sea, the ship owner was responsible to the owner of the goods.

The ship owner must pay to the owner of the goods the amount the goods were worth. If the ship owner didn’t pay the debt, the owner of the goods could sue the ship owner and collect. If the ship owner failed to pay, the creditor could then file a lien on the ship which was called a maritime lien which does not require possession of the object. This Act specifically gives limited liability on shipments of “bills of any bank or public body.” America was founded upon Maritime or Admiralty Law because shipping was the only means of commerce at the founding of the country.

The Congress decided in 1851 that, as a result of the New Jersey Steam Nav. Case, persons would no longer be drawn into ownership of ships because of the liability involved. Shipping on the high seas is very risky especially at that period of time.

After the Limited Liability Act was enacted [1889], the U.S. Supreme Court in Butler vs. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U.S. 527, ruled as follows; “But it is enough to say that the rule of limited responsibility is now our maritime rule. It is the rule by which through the Act of Congress we have announced that we propose to administer justice in maritime cases.”

“The rule of limited liability prescribed by the Act of 1851 is nothing more than the old maritime rule administered in courts of admiralty in all countries except England from time immemorial and if this were not so, the subject matter itself is one that belongs to the department of Maritime Law.”

Tontine Insurance – 1868

In order to evade the usury laws which had prevented the growth of a funded system of national insurance, governments had frequently resorted to the issue of annuities and child endowments as a means of raising funds. The tontine was a somewhat later development, having been put into operation in France during the year 1689. It took its name from that of its originator, Lorenzo Tonti, a Neopolitan by birth, who was attracted to Paris by the regime of Mazarin. In its original form the tontine was a loan, “In which the premium was never to be repaid, but the entire interest on the loan was to be divided each year among the survivors or the original subscribers.”

The chief characteristic, and trademark, of tontine is that the pool of assets is divided among the survivors, at the options of those subscribers who dropped out, or did not survive until the time for distribution had arrived. It was a wagering policy, just like that of the George Rapp Society. The Equitable Life Insurance Company, in 1868, introduced the deferred dividend system, which was really an application of the tontine principle. The most serious flaw in the deferred dividend system was the inability of the insured to compel an accounting.The general rule is that the policy holder is not entitled to compel the company to account for dividends. Nor can the policyholder “compel the distribution of the surplus fund in other manner or at any time, or in any other amounts than that provided for in the contract.”

As stated in the report of the Armstrong Committee, “the plan of deferring dividends for long periods…has undoubtedly facilitated large accumulations, providing apparently abundant means for doubtful uses on the one hand, while concealing on the other the burden imposed upon the policy holders…” According to George L. Armhein, Instructor in Insurance at the University of Pennsylvania, ” …deferred dividends were prohibited by law in the legislation (Pa.) of 1906 and subsequent years. Thus came to an end a system which in 1898 had superseded to a very large extent that of annual dividends, and which in 1915 seemed antiquated.”>

Question: What made it “antiquated” in 1915? According to Mr. Armhein, it was outlawed in 1906, but didn’t seem antiquated until 1915! John K. Tarbox, The commissioner of Insurance the State of Massachusetts had this to say about tontine in his annual report: “The false idea of life insurance as investment begat the equally false conception of life insurance as a bet, and the latter gave birth to the modern tontine, which is a wager.”

“…In the tontine the forfeitures go to enrich the individual survivors of the special class of policy holders who enter the compact, constituting a company liability instead of a company asset, for the protection of its policy obligations… The stake played for, rather than the game itself, constitutes the chief offense. Our law condemns, forbids, and makes void the contract of forfeiture.” “As was truly testified before the committee of the New York Assembly, in 1877, … the tontine policy is taken for purposes of investment by a set of men who would not insure their lives at all. The inducement to the investment is…the expected profits from forfeitures…”

“Aside from the moral quality of the matter, –concerning which I waive controversy, — the considerations which the public aspect seems to me principally to invite are these; First, whether it is prudent to make of our insurance companies great banking establishments,…and, second, whether an institution organized as the life insurance system was, for a benevolent and unselfish use, shall be combined with enterprises of elfish speculation as the tontine undeniably is.”I am strongly persuaded of the implicitly and positive danger of magnifying the banking feature of life insurance institutions, to accommodate modern plans of tontine speculation and endowment investment.

John Tarbox was clearly saying that, at that time, there were modern plans to make insurance companies (specifically, tontine insurance ompanies) great banking institutions.

The tontine had been declared unlawful in several states and these people knew that they had to do something to protect their money. They brought over the son of one of the big banking families from Europe, Paul Warburg, from the House of Warburg, which dates back to the Hanseatic League of merchants.

END PART FIVE

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

PART SIX Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

And, it was he (Paul Warburg) who sold the American public on creating a Federal Reserve Bank, so that there wouldn’t be any more panics and depressions, that they would be able to even out the economy by control of the money supply. By this one Act, the American people lost their independence. It, in fact, was the opposite of the British surrender at Yorktown. Giving control of our credit and money supply to a private banking organization, by the name of the Federal Reserve, was the surrender of our independence.

Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913 wherein it made Federal Reserve Notes debt obligations to the United States, and authorized the Federal Reserve to be the issuers of these debt obligations. The Federal Reserve Act also stipulated that the interest on the debt (to the Federal Reserve as a maritime lender to the United States) was to be paid in gold. No provision was made in the Act for paying off theprinciple. There was also a proviso that the people had 20 years to challenge the Act …

NOTE: 1. Under the law of Nations, an action on Quo Warranto can be brought within 20 years. Quo Warranto, in this case, would be an action in the Court of Admiralty demanding “By whose Authority”, and proof of that authority, the Act was implemented.

  1. “Public policy” is part and parcel of the Law of Nations. The Act was never challenged in a court of proper jurisdiction (admiralty), probably because anyone who wanted, or tried, to challenge it didn’t know how.

On June 20, 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden addressed the House of Representatives on this subject. Representative McFadden had previously served as president of the First National Bank, Canton, Pa.; and later he served as chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency. Following are selected excerpts from his address: “Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government Institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers;” “They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely an asset currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the government liable on the private debts of individuals and corporations and, least of all on the private debts of foreigners.”

“The Federal Reserve Notes, therefore, in form have some of the qualities of government paper money, but, in substance, are almost purely asset currency possessing a government guaranty against which contingency the government has made no provision whatever.” “Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Federal Reserve pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth…” “I see no reason why the American taxpayers should be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the European and Asiatic customers of the Federal Reserve Banks.”

“Is not it high time that we had an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks and an examination of all our governments bonds and securities and public monies instead of allowing the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks to speculate with those securities and this cash in the notorious open discount market of New York City? ” “Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States.” “Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country…and was to supply financial power to an international superstate– a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure.”

Congressman Wright Patman, of the House Banking and Currency Committee said in 1952: “In fact there has never been an independent audit of either of the 12 banks of the Federal Reserve Board that has been filed with the Congress where a Member would have an opportunity to inspect it. The General Accounting Office does not have jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve.”

Question: Why does not the General Accounting of the United States have jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve to demand an accounting? The answer is that accountability of the Federal Reserve is not in the contract, the Federal Reserve Act, just as it was not in the contract of the George Rapp Society or tontine insurance policies. The Federal Reserve Act provides for accountability of “member banks,” But, by definition, in the Act itself, the Federal Reserve banks are not “member banks” and, therefore are exempt from accountability — by contract.

Congressman McFadden and Congressman Patman, both experts in banking and finance, did not understand this. How many senators and representatives that signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, do you suppose, understood what they were signing? Not only with respect to this issue, but others that have been raised from time to time?

What about the numerous attempts to audit Fort Knox?? The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that gold owned by the Federal Reserve may be stored in storage facilities of the United States. Now, if Congress cannot compel an accounting for Fort Knox, who, do you suppose owns the gold?

Now, we may ask ourselves another question at this point — Is the Federal Reserve a maritime lender, or is it an insurance underwriter, to United States? Some additional information from an Essay on Maritime Loans, may help us decide this question: “The contract of maritime loan approaches more nearly to that of Insurance. There is a strong analogy between them. In their effects they are construed on the same principles.” “In one contract, the lender bears the sea risks, in the other, the underwriter.” “In the one, the maritime interest is the price of the peril; and this term corresponds with the premium which is paid on the other.”

So we see that it really is immaterial, under Maritime Law, whether the Federal Reserve is thought of as a maritime lender, or as an insurance underwriter, to the United States. In either case the lender, or underwriter, bears the risks — and the maritime laws compelling performance in paying the interest, or premium, are one and the same. Also, in either case, assets can be hypothecated as security for the price of the peril.

Speaking of risk, let’s see what risk the Federal Reserve is incurring as lender, or underwriter, to the United States in exchange for United States Securities: Mariner Eccles, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, held the following exchange with Congressman Patman before the House Banking and Currency Committee on September 30, 1941: Congressman Patman: “Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy those two billions of government securities?” Mr. Eccles: “We created it.” Patman: “Out of what?” Mr. Eccles: “Out of the right to issue credit money.”

And, from further testimony from the Federal Reserve itself: In a publication from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, entitled “Two Faces of Debt,” — “Currency is so widely accepted as a medium of exchange that most people do not think of it as debt.”

In the Chicago bank publication entitled “Modern Money Mechanics,” we find: “Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but for less than their face amount.” “What, then makes these instruments–checks, paper money, and coins — acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for real goods and services whenever they choose to do so.” “Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of the money outstanding, even though most of these assets are no more than pieces of paper (such as customer’s promissory notes), and it is well understood that money is not redeemablein them.”

Modern Money Mechanics publication from Chicago, once again: “Deposits are merely book entries…demand deposits are liabilities of commercial banks. The banks stand ready to convert such deposits into currency or transfer their ownership at the request of depositors.”

From the Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis Review: “But what induces the non-banking public to accept liabilities of private, profit-making institutions such as banks?” “The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the insurers of money….” “The gains which accrue to issuers of money are derived from thedifference between the costs of issuing money and the initial purchasing power of new money in circulation. Such gains are called ‘seigniorage’. If the goods and services for which the issuer exchanges money have a market value greater than that of resources used to produce the money, then the issurer receives a net gain.”

From a book entitles “The Federal Reserve System – Its Purposes and Functions,” published by the Federal Reserve Board in 1939: “Federal Reserve Bank Credit resembles bank credit in general, but under the law it has a limited and special use — as a source of member bank reserve funds. It is itself a form of money authorized for special purposes, convertible into other forms of money, convertible therefrom, and readily controllable as to amount. Federal Reserve Bank credit, therefore, as already stated, does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities “get” somewhere in order to lend, but constitutes funds that they are empowered to CREATE.”(emphasis added)

In his notes entitled “A Primer on Money,” Congressman Patman tells that upon hearing that Federal Reserve Banks hold a large amount of cash, he went to two of its regional banks. He asked to see their bonds. He was led into vaults and shown great piles of government bonds upon which the people are taxed for interest Mr. Patman then asked to see their cash. The bank officials seemed confused. When Mr. Patman repeated the request, they showed him some ledgers and bank checks.

Mr. Patman warns us to remember that: “The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. What we call `cash reserves’ are simply bookkeeping credits entered upon the ledgers of the Federal Reserve Banks. These credits are created by the Federal Reserve Banks and then passed along through the banking system.”

So, by the testimony of the Federal Reserve itself, we see: 1. It creates money out of thin air — at no cost or risk to the Federal Reserve System — from its right to issue credit, granted in the Federal Reserve Act. 2. It gains from the inflation it creates. 3. Money is not redeemable in its liabilities. 4.Demand deposits are liabilities of banks. 5. Federal Reserve Notes are liabilities of Federal Reserve. 6. Its gains, as issuers of credit money, are the difference between the cost of creating that credit (essentially nothing) and the initial purchasing power when the new money is put into circulation.

END PART SIX

THE FEDERAL RESERVE (CONT’D)

PART SEVEN Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

In a reprint of the book “THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM -Its Purpose and Functions,” S. W. Adams, uses the Federal Reserve’s own published figures to give us an example of how lucrative this no risk scheme is to the Federal Reserve: The pauper (The Federal Reserve System) with assets of only $52 billion with no productive know-how, with no productions of goods, and fewer than 100,000 stockholders, loaned (?) the rich man (The United States of America) with a trillion in productive capacity and know-how with well over $600 billion in assets and 170 million stockholders, including the aforesaid 100,000 bank stockholders, $250 billion to fight World War II.

Can you imagine the greatest corporation on earth, the Government of the U. S. with 170 million alert full-of-know-how stockholders, and assets running over $600 billion, turning to a small segment of its population, with fewer than 100,000 stockholders and assets of only $52 billion to borrow money?

Can you conceive of Rockefeller saying to his chauffeur, “Tom, I am transferring my personal bank account which is well over $1 billion, to your account. You may spend it as you please; provided as often as I ask for money, you will let me have it. Of course, I will give you my note for cash I receive, and try to rustle from my children enough money to pay you interest on the borrowed money.” Well, that is exactly what Congress did in 1913 when it passed the Federal Reserve Act.

To fight World War II, we gave the bankers of the United States $250 billion in U. S. Bonds that we might use our own, the Nation’s credit. By using the reserve multiplier, this gave them $1 trillion 250 billion bank credit. What an unearned bonanza for the banksters! Credits are to the ankers what your deposits are to you. They can lend them, or use them to buy investments – it is cash to thr bankers!

So, by adding the $250 billion in U.S. Bonds we absolutely gave to them their $1 trillion 250 billion bank credit, and we find that the bankers (the then paupers) came out of World War II $1,500 billion richer, and the (then rich man) the United States Government came out $250 billion in debt to the bankers (the paupers) thanks to the stupidity and/or venality of our Congressmen, newspapers, journals, and educated people of the nation. Clearly, by their own testimony, the Federal Reserve, as a maritime lender or insurer, not only has nothing at risk (i.e., nothing to lose in the maritime venture for profit) –but can only gain on a scale that is almost inconceivable, just like the tontine insurance schemes, and just like the George Rapp Harmony Society.

The significance of this will become very apparent when we apply the law to the fact. These same people who were given control of our public money system, for the ostensible purpose of evening out the economy, using Professor List’s formula for a “National Economy”, caused a recession in 1921 — and precipitated the crash of `29 by increasing the member bank reserve requirements from 15% to 20% — thereby forcing a huge liquidity squeeze. This set the stage for what was to follow in 1933 by way of bankrupting the treasuries of the States and Federal governments — they could no longer pay their debts at law to the Federal Reserve — drastic measures were obviously necessary — we had a “National Emergency” on our hands!

In March of 1933, President Roosevelt had Congress pass an Emergency Measures Act. The text used in this act was the “Trading With The Enemies Act” of 1917 which revoked the constitutional rights of Germans and allies of Germany living in the USA. These people were forbidden to carry on trade with Germany and were subject to fines and/or imprisonment for showing any anti-USA sentiment. The Emergency Powers Act of 1933 eliminated section five of the Trading With The Enemies Act. This section exempted US citizens from the act. Thus the Citizens of the United States were put on status as enemies of the United States.

This allowed the President to rule by decree (executive order) as under marshall rule. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt issued an executive order calling for the return of all gold in private hiding to the Federal Reserve by May 1 under the pain of ten years imprisonment and $10,000 fine. Hoarders were hunted and prosecuted, Attorney General Cummings declared: “I have no patience with people who follow a course that in war time would class them as slackers. If I have to make an example of some people, I’ll do it cheerfully.”

On May 12, 1933, the California Assembly and Senate adopted Assembly Joint Resolution No. 26. This resolution stated in part: “Whereas, it would appear that, with proper use and control of modern means of production and distribution, it would be possible for practically all persons to have and enjoy a fair share of material goods in return for services; and whereas, such use, control and appropriate economic planning are not feasible except through the direction and supervision of a single, centralized agency and the removal of certain constitutional limitations; now, therefore be it resolved by the Assembly and Senate, jointly, that the Legislature of the State of California hereby memorializes the Congress to propose an amendment to the constitution of the United States reading substantially as follows:

“The Congress and the several states, by its authority and under its control, may regulate or provide for the regulation of hours of work, compensation for work, the production of commodities and the rendition of services, in such manner as shall be necessary and proper to foster orderly production and equitable distribution, to provide ruminative work for the maximum number of persons, to promote adequate compensation for work performed, and to safeguard the economic stability and welfare of the nation;’ “resolved, that the Legislature of California respectfully urges that, pending the submission and adoption of such amendment, the Congress provide for such economic planning and regulation as may be necessary and proper under present economic conditions and legally possible under the existing provisions of the Constitution;

And be if further Resolved, that the chief clerk of the Assembly is hereby instructed forthwith to transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, and to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of t he House of Representatives and each of the senators and representatives from California in the Congress of the United States.” May 12, 1933.”

END PART SEVEN

Pennsylvania General Assembly Act III

PART EIGHT Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

This act declared that when the state treasury department could no longer “pay” its debts and was jeopardizing its depositors and creditors, the secretary of banking would be designated as receiver for the treasury and he was to file a certificate of possession in Dauphin County’s Prothonotary’s Office in Harrisburg, the state Capitol. As receiver for the State treasury and all its offices (meaning all the county treasurers), William D. Gordon, Secretary of Banking, was granted the authority by Act III to appoint a fiduciary to manage all the financial matters of the State. He also had the power to assign as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government, all property in the state, real and personal, resources and many other assets as insurance to the Federal Reserve.

House Joint Resolution 192 – 1933

(20 years after enactment of the Federal Reserve Act)

On June 5, 1933, Congress enacted HJR-192 to suspend the gold standard and to abrogate the gold clause. This resolution declared that “Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency…are inconsistent with the declared policy of congress…in the payment of debts. Editor’s Note: HJR 192 was suspended during the 1970’s and recinded during the 1980’s.

This resolution declared that any obligation requiring “payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money policy; and … Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.”

A farm control bill around the same time period had attached to it a clause making Federal Reserve notes legal tender. In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down the Farm Control Act, thus carrying with it the legal tender status of Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve notes were used for inter-bank transfers. Around 1945, Congress passed a bill which called for the withdrawl of Federal Reserve notes from public circulation;but, they are still with us… *NOTE that the words do not talk about “payment” of debt, but clearly states that “Every Obligation … Shall be discharged.”

In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words “payment” and “discharge”: “There is a distinction between a `debt discharged’ and a `debt paid.’ When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment.”

Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192 and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing they can do is tender in transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a “Public National Credit” system where debt is money (The Federal Reserve calls it “monetized debt”) over which the only jurisdiction at is Admiralty and Maritime.

HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional “payable in gold” clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, proscribes the States making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt — but, this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt.

HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, a discharge of an obligation — thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the “absolute prohibition” so carefully engineered into the Constitution. There is, now, nothing for this Article to operate on, just as there is nothing for Common Law to operate on. Perpetual debt, bills, notes, cheques and credits fall within a totally different jurisdiction than contemplated by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 — and that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Law of Admiralty and Maritime. Now, it is easy to see how “bills” as plenty as oak leaves, “polluted the laws after the War For Independence, as described by Peletiah Webster”. This is how we lost access to substantive Common Law — the very law the Minute Men fought to regain.

HJR-192 places every person who deals in the public national credit in the legal position of a merchant, and the only jurisdiction over any controversy involving this subject matter is Admiralty and Maritime. Obviously, if we cannot pay our debts at law, we are also benefiting from limited liability under the Limited Liability Act when we use this credit — and, that is marine insurance!

The definitions of “liability” and “insure” will help convince us of this fact — in analyzing these definitions, keep in mind the distinction between “payment” and “discharge”. Liability: The word is a broad term. It has been defined to mean: all character of debts and obligations… any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied … condition which creates a duty to perform an act immediately or in the future … duty to pay money or to perform some other service … the state of being bound or obligated in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something. “Insure: “To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils or possible liability”.

QUESTION #1: Who do you suppose took possession of the treasury of the State of Pa. on June 5, 1933, — the moment HJR-192 made it impossible for the State of Pennsylvania to pay its debts?

QUESTION #2: Land titles being allodial in Pennsylvania, what was the State Assembly’s authority and jurisdiction to pledge these allodiums to the Federal Reserve as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government?

QUESTION #3:If the individual citizens of Pennsylvania were indeed “sovereign” under the Common Law –What was the authority and jurisdiction of the State Assembly to pledge their labor to the Federal Reserve pool?

Clearly, the alleged authority and jurisdiction is the so-called public policy declared by Congress. We will return to this subject later on.

If all the assets of the United States have been hypothecated to the Federal Reserve “pool” as security for the maritime loan and insurance underwriting policy, then that raises a couple of questions: QUESTION #1: If the United States “dies” (or is merged) under a One World government, who gets the pool? QUESTION #2: If the Federal Reserve “dies” by way of getting its charter rescinded, who gets the pool?

The answers can be found in the Federal Reserve Act itself: “Should a Federal Reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied”.

31 USC 315B provided that : “No gold shall after January 30, 1934, be coined, and no gold coin shall after January 30, 1934, be paid out or delivered by the United States; provided however, that coinage may continue to be executed by the mints of the United States for foreign countries”. This exception was necessary because foreign countries, being recognized or sovereign, could not be held to the internal public policy of the United States. HJR-192 was binding only upon those individuals who were beneficiaries of public policy; that being the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt arising out of participation in the Federal Reserve Public Credit System.

HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said : “The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”

Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring “benefits” of this system on the basis of constitutionality.

END PART EIGHT

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

PART NINE Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

In its decision of the case of Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, in 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the Swift v. Tyson decision of 1842 by stating: In the Erie case, Justice Brandeis wrote: “Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State … There is no Federal General Common Law.” Note the exception. The court has excepted matters governed by the constitution and acts of Congress from being governed by State law. Henry J. Friendly, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently gave us the following insights into the significance of this decision:

“The clarion yet careful pronouncement of Erie, `There is no Federal General Common Law’ opened the way to what, for want of a better term, we may call Specialized Federal Common Law. I doubt that we sufficiently realize how far this development has gone — let alone where is likely to go.” “Since most cases relating to Federal matters were in the Federal courts and involved `general’ law, the familiar rule of Swift v. Tyson usually gave Federal judges all the freedom they required in pre-Erie days and made it unnecessary for them to consider a more Esoteric source of power … By focusing attention on the nature of the right being enforced, Erie caused the principle of a specialized Federal Common Law, binding in all courts because of its source, to develop within a quarter century into a powerful unifying force.

Just as Federal courts do not conform to State decisions on issues property for the States, State courts must conform to federal decisions in areas where Congress, acting within powers granted to it, has manifested, be it ever so lightly, an intention to that end. “The Lincoln Mills doctrine (353 U.S. 448 (1957) is pregnant with possibilities. If the grant of Federal jurisdiction in suits on labor contracts affecting commerce was a mandate to fashion a Federal Common Law consistent with federal labor legislation … this like the Federal Common Law of labor would have supremacy over State law.”

“The Federal giant” …;`Professor Gilmore’ has written: “is just beginning to stir with his long-delayed entrance we are, it may be, at last catching sight of the principle character.”

QUESTION : (1). What, do you suppose, is the nature of the right, and what is the source Judge Friendly is referring to, that caused the Erie Court to overturn the Swift v. Tyson decision and rule that there was no longer a General Federal Common Law?

(2). Who, or what, is the “principle character” that Judge Friendly, [or Professor Gilmore, whom he quotes] refers?

Remember, Justice Story said in the DeLovio case that the jurisdiction of Admiralty, as to contracts, depends upon the subject matter and the nature of the cause! In a book entitled “The Law of Bills, Notes, and Cheques”, Melville M. Bigalow, Ph. D. Harvard, said in the year 1900: “We are concerned in this book with a branch which deals with the law of bills, notes and cheques. This branch of the law merchant has retained throughout its life, to the present day, its essential characteristics, clearly marking it off from the Common Law … The term Law Merchant at the present time usually suggests the law of bills, notes and cheques. The time came when it must take its place, even if piecemeal by the side of the Common Law, and of Admiralty and Equity, in the jurisprudence of England. Admiralty had already been exercising jurisdiction over instruments in the nature of bills of exchange and promissory notes pertaining to contracts in the commerce of the high seas. The Law Merchant is not even a modification of the Common Law; it occupies a field over which the Common Law does not and never did extend.”

And, from the “Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts”:… a unanimous Court (Clearfield Trust co. v. United States, 1943, 63 S. Ct. 573) held: “The rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper that is of issue are governed by Federal rather than local law. This does not mean that in choosing the applicable Federal rule the courts may not occasionally select State law. But is was thought that such a course would be singularly inappropriate in the Clearfield case. The issuance of commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payment will commonly occur in several States … The desirability of a uniform rule is plain.

To find such a uniform rule the Court looked to the Federal Law Merchant …” “Federal courts have made similar decisions for themselves as to what the controlling rule is to be in other cases where the United States is a party issued by the United States,” government contracts, or the effect of a Federal lien …” “If an issue is controlled by Federal Common Law, this is binding on both State and Federal courts. A case `arising under’ Federal Common Law is a Federal question case, and is within the original jurisdiction of the Federal courts as such …” The burgeoning of a Federal Common Law binding on Federal and State courts alike has occurred at the same time as the development of the Erie doctrine …

It is frequently said that the Erie doctrine applies only in cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Indeed in an action for wrongful death caused by a maritime tort committed on navigable waters, the Court curtly dismissed Erie as “irrelevant,” since the district court was exercising its admiralty jurisdiction, even though it was enforcing a state- created right”…

.. Despite repeated statements implying the contrary, it is the source of the right sued upon, and not the ground on which federal jurisdiction is founded, which determines the governing law.” Obviously, the principle character Judge Friendly was referring to is the Admiral himself — enlarging his powers and jurisdiction as a result of the “public policy” of HJR-192 — that being perpetual debt and limited liability for payment of debt under the Federal Law Merchant and the Law of Admiralty because of subject matter and nature of the cause. Victory Tax Act (1942)

Prior to the Erie decision, it was well established by many court decisions that wages were not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. The Victory Tax Act was passed by congress in 1942, as an emergency war measure, authorizing income tax on wages. This act was to self- destruct, and did, two years from its enactment.

QUESTION : It is common knowledge that “income taxes” on labor have continued to be collected since the expiration of the Victory Tax Act in 1944. What is the legal basis for a so-called “income tax” on wages since 1944? The facts clearly show that it is not an income tax on wages, but, instead is an interest or premium payment to the maritime lender, the Federal Reserve. The 16th Amendment does not apply to the Feds in this case — Just as Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, does not apply to the States! United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533, (1944).

In 1944 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of U.S. v. S.E. Underwriters Association holding insurance to be inter-state commerce. FIRST NAT. EEN. SOC. V. GARRISON INSURANCE (1945): “The District Court takes judicial notice that, under a recent decision of the Supreme Court, insurance is now interstate commerce within the commerce clause.” McCarren Act (1945).

In 1945, Congress enacted the McCarren Act declaring “that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest and that silence on the part of congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.”

Beginning in 1963, the words “redeemable in lawful money” and “will pay to the bearer on demand” were removed from future issues of Federal Reserve Notes: further reflecting the public policy stated in HJR-192. And, strangely enough, on October 28, 1977, HJR-192 was quietly repealed by public law 95-147. The joint resolution entitled “Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States” approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.

The reason for the repeal of HJR-192 is somewhat obscure. After 44 years of unchallenged implementation, this public policy is clearly established by custom, usage and participation in the credit system by the American public. Those of us operating on the privilege of limited liability, via the public credit, are still bound by the rules of the giver of the privilege.

END PART NINE

PART TEN OF THE BRITISH SYSTEM

But, how about the Federal Reserve itself? Does not his repeal allow them to, once again, demand payment in gold for the interest on public debt — pursuant to the terms of the Federal Reserve Act? Remember, this act contains a provision made with respect to an obligation purporting to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold — and that provision appears to be back in effect. If this be so, what can we expect to happen when the bankers present their demands — knowing that there won’t be enough gold to meet them and no hope of acquiring enough gold?

Any good banker knows that, in this situation, it is foreclosure time — it is time for distribution of the pool to the last survivors. These facts paint a picture so complex that it is almost beyond comprehension, so a summary of the most salient facts is appropriate at this time. The same people that said give us the Federal Reserve Charter and we will see that there is stability to our economy forced us into a recession in 1921, by a contraction of the Federal Reserve requirements of the fractional reserve to the various banks. This contracted the money supply by increasing the reserve requirement from 15% to 20%. They forced a huge liquidity squeeze in 1929, which brought on the depression.

This precipitated our inability to pay off interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve — so in 1933 Congress entered the United States into bankruptcy, by the suspension of the payment of debt in gold mandated by HJR-192 in 1933. This one act terminated national Federal Common Law.

This one act breached the flood gates which held the maritime law at the tidelands (with the ebb and flow of the tide) and permitted Maritime Admiralty Law and its jurisdiction to sweep over the American people — because we substituted the payment of debt in lawful gold with discharge of debt under limited liability in maritime. What we have in lieu of lawful money is federal reserve notes of an insurance underwriting scheme that is a tontine — just like the George Rapp Society was a tontine and just like the early tontine insurance programs.

Now, you may say to us at this point, how is it that a communistic, religious society that’s operated for economic profit, and insurance companies, and the Federal Reserve — how do these totally interlock? In all three cases there was a pool of assets involved. In all three cases, limited liability was involved, which is insurance. In all three cases, there was a policy of survivors take all — that is a wagering policy.

In the George Rapp Society, people and property were pledged to the pool. In a tontine, premium payments were pledged to the pool. In the Federal Reserve, premium payments, people and property are pledged to the pool.

In all three cases, there was no accountability to the members or subscribers. In all three cases, there was forfeiture for withdrawal. In the George Rapp Society it was labor interest and intransmissability of property to heirs. In tontine it was the premiums and the interest thereon. In the Federal Reserve, it is Social Security, Unemployment Premiums, property Tax, etc. For example, what happens if you withdraw from social security, or from unemployment insurance, or stop paying property taxes — is not a forfeiture demanded?

In the George Rapp Society, List’s “National Economy” was practiced on a small scale — in the Federal Reserve, List’s “National Economy” is regulating and controlling our economy.

In the George Rapp Society, there was no risk to the insurer, George Rapp and his associates. In the Federal Reserve, there is no risk to the Maritime lender, or insurance underwriter.

In the George Rapp Society, labor was pledged, and labor was the premium for the privilege of remaining in the society for the chance of “making a profit”. — In the Federal Reserve, labor is pledged to obtain the units of credit (Federal Reserve Scrip) to pay the interest to the maritime lender, or the maritime insurance underwriter (one and the same under maritime law).

In the George Rapp Society, George Rapp had no vested interest in the lives of the society members. In the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve has no vested interest in the lives of the United States, or its citizens, nor does it have any risk at stake in the maritime venture of the Public National Credit System. In the tontine, the premium was never to be repaid in the original tontine scheme; in the Federal Reserve, no provision is made to ever pay the principle of the loan from the Federal Reserve, in the Federal Reserve Act — which is the contract between the United States and the Federal Reserve System.

I am sure that some of you in this audience has performed service in the Navy. Imagine yourself as a seaman aboard a ship, in this case the ship is the credit commune in a joint maritime venture for profit — beholding to the class A Stockholders, the owners of the ship, the Federal Reserve. The Captain of the ship, for arguments sake, let’s say is the Secretary of the Treasury.

Now let’s look at Common Law versus Maritime: First of all, under the Common Law, the rights of privacy are respected. Aboard the ship, on the credit voyage, in the credit commune, there is no privacy. The Captain has the right at any time to invade your privacy. Under Common Law, we always deal in substance — by substance we mean with gold and silver, and we are dealing with real goods and services.

Under Maritime Law, in the credit commune, we are dealing with bills, notes, cheques, and credit — and of course now credit cards and fictitious documents known as stocks and bonds and so on down the line.

Under Common Law, we protect the right of the family –understand that this Common Law comes from the early law of the tribes of Israel and from the laws and teachings of Jesus and the Bible. In fact the Common Law and the Bible are totally compatible. But, in and aboard the ship of the credit commune there is no marriage, there is no family unit — oh yes, we know the Captain performs marriages aboard ship for people travelling aboard ship — but for all practical purposes there is no family unit.You are a member of the commune, and you have to obey the orders of that commune. In fact, you, under Common Law, have personal rights and property rights. But, there are no personal or property rights in the commune —

Oh you’re allowed to keep toilet articles and everything else. But if you have anything that they think is a danger to the voyage, like if you have a wooden foot-locker and they feel that the wood might burn and might be a danger to the ship, they could make you throw the foot locker overboard. Or, if you had some property in one of the holds of the ship and that presented some danger to the rest of the ship because of damage in that hold, or fire in that hold — they could shut that hold off — and all your goods would be destroyed. Under Common Law, your rights and property are considered and protected.

Now, in Common Law, we are totally responsible for our actions — but under Maritime Law there is limited liability for payment of debts. And, if we just look at that a little bit further, we find how, now, we have a situation where even our criminal law has been corrupted by Maritime Law and we find people who have murdered and raped innocent people; eight, ten, twelve years later they are released from prison to become a probable danger to society again. A person who has murdered a supervisor and mayor of San Francisco is also out of jail in 7 years, because of limited liability for payment of debt. People can pull the trigger and wound the President and say I was insane at the moment that I did that –and other than having to go to a mental institution, served no time at all in jail.

Under Common Law, these people would probably have been executed. John Booth didn’t even get a trial when he shot President Lincoln. Under the Common Law, we have the right to refuse an order, as a free sovereign. Aboard the ship, the Captain can make every seaman perform, and do his duty — as the Captain sees fit.

Under Common Law, the jury not only determines the admissibility of evidence and judges the facts, but its first and foremost duty is to judge the justice of the law as it applies to the particular case. It is this feature of a Common Law jury that caused our founding fathers to refer to the Common Law jury as the “palladium (i.e. the very foundation or cornerstone)” of liberty.

Aboard the ship, the chancellor does not even have to have a jury — but if he chooses to have one, it is merely advisory — and those jurors must consider only the evidence permitted by the chancellor; and they must take the law as the chancellor dictates it to them.

The history of due process is essentially the history of the Common Law jury. The right of a Common Law jury to say no, or jury nullification, was clearly established in England in 1670 when the jury refused to convict William Penn on charges of preaching before an unlawful assembly. For refusing to convict, as instructed from the bench, the jurors were fined 40 marks each and sentenced to imprisonment till paid. Upon a Habeas Corpus petition release from prison, the jurors were vindicated by a decision concurred in by all the judges in England, except one, abolishing the practice of punishing juries for their verdicts.

n the period immediately before the Revolution, jury nullification had become an integral part of the American judicial system and there is agreement among many commentators that the right of the jury to decide questions of law and fact prevailed in this country until the middle 1800’s. By the end of the century, however, the power of the jury had been thoroughly decimated by a jealous judiciary.

The specific demise can be traced to four highly influential cases, three of which were exclusively within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Being Admiralty cases, limitation of the powers of those particular juries was perfectly proper. The problem is, not understanding and distinguishing jurisdictional bounds, we have allowed admiralty case law to be imposed in the totally different, and inapplicable, jurisdiction of Common Law.

Under the Common Law, there is no such thing as a victimless crime, and a victim receives redress and compensation for damages — Aboard the ship, the Captain can make any act a crime, and he can impose his sanctions accordingly. His concern is for the safety of the voyage, and he has little time or inclination to see that the victim of a real crime, under the Common Law, receives compensation from the perpetrator of that crime.

Under the Common Law, there is very little need for jails; whereas aboard the ship, particularly when there is discontent among the crew regarding certain policies of the Captain, there is a continual need to contract more brigs — enlarge the penal enforcement staff.

Remember what Justice Story said in the DeLovio case about appeals and Writs of Error? Writs of Error are Common Law writs. Appeal is Equity and Admiralty, in civil matters, and Admiralty alone in criminal matters because equity courts do not have criminal jurisdiction. These are some simple tests you can use to determine in which jurisdiction a particular court is operating, in any particular case.

So you see, because of the early customs and traditions of the perils of the sea, a very harsh group of laws grew up. Because of the danger of shipping substantive money, gold and silver, from pirates and storms they started transporting bills, notes and credits — and this grew up into the evil practice of issuing bills, notes and credits when they didn’t have the substance to back them up. And this is the basis for our inflation that is defrauding the American public today. Under the Common Law, all these things would not be possible — under Maritime Law they are.

When we entered the credit commune and began forfeiting payment of debt and substituted a mere discharge of an obligation in its place, we lost access to our Common Law rights and were handed a pottage of privileges; and in fact, we transferred ourselves from free allodial title to that of sub-tenents, villains, working the land subject to the Captain of the ship. Yet, people still think that they own land — Yet, we still think that we have rights — and we go into traffic court not knowing we are under Maritime Law. This is why we don’t get a jury trial for infractions anymore.

This is why the jury is merely advisory in every court in this land — and must take the law as the judge gives it to them, and see and hear only the evidence allowed by the chancellor. Not knowing this, we have taken, time and time again, Common Law issues into courts of admiralty and wondered why our substantive constitutional rights were not upheld and respected by the courts. Being an Admiralty court, it had no jurisdiction to rule on such issues, or grant relief, regardless of how sound your law and facts were at Common Law!

END PART TEN

PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

PART ELEVEN Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

A complete and thorough understanding of jurisdictional bounds is so absolutely essential that it is worthwhile to spend just a little more time on the subject at this time. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Title 28, United States Code) gives us some more specifics:

Rule 9.

PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

(H) Admiralty and Maritime Claims. A pleading or count setting forth a claim for relief within the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction that is also within the jurisdiction of the district court on some other ground may contain a statement identifying the claim as an Admiralty or Maritime claim for the purposes of Rules 14(c), 38 (e), 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. If the claim is cognizable only in Admiralty, it is an Admiralty or Maritime claim for those purposes whether so identified or not.

TRIALS Rule 38.

JURY TRIAL OF RIGHT

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.

(e) Admiralty and Maritime Claims. These rules shall not be construed to create a right to trial by jury of the issues in an Admiralty or Maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9 (h). As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966

1966 Amendment

RULE 39:

(c) Advisory Jury and Trial by Consent. In all actions not triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury or, except in actions against the United States when a statute of the United States provides for trial without a jury, the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial with a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury had been a matter of right.

RULE 82.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE UNAFFECTED

These rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts or the venue of actions therein. An Admiralty or Maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9 (h) shall not be treated as a civil action for the purposes of title 28 U.S.C. 1391-93.

  • After the War for Independence, by way of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, domestic law was to be the substantive Common Law in the United States, forever, — and this was to operate on allodiums and gold, a portable substance representing those allodiums.
  • The encroachment of Admiralty law onto the domestic law of the colonies was the primary inducement for the Declaration of ndependence.

HJR-192 removed access to substantive Common Law and brought Admiralty law inland by way of the Public National Credit System — making everyone who touches it a merchant under Maritime Law.

  • Maritime loans and maritime insurance are treated exactly the same under the Maritime Law of the Law of Nations. In one case the party is called the lender, in the other the underwriter.

If, as was well-settled law by the courts prior to 1933, wages were not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment — then, obviously, wages are still not income within the meaning of this amendment.

The evidence conclusively establishes that the legal basis for the collection of these so-called income taxes, since 1944, is that they are, in fact, interest or insurance premiums to the Federal Reserve for the privilege of limited liability for the payment of debt.

The legal basis for this so-called tax was established in 1933 by HJR-192. The fact that implementation of this premium was postponed until 1942 and put into effect under the guise of an emergency war measure, thereby conditioning wage earners to believe it was actually a tax, smacks of willful and intentional concealment of material facts for the purpose of deceiving wage earners and concealing the truth.

Further, Forest D. Montgomery, Counsellor to the General Counsel for the Department of Treasury, wrote a letter to Mr. Smigeilski on this subject, wherein he stated: “31 U.S. Code, Section 742 [Note: A law researcher reports that the numbering of this provision has been changed to 31 USC Sec. 3124], generally exempts Treasury obligation from taxation by state or local governments. This provision, as well as the Constitution, prohibits state taxation of Federal Reserve Notes.”

If this is true, and IF the states are actually collecting “income taxes” based on Federal Reserve Notes, they are in clear violation of Federal laws.

Do you really believe the States are openly flaunting Federal law, or is it possible that both the Feds and the States know something that has been kept from us all these years?

This letter was signed over the title of “Counsellor to the General Counsel” of the Department of the Treasury. Surely, this man would know if the states are flaunting Federal law. Note also, that he says that the Constitution prohibits state taxation of Federal Reserve Notes — clearly referring to the absolute prohibition stated in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Just what is going on here, and just what is Mr. Montgomery telling us?

The California insurance Code itself can help us make the connection between insurance and so-called “taxes”:

Sec.103. Marine Insurance (California)

Marine insurance includes insurance against any and all kinds of loss of or damage to: … all goods, freights, cargos, merchandise, effects, disbursements, profits, money, bullion, securities, choses in action, evidences of debt, valuable papers, bottomry, and espondentia interests and all other kinds of property, and interests therein, in respect to, appertaining to or in connection with any and all risks of perils of navigation”.

And, the California Insurance Code can also help us decide how a person gets involved, and incurs liability, under a policy of marine insurance: Article 1885. Interest in source of profits in marine insurance, a person who has an interest in the thing from which profits are expected to proceed, has an insurable interest in the profits.

So, we see that pursuant to California Code, any and all kinds of such things as evidences of debt and bottomry (that is maritime loans) are the subject matter – and under marine insurance law in the State of California.

Obviously, the Law of Nations applies to the facts presented in this case, so, let’s first find out just what this law is.

END OF PART ELEVEN

LAW OF NATIONS

PART TWELVE Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

THE LAW OF NATIONS

GENERAL

The necessary and general Law. It is always obligatory upon a nation with respect to its own conscience and on all nations in the regulations of their internal conduct.

External law which dictates what every nation may require of every other, and yet being founded in the will of the governed (public policy) by reason.

The natural, or internal law of conscience. It is universal and founded in nature.

It proceeds from the general conscent of mankind and binds all nations.

 

CONVENTIONAL

May be confined to particular states and depends on their arbitrary volition. A rule which their welfare and common safetyobliges them to follow in mutual intercourse. (public policy)

Arises from express conscent (e.g., Declaration of Independence, treaties and constitutions.)

Binds these nations who have assented to it.

 

CUSTOMARY

May be confined to particular states and depends on their arbitrary volition. A rule which their welfare and common safety obliges them to follow in mutual intercourse. (public policy).

Arises from tacit concent (e.g., convention and custom).

Obligatory on those nations who have adopted it.

The law of nations may be considered of three kinds, to wit: general, conventional or customary. The first is universal, or established by the general consent of mankind, and binds all nations. The second is founded on express consent, and is not universal, and only binds those nations who have assented to it. The third is founded on tacit consent; and is only obligatory on those nations who have adopted it”. Ware, Administrator of Jones v. Hylton, et al (1796)

Thus, it is clear that: 1. The United States Constitution is an ordinance (or statute) within the Law of Nations. 2. The various State constitutions are ordinances (or statutes) within the United States Constitution, and are a part and parcel of the law of Nations. 3. “Public policy” is within the jurisdiction of the law of Nations.

In the Seneca Case, decided by a court of appeals in Pennsylvania in 1829; the court said: “The jurisdiction of the district court, under the 9th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat.76), embraces all cases of maritime nature, whether they be particularly of admiralty cognizance or not; and such jurisdiction, and the law regulating its exercise, are to be sought for in the General Maritime Laws of Nations, and are not confined to that of England, or any other particular maritime nation.

So we see that our Admiralty and Maritime courts are not only bound by the Maritime Laws of this country, or England, but are bound by the General Maritime Laws of all nations.

Now, let’s look into some of those General Maritime Laws dealing with the subject matter brought into evidence in this case. From the Statutes at Large from the 15th to the 20th year of King George II, we find the following:

“The from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and forty six, no assurance or assurances shall be made — interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy, or by way of gaming or wagering, …and that every assurance shall be null and void to all intents and purposes.”

The reason for this enactment was stated to be: “Whereas, it has been found by experience that the making of assurances, interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy, hath been productive of many pernicious practices, … and by introducing a mischievous kind of gaming or wagering, under the pretence of … the institution and laudable design of making assurances, hath been perverted; and that which was intended for the encouragement of trade and navigation, has in many instances, become hurtful, and destructive to the same:” Here we have a clear and distinct statement that interest or no interest, insurance policies, and gaming and wagering, are absolutely against the “public policy” of nations — and are, therefore, void.

 From the Halsbury’s “Statutes of England” we find: “The Life Insurance Act”,

1774 (14 Geo. 3c. 48)

1. No insurance to be made on lives, etc., by persons having no interest, etc.– From and after the passing of this Act no insurance shall be made by any person or persons, politick or corporate, on the life or lives of any person or persons, or on any other event or events whatsoever, wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy or policies shall be made, shall have no interest, or by way of gaming or wagering; and that every assurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. NOTE: At Common Law, wager policies were legal contracts.

“The Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7c. 41) …

p1. Marine Insurance Defined. – A contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in a manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against maritime losses, that is to say, the losses incident to maritime adventure.”

4. Avoidance of wagering or gaming contracts.
(1) Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void.
(2) A contract of marine insurance is deemed to be a gaming or wagering contract –
(a) where the assured has not an insurable interest as defined by the Act, and the contract is entered into with no expectation of acquiring such an interest;
(b)or, where the or no interest,’ or `without further proof of interest than the policy itself,’ …or subject to any other like term.”

5. Insurable Interest Defined.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person has an insurable interest who is interested in a maritime adventure.
(2) In particular a person is interested in a maritime adventure where he stands in any legal or equitable relation to the adventure or to any insurable property at risk therein, in consequence of which he may benefit by the safety or due arrival of insurable property, or may be prejudiced by its loss, or damage thereto,or by the detention thereof, or may incur liability in respect thereof.”

“Disclosure and Representations”

#17 … A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, …NOTE: If this good faith be not observed by either party, there being any concealment or non-disclosure of a material particular, the contract may be avoided by the injured party;”
#41 …Warranty of Legality. — There is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner…
NOTE: It seems that the assured cannot hold the insurer to a waiver of illegality for … only legal adventures can be insured.”

“The Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act, 1909,

(9 Edw. 7 c. 12)

1. Prohibition of gambling or loss by maritime perils.
(1) If – (a) Any person effects a contract of maritime insurance without having any bonafide interest, direct or indirect, … or a bonafide expectation of acquiring such an interest; … the contract shall be deemed to be a contract by way of gambling on loss by maritime perils …

And, from “An Essay on Maritime Loans from the French” of M. Balthazard Marie Emerigon, we find: “The Lender (of a Maritime Loan) was not prohibited from demanding pledges and hypothecations as an additional security; providing it was not a pretext for exacting maritime interest after the sea risk should be at an end.” “It is essential to this contract that there be a risk, and that the risk be incurred by the lender … The stipulation, interest or no interest is a real wager … This is not permitted among us …” “If the contract was void in its commencement, the maritime interest is not chargeable, because no maritime dangers were borne by the lender.” “Difference between contracts of bottomry and those of Loan, Partnership and insurance.

Bottomry is different from the contract of loan because:
1. The peril of money, simply lent, concerns the borrower: whereas money lent at bottomry is at the risk of the lender.
2. In a simple loan, interest is due by positive stipulation only; whereas, maritime interest is implied in the contract itself.
3. In a simple loan, the interest, among merchants, could not exceed the rate fixed by the Prince, or, at most the custom of the country; whereas, bottomry may carry any interest.”
” … Maritime interest is not subject to the limits of ordinary legal interest, but that it may be regulated by the degree of danger to which the lender exposes or believes he exposes his money.” “The contract of maritime loan approaches more nearly to that of Insurance. There is a strong analogy between them. In their effects they are construed on the same principles. In the one contract, the lender bears the sea risks, in the other, the underwriter. In the one, the maritime interest is the price of the peril; and this term corresponds with the premium which is paid in the other.”

From the Marine Insurance Act of 1906. Previously referred to:
#82. … Enforcement of return. – Where the premium or a proportionate part thereof is, by this Act, declared to be returnable, – (a) If already paid, it may be recovered by the assured from the insurer; and (b) If unpaid, it may be retained by the assured or his agent.”
#84. … Return for failure of consideration.(1) Where the consideration for the payment of the premium totally fails, and there has been no fraud or illegality on the part of the assured or his agents, the premium is thereupon returnable to the assured … (3) In particular – (a) Where the policy is void, or is voided by the insurer as from the commencement of the risk, the premium is returnable provided that there has been no fraud or illegality on the part of the assured;”

So you see, that pursuant to the Positive Law of the Law of Nations, if there has been no fraud or illegality on your part — and you have marshalled your facts to prove that the Federal Reserve contract is a wagering policy, you can void the contract and are entitled to a refund of all premiums paid.

And, in the California Insurance Code, we find: SEC.1900. Duty to Disclose In marine insurance each party is bound to communicate, in addition to what is required in the case of other insurance:
(a) All the information which he possesses and which is material to the risk, except such as is exempt from such communication in the case of other insurance.
(b) The exact and whole truth in relation to all matters that he represents or, upon inquiry assumes to disclose.

Now, let’s consider the public policy as stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution and compare this statement of public policy to the public policy of the Positive Law of the Law of Nations dealing with wagering policies, and to the so-called public policy of the Federal Reserve Act and HJR-192!

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states:
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This Preamble is a statement of “Public policy” under the “conventional” branch of the Law of Nations. Since wagering policies, interest or no interest insurance policies, and maritime loans at no risk to the lender are forbidden under the public policy of the Positive Law of Nations — reason and logic dictates that the, so-called, public policy of the Federal Reserve Act and HJR-192 are not public policy, as alleged by Congress, and
the Supreme Court in the Erie R.R. decision — but, instead, are precisely the contrary.

Congress, therefore, had no authority and jurisdiction to enact the Federal Reserve Act, or HJR-192, and it logically and reasonably follows that these acts are a nullity, ab initio. Congress is granted the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations in Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution; and, therefore, has the dutyto do so.

We submit that the law and the facts presented here today establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Congress has authorized and implemented a wagering policy and sanctioned crimes and offenses perpetrated and committed against the people of the United States by the Federal ReserveBoard and its class A stockholders.

Consequently, it also follows that no State assembly or legislature had the authority and jurisdiction to hypothecate the State’s treasuries, land and people as security to the Federal Reserve.

Our State courts are operating in Admiralty jurisdiction, for the most part. (Remember the McCarren Act which declared that the continued regulation and taxation of insurance by the states was in the public interest? — and that Judge Friendly said that, as a result of the Erie R.R. decision, the State courts must conform to Federal decisions in areas where Congress has manifested an intent to that end? — and that the Erie R.R. decision was a result, and implementation of, the “Public policy” stated in HJR-192???)

END PART TWELVE

 

IN CALIFORNIA PRACTICE,

VOLUME 2, PART I

SECTION 8:183. — MARITIME CASES

PART THIRTEEN Of THE BRITISH SYSTEM

 

” … STATE TRIBUNALS … HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OVER MARITIME CASES.”

“WHETHER A CIVIL CASE IS OF ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME JURISDICTION DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO IT IF THE CLAIM IS IN CONTRACT, AND UPON THE LOCALITY OF THE TRANSACTION OR THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY IF THE CLAIM IS IN TORT.”

” … A RIGHT SANCTIONED BY THE MARITIME LAW MAY BE ENFORCED THROUGH ANY APPROPRIATE REMEDY RECOGNIZED AT COMMON LAW. THUS THE STATE MUST FOLLOW THE SUBSTANTIVE MARITIME LAW, ALTHOUGH IT CAN ENFORCE SUCH LAW THROUGH ANY COMMON LAW REMEDY. ACCORDINGLY, THE STATE HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS IN PERSONS AGAINST ONE WHO HAS VIOLATED A MARITIME

CONTRACT OR COMMITTED A MARITIME TORT, SINCE COMMON LAW COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY ENTERTAINED SUCH PROCEEDINGS. A STATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION WHERE THE SUIT IS IN PERSONAM AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, AUXILIARY ATTACHMENT AGAINST A PARTICULAR THING OR AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT IN GENERAL.”

SECTION 8:184. IN GENERAL

“GENERALLY, THE STATE COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS IN FEDERAL CIVIL MATTERS, UNLESS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS PROVIDE OTHERWISE. FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ARE EXPRESSLY GIVEN CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN SOME MATTERS BY FEDERAL STATUE, INCLUDING … LIABILITY ACT ACTIONS, …”

There is another subject matter that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Admiralty that we should all be aware of; and that is “Revenue Causes:”

In Delovio v. Boit, the court said: “A third exposition requires an examination of the authority and powers of the Vice Admiralty Courts in the United States under the colonial government … The commissions of the crown gave the courts, which were established, a most ample jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, and over torts and injuries, as well in ports as upon the high seas. And acts of parliament by giving or confirming cognizance of all seizures for contraventions of the revenue laws.” (emphasis added) And in the Huntress Case: “For more than a century before the formation of the Constitution, that is, from the early part of the reign of Charles II, revenue causes had been heard and tried in the colonies by courts of Vice Admiralty.” (emphasis added)

Neither the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor any subsequently enacted statutes have modified the originally established jurisdictional boundaries over revenue causes in this country. In summary, some subject matters and causes that are exclusively with Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction are:

  • Limited Liability
  • Bills, notes, and checks issued by the U.S. Government
  • Credit borrowed into circulation by the U.S. Government
  • Hypothecation
  • Violation of a maritime contract
  • Commission of a Maritime tort (for example, failure to perform an obligation founded in a maritime contract.)

These are exclusively within the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Maritime — whether the claim is so identified or not!

Judge Friendly also said that the Lincoln Hills Doctrine (dealing with labor contracts and commerce) was “pregnant with possibilities.” In this context the friendly judge was talking about the possibilities of Federal courts increasing their powers because of the nature of the source, and the nature of the right being enforced. That source being the credit voyage — and that right being derived from a maritime contract under Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction.

We are constantly told that, today, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Well, that is perfectly true, if this voyage is were lawful one — it is absolutely not true, if this voyage (the source of its increased powers) was unlawful from its inception. The task before us is clear. Maybe we can take a page or two from their own book. The facts and law presented here today are truly pregnant with possibilities for those of us who want to apply them effectively!!

Now that we understand the particulars of how we have been tricked into joining this maritime voyage for profit, and what, and where our remedies are, we will then have to know much more fact and law, in order to do this: we will have to know how to analyze and determine which jurisdiction a particular issue is in — or should be in; we will have to know courtroom procedures for that particular jurisdiction, we will have to understand the essential issues and know them inside out and front ward and backwards; we will have to develop a winning strategy to apply and use this knowledge most effectively.

Years ago, particularly in the late 1970’s many of us were bringing Civil, Common Law, actions in State and Federal courts –based on alleged violations of Constitutional and Common Law rights under color of law. All of these complaints were summarily dismissed on the grounds that “There is no cause of action stated for which the court can grant relief.”

Others have relied on Common Law defense in criminal actions. There have been a few minor “victories” — some stalemates — many outright losses — and, never, a substantive win. Even in criminal cases, some of us have been told that: “Your law is valid and sound, but your conclusions are wrong.” What were the courts telling us?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation. You are in San Francisco, short of funds, and hear about a fantastic voyage on a ship about to set sail from port — security and profits guaranteed!! You go down to the ship and sign up to the voyage. Let’s also assume that material facts about the voyage are withheld from you, in order to induce you to sign up — and, that the contemplated voyage was in violation of the positive laws of the Law of Nations, and was contrary to the meaning and intent of the United States Constitution.

Nevertheless, the ship sets sail in the middle of the night — when no one was watching from the shore. After a week at sea, you have discovered that concealment of material facts — and that you are on an unlawful voyage. You go to the Captain, inform him of your newly discovered evidence –and demand your Constitutional and Common Law rights, as a United States citizen. What do you suppose the Captain is going to do??

He has no jurisdiction to hear Common Law complaints — his sole responsibility is to insure the safety of the voyage, under Maritime Law. His only jurisdiction is under maritime law. He sees you as possibly influencing other members of the crew — thereby fomenting a mutiny. To him, his duty is clear: He must mete out a form of punishment, to some degree, thereby instilling in other members of the crew a fear of joining in that line of conduct. Therefore, he may give you one of two alternatives: (1) Go back to work and continue to perform, and I will forgive this outburst, and allow you to remain on this voyage, if you agree to pay a penalty which I shall determine and impose. (2) If you refuse to perform, I will order you to be confined to the Brig.

What, in this situation, is your recourse? Obviously none, until you get back to a port. Let’s say that, eventually, that port is New York — now, what can you do that makes sense? (1) If you can find a court of Common Law jurisdiction, you can file a Common Law action. The only proper issue in this court being fraud, and fraud is not easy to prove. Now, we know that there are no Common Law courts in New York — and we know why.

So, where does that leave you?? (2) The only place left for you to go is into an Admiralty court, and you can find a proper court of Admiralty jurisdiction, in New York, to hear these issues. You can file an action in admiralty where the proper issues are, under Admiralty and Maritime Law, the unlawfulness of the voyage itself, from its inception, pursuant to the Positive law of the Law of Nations — all going directly to the issue of jurisdiction, based on the fact that the contract was a nullity, ab initio.

Now, you have a proper cause of action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction!!

The possibilities are truly pregnant because we can prove several violations of the general Maritime Law of all nations — laws that were developed to protect the merchants and enhance commerce — laws that any Maritime court in the world is bound by!! To deny these laws, and properly presented facts and issues, would, thereby, destroy the very foundations that this mercantile superstructure is based upon.

After many futile attempts with Common Law issues and actions, that, just possibly, there may be something more to the law being applied in the courts than we knew about. It dawned on us that a far more comprehensive approach to the problem, than had ever been attempted before, would have to be undertaken if there was any possible solution AT LAW.

We are all involved in a situation that not only is enslaving us, but will make the lives of our children and grand-children unbearable. If we are to experience true freedom, we must educate ourselves now. We, as sovereign individuals, have all the power we need to turn this insane system around.

END OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

This document has been edited and posted by:

Eldon G.Warman, PO Box 5006 Stn. A, Calgary, Alberta, T2H 1X1.
egwarman@outgun.com


This brief identifies the chains with which they, the Merchants of Venice, their direct descendants and their lackeys, have used to make, we the people of North America into debt slaves.

The Merchants of Venice, descendents of the eliteist cults of ancient Chaldea and Egypt, bastardized the many courts of Europe during the Middle Ages so as to effect their continued control, which they had established during the period after the collapse of the Roman Empire, up to the Dark Ages and through the Middle Ages period.

In 1776 (as indicated on the symbolic pyramid on the Federal Reserve $1.00 note), the continuation of their control was revealed as the Illuminati. This was the grand organization (or, re-organization, as they would have us believe) of the Masonic Lodge. The direct effect on us was their influence in the various mixings of the Law of the Sea with the Law of the Land in the British Limited Monarchy system. The situation is as a frog immersed in cold water brought slowly to a boil; the poor creature doesn’t recognize the temperature change and cooks unaware.

In the latter half of another webpage I have posted on the internet, I explain how the British Monarchy has exchanged the Anglo-Saxon Common Law, based solely upon God’s Law – the Golden Rule – ‘Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you’, for British (so-called) Common Law, a form of Roman Civil Law.

Find it here: Treason

The “Founding Fathers” of the USA were all Freemasons, a commonly known fact. A recent revelation shows that the Constitution of the USA is “Ultra Vires” because it was never ratified –  by either the Committee of The States, or, more appropriately, by the people.  Those signing as “witness” after Article VII were members of a committee to draft the Constitution. Witnessing would be the procedure to show unanimous approval of the draft by the committee members involved.

The next step should have been “approval” by the Committee of the States, the representative organization of the States mandated in the Articles of Confederation, Section 5 (A.D. 1777). The final step should have been a “ratification” vote by the eligible voters in all the States concerned.  There is no evidence that the latter two steps ever took place, thus making the present Constitution of the USA an unratified draft. Instead, it was only ratified by the corporate officers (Legislatures) of the incorporated States.

Americans have been deceived into believing that those they elect into State legislatures and Congress are ‘representatives’ of the people. They are only ‘representatives’ of that portion of the deck (voting district) of the make-believe ship – corporate body politic for which they become corporate officers. Their total allegiance is to the ‘captain’ – governor of the make-believe ship.

The Protocols of Zion, the gameplan of the Illuminati and their One World Government movement, was apparently brought to public attention as early as 1785. In that program, the plans were set forth to thwart nationalism and common law societies by many devious ways, including the use of Masonry.  Were George Washington and his close associates – all Masons – involved in the plan to scuttle the Union and the Common Law society destined for the People of North America?

It is quite obvious that the Government of Canada has been using similar tactics to enslave the people of Canada; and, to turn over this country’s raw materials to the Overlords who hold the economic strings which control it. The BNA Act of 1867 did not confederate Canada.  It only combined four British colonies into one colony, the Dominion (Colony) of Canada. The government was a dictatorship, a Governor General and Council (Canada’s Parliament). The status of Canada was similar to that of a ship of the British Admiralty. The status of the people of Canada was similar to sailors on a ship of the British Admiralty; not that of an English freeman.

In 1931, the Statute of Westminster effectively decommissioned the colonies of the British Empire just as they would decommission outdated ships of the Admiralty. Canada was taken over by a usurper clique of financial barons (with Rothchild empire connections and allegiances) at that time, supposedly under the “right of salvage”: and, no change has taken place since then………

At the time of writing of this document, the author was obviously unaware of the status of “US citizen”. As originally conceived, the States were independent countries tied together by a pact or treaty in which certain sovereign states rights were given over to a federal government; first in the Articles of Confederation, and then more succinctly in the Constitution of the USA. Each person born within a State or naturalized in a State was a citizen of that State; and then by the “commonality clause” of the Constitution, a citizen of the other States – a citizen of the USA.

For eminent domain purposes, so that the Federal Government could purchase land (Louisiana Purchase and Alaska Purchase) and enter into international treaties, a piece of land (a Federal State) was provided for in the Constitution (a necessity arising out of the rules governing eminent domain). Since the Federal Government was not given any Saxon Common Law jurisdiction in the Constitution (whether this was by oversight or by designing scheme, considering later circumstance, remains for conjecture) – but only Maritime jurisdiction, the people within such a federal state (Washington, DC) come under Maritime law. In legal terms, United States only means the District of Columbia, some territories, and navy bases. The United States of America is the combined 50 States.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was supposedly inserted to give the black slaves citizenship which was denied to them by the States; but, in fact, what the 14th Amendment did was just transfer ownership from the private slave owners to the US Federal Government.

It seems that the schemers have multi-layered the traps to ensnare the unwary People into Admiralty jurisdiction. Beyond what the author has revealed in his research within this paper, later research shows other methods. The result would be that one argument would clip one strand of the noose; but, two or three others would still be fatal in and before a Court of Admiralty. For example: Through interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Social Security Act (the act of applying for and receiving a Social Security Number being the binder of the contract), a USA citizen also becomes a US citizen. The former has Common Law RIGHTS, the latter has Maritime PRIVILEGE. The author adequately covers the differences in Common Law and Maritime Law. The former citizenship you were born or “naturalized” into; the latter, you were hoodwinked into.

In the USA, you have the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). You should become “very” familiar with UCC 1-207; as well as UCC 1-103.6.  Therein lies your (some) protection and recourse when you are subject to any issue that falls into Admiralty jurisdiction on land – that is, unless the judge, whom you confront, decides that it is for the ‘good’ of the ship – the body politic that he invoke the ‘notwithstanding clause’ and disregard even this protection clause.

END
How the Crown of Great Britain and the Vatican have maintained a claimed ownership of North America ever since its discovery by the several European nations.

Click Here

For a more readable version of ‘The United States is Still a British Colony’ taken from the above website and re-formatted,

Click Here

US Legal History

The Wizards of Money

Knowledge Is Freedom

Barefoot Bob on The US Constitution

Posted on Rumor Mill News, a short treatise on:

‘What Happened ??’

When the Gold standard was removed, the Constitutional court system went into disuse. The UCC code or British Maritime Law became the Law of the land, this was done as much for functional reasons as it was to subjugate the nation. The Country was bankrupted. The federal court system came into being as a means of conducting commerce. The strawman, or your ficticious self (the ALL CAPS spelled name, or the ‘nom de guerre’ war name – famly name first) was created to be used in the federal court system.

When you are liened or convicted of a crime, it is “not you”, as a living soul, who is convicted, it is your fictitious self that is convicted. Since “you” have never denied that your fictitious self is not you (legally), you go to jail based upon the accusations made by the Government – a bankrupt fiction. You cannot argue the Law in a British Maritime system. This is where most patriots get tripped up – they do not know the rules of the system under which they are operating.

The Federal court system is an overlay or a Matrix. The Constitution, as such, is still there, but dormant until you claim your original citizen status back. There is a process to do that. Former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, was allowing the redemption process to move forward. He was forced to resign because too many people were re-claiming their inalienable (Un-able-to-Lien) rights. Without a Gold/Silver standard there is no Constitutional court system. This happened under Roosevelt’s watch, and as such, he was/is responsible.

TREASON

 

 

Judge Dale The Legal Process

January 18th, 2017 by

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/judge-dale-part-5/

From The Great American Adventure, Secrets of America (Part 5) by Judge Dale, retired. The following is SECTION 2 in the LAWFULLY YOURS guide.

I didn’t plan on writing PART 5 but given the global movement in play to collapse the fiat financial dominance historically created and controlled by the Vatican, European Royal and Elite plus the retaliatory efforts by the United States Corporation to recoup their control of America, I felt a need to point out the flaws in their CORPORATE PROCESS. You probably identify with this CORPORATE PROCESS as LEGAL PROCESS but it really isn’t about what is legal or lawful because all process is about the enforcement of CONTRACTS or the imposition and enforcement of CORPORATE REGULATIONS called STATUTES. The best advice you will ever receive is to: AVOID THEIR COURTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. There is NO justice to be found in those courts unless you are a member of the Vatican, the royal or Elite, or have purchased Diplomatic Immunity.

THE COURTS

The only Constitutional Court in America is the International Court of Trades, which was created because no Foreign Nation Government would trade with the Corporate United States, until they provided a way for these foreign Nations to enforce their Trade Agreements with America.

NOTE: Historically, the World Court was created to provide Nations with a venue to enforce their Trade Agreements but the Corporate United States refused the Courts invitation to participate because they were denied control over the Court.

All of the other American Courts are pseudo courts or fictions and simply are Corporate Administrative Offices designed to resemble Courts and all of their Judges are simply Executive Administrations designed to resemble Judges.

The purpose of these pseudo Corporate Courts are only to settle contract disputes and since George Washington’s government was military in structure; if either party refuses to participate, these Courts cannot become involved and the dispute is dead in the water! My use of the term ‘dead in the water’ is not a canard because these pseudo Courts are unconstitutional Courts of Admiralty, the International Law of the Sea!

The Washington Monument was completed in 1884, as a tribute to George Washington and his military government, which is actually a sea-level obelisk that infers that all of America is ‘under water’ and thus subject to the Laws of Admiralty as opposed or contrary to the intended Constitutional Civilian Government under Common Law.

The pseudo Judges of these pseudo Courts have NO powers without the Consent of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [AND] In every case the Judge must determine that he has Consent, Personam and Subject Matter Jurisdiction before he can act or access the Cestui Que Trust.

NOTE:

All tradeable Securities must be assigned a CUSIP NUMBER before it can be offered to investors. Birth Certificates and Social Security Applications are converted into Government Securities; assigned a CUSIP NUMBER; grouped into lots and then are marked as a Mutual Fund Investment. Upon maturity, the profits are moved into a GOVERNMENT CESTUI QUE TRUST and if you are still alive, the certified documents a reinvested. It is the funds contained in this CESTUI QUE TRUST that the Judge, Clerk and County Prosecutor are really after or interested in! This Trust actually pays all of your debts but nobody tells you that because the Elite consider those assets to be their property and the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the management of those Investments.

Social Security, SSI, SSD, Medicare and Medicaid are all financed by the Trust. The government makes you pay TAXES and a portion of your wages supposedly to pay for these services, which they can borrow at any time for any reason since they cannot access the Cestui Que Trust to finance their wars or to bail out Wall Street and their patron Corporations.

The public is encouraged to purchase all kinds of insurance protection when the TRUST actually pays for all physical damages, medical costs, new technology and death benefits. The hype to purchase insurance is a ploy to keep us in poverty and profit off our stupidity because the Vatican owns the controlling interest in all Insurance Companies.

You may receive a monthly statement form a Mortgage Company, Loan Company or Utility Company, which usually has already been paid by the TRUST. Almost all of these corporate businesses double dip and hope that you have been conditioned well enough by their Credit Scams, to pay them a second time. Instead of paying that Statement next time, sign it approved and mail it back to them. If they then contact you about payment, ask them to send you a TRUE BILL instead of a Statement and you will be glad to pay it. A Statement documents what was due and paid, whereas a TRUE BILL represents only what is due. Banks and Utility Companies have direct access into these Cestui Que Trusts and all they needed was your name; social security number and signature.

CRIMINAL LAW

There are NO Criminal Laws in America because Criminal Laws would imply that the Corporate United States Government are Sovereign that have absolute power over all living, flesh and blood Americans, which of course is not true because a corporation is a fiction and therefore cannot be sovereign. Man is Sovereign and is in control of his own destiny and one day he will finally wake up and realize this to be true! There is however Criminal Contracts being enforced against us and with our Consent, which are surreptitiously called: Criminal Statutes. Our Consent has been obtained by them visa vie our silence and failure to act or protest, which under law is defined as Tacit Procuration.

(e.g.) Tacit Procuration:If someone accuses you of theft in writing and you fail to respond or deny those allegations in writing, your failure to deny or act is considered an admission of guilt (or) You receive a Bill for goods or services that you never ordered or received, and you fail to deny those allegations, your omission represents the truth of the matter, which imposes an obligation to pay! Collection companies frequently use Tacit Procuration to establish indebtedness to them on a discharged debt they had purchased from some corporate business.

‘Now you’re probably thinking: No Criminal Laws? Well, that can’t be true? A whole lot of people have been tried; convicted and are doing time in American Jails for breaking Criminal Laws!’

And my response to that is: True, they are in Jail because they unknowingly accepted the Criminal Contract on behalf of their Birth Certificate and consented to be imprisoned as a condition of their conviction and punishment. Their lawyer didn’t help any because he reinforced that situation by and through his Notice of Appearance to represent you. It is the Birth Certificate that is under arrest, which I will explain shortly!

NOTE: Criminal Contracts are graded according to the severity of the crime alleged and that grading is identified as either: Summary; Misdemeanor; Felony or Capital offenses.

The Criminal Process Usually begins with a Police Officer issuing a Citation (or) making an arrest with or without a Warrant [or] the Police Officer [or] County Attorney prepares a complaint based upon a sworn affidavit or information, which is presented to a Judge and a Warrant is then issued. The defendant is subsequently arrested and is brought before a Judge for arraignment.

The Complaint and Warrant will reflect your BIRTH NAME or identify you as a JOHN DOE, if your name is unknown, which is typed out in all capital letters! This is not a mistake on their part because it is your Birth Certificate that is under arrest and not your living, flesh and blood person. The hope of these pseudo Courts is that the flesh and blood person will be intimidated enough to accept responsibility for the Birth Certificate! Sounds crazy but nothing is what it seems. It’s all ‘Smoke and Mirrors’.

Most Police Officers do not know or have these details and believe in what they are doing and believe the lawyers who counsel them in law like they are Gods! Big mistake on their part because just like everyone else, they too have been vigorously lied to! You can’t trust lawyers to be inherently honest!

Police Officers are instructed to always print or type the Defendants Name in Capital letters but they are never told the reason why! As a precaution, you should always carry a copy of your Birth Certificate with you as part of your identification papers, which I will explain in the next paragraph.

At your Arraignment or Trial, the Judge will ask you if you are the named individual [ALL CAPS BIRTH NAME] on the complaint and your natural response will be to answer in the affirmative but that is exactly what you don’t want to do!

Remove your Birth Certificate and respond to him by stating: I am making a Special Limited Appearance on behalf of the defendant who is right here and hold up your Birth Certificate!

Then state the following:

As I understand this process Judge, the County Attorney or Police Officer has leveled a criminal charge with the Clerk and against the Trust, using the ALL CAPS NAME that appears on this BIRTH CERTIFICATE! The use of capital letters is dictated by the US Printing Style Manuel, which explains how to identify a CORPORATION, The Clerk, who is the ADMINISTRATOR of the CESTA QUE TRUST, then, appointed you Judge as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE!

So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties for these crimes to be paid to me in compensation and damages for my false arrest!

The TRUSTEE Judge has no alternative but to honor your demands but you have to get this right and act with confidence! You really need to know this information well, so that you can’t be hoodwinked or confused by either of them! They will or may attempt to play some mind games with you if you display any doubt, stammer of display a lack of confidence! Appearances [the pomp and majesty] of these pseudo Courts, is totally for your benefit and is intended to invoke fear and intimidation! If you show fear or intimidation, you get a pony ride!

NOTE: I’ve seen and heard of Judges and Prosecutors interfering with a defendant’s response, which made the defendant, become confused and he was subsequently committed into a mental hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The Judge and Prosecutor successfully twisted what the defendant was trying to say and then the Judge Ordered a mental evaluation.

Understand that the County Attorney will be forced to pay the Cost of Court out of his own pocket, if the case is discharged, so he isn’t going to give up that easily and the Judge, Clerk and County Attorney, stand to make a pretty penny off your conviction and incarceration! So don’t screw it up.

If the County Attorney begins to act too cocky with you, you can take the wind out of his sails by asking him to produce the 1020 for this case? If he denies the need to do such a thing, inform him that you will be taking care of that for him ASAP [as soon as possible]! He may move for a discharge at that point because you are a little too dangerous or smart! The last thing that Prosecutor wants is the IRS examining his files for the last seven years because he makes money on every conviction but he doesn’t pay TAXES on them as a Rule! He usually only declares the salary he receives.

Also, should you accidentally find yourself in a mental hospital, the Psychiatrist who is assigned or appointed to evaluate you is just as corrupt as the Judge, Clerk and County Attorney and he will falsify all of your responses to him, just so that you are recommitted back into the mental facility with a review in six months! So lie to him and deny that you ever made such remarks! Of course, if you accept the criminal charges against your Birth Certificate, then you will instantly be deemed SANE!

Sorry that I had to be the one to tell you this but this is how corrupt many of my fellow Judges truly are and it should explain why my conscience caused me to retire early! Before I learned what was really going on, I believed that my duties and performance were entirely Constitutional. I was lied to also!

CITATIONS

The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through the mail. When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.

The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!

You can cancel that CONTRACT however my rescinding your CONSENT, within three business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So across the face of the CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:

I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT

And I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty]. Admiralty is the Court and Royalty represents your Sovereignty. Either way is appropriate. Sign your signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another way to declare that you may not be held responsible for this contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. Serve Cancelled Citation back on the Clerk/Court, along with a Certificate of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This kills the CITATION, removes your CONSENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at the same time. It really is that simple!

NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the Citation and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is signed. If not denied, it becomes a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.

Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk attempts to trash your response, which certainly will not happen with a Certificate of Service or if it is mailed back by the Notary. The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State and is more powerful than the Court Clerk!

Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and Roman Scribes who were the purveyors of certified documents, which are sworn affidavits. Certified documents and sworn affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates are certified documents on bonded paper. The word bonded is derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of us Bond Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth Certificates. I bet you believed that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and it did for a short time and then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved us all!

SUMMONS and LAWSUITS

The SUMMONS process, whether it is defined a Civil or Criminal Action, is once again an offer to CONTRACT, despite what words are to command your appearance or response. It too can be cancelled just by following the same procedure as the CITATION process above. A million dollar lawsuit is no different than a CITATION and both can be cancelled! Hard to believe, isn’t it?

Does your lawyer know about this? You bet he does but he is not permitted to embarrass the Court and besides, Court is where he makes his money!

NOTE: How many of you have ever attempted to avoid Jury Duty? All you had to do was cancel the SUMMONS [OFFER to CONTRACT]; Notarize it and mail it back to the Jury Commissioner. Don’t worry, they won’t bother you because you are obviously too smart and may influence their Jury! The Jury [controls] the Court and not the Prosecutor and Judge and if you know that, they lose and the defendant wins, which is why they prefer only the dumbed down candidates to serve on Jury.

There are a few matters or issues that are next to impossible to circumvent or quash because of the depth of corruption within these pseudo Courts, such as child custody and the division of property resulting form a divorce. The Birth State claims the custody of your children pursuant to the Birth Certificate and records them under the Department of Transportation as a State owned Vessel!

A marriage is a CONTRACT and all that is required is a PRE-NUPIAL AGREEMENT to complete the marriage but if you are sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that a Judge or Mayor or a Minister or Priest, must join you in holy matrimony and you subsequently applied for a LICENSE; now you both have married the STATE as well! Now the State is entitled to its fair share of the division of your marital property should the marriage not work out or should you die [called probate]! Some people might say that a divorce should be included on this list of impossible issues but then they don’t know what I know!

DIVORCE

An Action in Divorce is a request to break the LICENSED MARRIAGE CONTRACT. If you desire a divorce and your spouse refuses to consent to a divorce, no State Judge will grant you a Divorce Decree because the Judge has not been granted the CONSENT of both parties! There is a way around this however, which your lawyer will never admit to because he cannot make any money from giving you truthful or sound advice!

NOTE: Puerto Rico is a United States Territory acquired from Spain and it still operates under Spanish Law. This was never changed by the Corporate United States when Puerto Rico became a US Territory, so first you need to fly to Puerto Rico.

Once in Puerto Rico, you can establish residency by simply opening a Post Office Box for a period of three days. Just after opening the Post Office Box, hire a local Paralegal to prepare an Action in Divorce for you. The Paralegal will file the divorce petition immediately, which is generally a certified form document and it will be heard by a Puerto Rican Judge within three days.

Under Spanish law, your spouse is not required to be served the divorce petition: only the divorce decree. Five days after the Decree, your former spouse will receive the divorce decree in the mail, written entirely in Spanish, which cannot be contested and must be honored by all US Federal and State Courts!

NOTE: Immediately after the Puerto Rican Judge declares you divorced, if you choose, you can marry again by Contract or by License. Both are legitimate, but no one will ever tell you that!

The division of marital property and custody of children is a much more complicated issue but at least the divorce cannot be utilized as leverage against you to divide up your property, less than proportionately, which is exactly why American Judges will not bifurcate the issues involved in a divorce. [e.g.] Divorce; division of property; custody; support and alimony. The hope is that your desire to obtain a divorce is worth more to you than anything else you own, now or in the future!

FORECLOSURE

If you are involved in a FORECLOSURE or are thinking about filing for BANKRUPTCY protection to buy you more time, instead of trying to defeat the corrupt Bank and your Creditors in a State or Federal Court, where the cards are certainly stacked against you, plan to file for BANKRUPTCY and do it this way, to ensure that you come out on top! All BANKRUPTCY FORMS are printable; can be obtained on line and they can be completed in longhand with an ink pen. The Forms to use are: B-1 through and including B-8, You only need to prepare and file the first five or six pages to obtain a Case Number and then you must sit through a Credit Counseling session, which can be done all in a day. When you are completely finished with preparing your petition, you should have filed about 58 pages in total and the filing fee is around $280.

Here’s the reason for using the Bankruptcy Courts:

List all your debts on one schedule and when it comes to listing your assets include your BIRTH CERTIFICATE and its CUSIP NO. The value of the Mutual Fund Investment for your Birth Certificate can also be found on line using the CUSIP Number under Fidelity Investments. You will discover that it is worth multi-millions but you must have the CUSIP NO. on your asset schedule or the Birth Certificate will be discharged as frivolous by the JUDGE or the TRUSTEE. The Bankruptcy Judge will then appoint a LAWYER TRUSTEE to dissolve the Mutual Fund Investment: pay off your debts and the balance must be paid to you! This procedure usually attracts the attention of the [DOJ] Department of Justice because they don’t want the LAWYER TRUSTEE to screw up and short change the Vatican; the Federal Reserve and the Corporate United States and so they tend to warn or threaten the LAWYER TRUSTEE to be very careful!

Most of these Mutual Fund Investments usually involve a group of between 10 t0 25 Birth Certificates and so only a fraction of that Mutual Fund belongs to you! The Bankruptcy Judge will not certify the final disposition until the LAWYER TRUSTEE can prove his math and every aspect of his work because the Judge inherits responsibility for the Trustee’s errors, if he made any!

After the LAWYER TRUSTEE resigns, you can probably cut a deal with the DOJ or you can proceed on with the same Bankruptcy proceeding and the newly appointed LAWYER TRUSTEE! Now isn’t that easier and better than attacking or defending yourself against the Bank and a bunch of greedy Creditors; knowing full well that the cards are stacked against you because of the Vatican and the Federal Reserve System.

While you are in Bankruptcy, you are protected. No one can proceed against you for any debts or foreclosure, as long as you have a bond or sufficient assets, the Birth Certificate guarantees that aspect and while in Bankruptcy, you won’t have to pay on any of those past debts!

NOTE: There is a process to follow to determine your CUSIP NO [OR] you can ask a Stock Broker friend to help you [or] hire a Broker on the side to assist you. There are people in the Patriot movement who also know how to apply the formula, which converts your Birth Registration Number and or Social Security Number into a CUSIP Number. I paid to have mine done and discovered that I am worth about 167 million. It’s all FIAT money but as long as it can be spent, who cares?

I hope that this entire expose has enlightened and elevated your personal knowledge and will benefit you now and in the future. Pax vobiscum (Peace be with you.)

End

The Great American Adventure (complete work) by Judge Dale

CORPORATE PROCESS


SEO Powered By SEOPressor