Log in



Archive for February, 2017

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

The Globalists Strike Back With A Major Push Toward A Cashless Society

February 18th, 2017 by

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-globalists-strike-back-with-a-major-push-toward-a-cashless-society

Cashless SocietyBy Michael Snyder

Their agenda may be on the rocks in the United States at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that the globalists are giving up.  In fact, a major push toward a cashless society is being made in the European Union right now.  Last May we learned that the 500 euro note is being completely eliminated, and just a few weeks ago the European Commission released a new “Action Plan” which instructs member states to explore “potential upper limits to cash payments”.  In the name of “fighting terrorism”, this “Action Plan” discusses the benefits of “prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold” and it says that those prohibitions should include “virtual currencies (such as BitCoin) and prepaid instruments (such as pre-paid credit cards) when they are used anonymously.”

This new document does not mention what an appropriate threshold would be for member states, but we do know that Spain already bans certain cash transactions above 2,500 euros, and Italy and France already ban cash transactions above 1,000 euros.

This is a perfect way to transition to a cashless society without creating too much of an uproar.  By setting a maximum legal level for cash transactions and slowly lowering it, in effect you can slowly but surely phase cash out without people understanding what is happening.

And there are many places in Europe where it is very difficult to even use cash at this point.  In Sweden, many banks no longer take or give out cash, and approximately 95 percent of all retail transactions are entirely cashless.  So even though Sweden has not officially banned cash, using cash is no longer practical in most situations.  In fact, many tourists are shocked to find out that they cannot even pay bus fare with cash.

So most of Europe is already moving in this direction, and now this new Action Plan is intended to accelerate the transition toward a cashless society.  The public is being told that these measures are being taken to fight money laundering and terrorism, but of course that is only a small part of the truth.  The following comes from the Anti-Media

The European Action Plan doesn’t mention a specific dollar amount for restrictions, but as expected, their reasoning for the move is to thwart money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Border checks between countries have already been bolstered to help implement these new standards on hard assets. Although these end goals are plausible, there are other clear motivations for governments to target paper money that aren’t as noble.

In a truly cashless society, governments would be able to track where everybody is and what everybody is doing all the time.  And in order to have access to the cashless system, people would have to comply with whatever requirements governments wanted to impose on their helpless populations.  The potential for tyranny that this would create would be off the charts, but very few people seem greatly alarmed by the move toward a cashless system all over the globe.

Even in the United States there are calls for a cashless system.  For example, the former chief economist for the IMF wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal not too long ago in which he recommended the elimination of the $100 bill

“There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism. There are substitutes for cash—cryptocurrencies, uncut diamonds, gold coins, prepaid cards—but for many kinds of criminal transactions, cash is still king. It delivers absolute anonymity, portability, liquidity and near-universal acceptance.”

Over in Asia restrictions are being put on cash as well.  Legendary investor Jim Rogers commented on what is currently happening in India during one recent podcast

The time will come when you won’t be able to buy a cup of coffee without being traced, warns investment guru Jim Rogers. To control people, governments will increasingly seek to hunt down cash spending, he adds.

“Governments are always looking out for themselves first, and it’s the same old thing that has been going on for hundreds of years. The Indians recently did the same thing. They withdrew 86 percent of the currency in circulation, and they have now made it illegal to spend more than, I think it’s about $4,000 in any cash transaction. In France you cannot use more than, I think it’s a €1,000,” said Rogers in an interview with MacroVoices Podcast.

The reason why this is taking place all over the planet is because this is a global agenda.

The globalists ultimately plan to completely eliminate cash, and this will give them an unprecedented level of control over humanity.

One thing that many fear may someday be implemented is some form of microchip identification system.  In order to access the cashless grid, you would need your “ID chip” so that the system could positively identify you, but of course there are millions of people around the world that do not intend to get chipped under any circumstances.

In the old days, you would be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” just for suggesting that they may try to chip all of us one day, but in 2017 things have completely changed.

Just look at what is happening in Nevada.  A bill has been introduced in the state senate that would outlaw the “forced microchipping of people”

State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem, because it happens in some places around the world.

Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.

The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.

If that sounds very strange to you, then you may not know that companies all around the globe are already starting to explore this type of technology.  For instance, a company in Belgium called NewFusion has actually begun to microchip their employees

In a move that could be lifted straight from science fiction, workers at a Belgian marketing firm are being offered the chance to have microchips implanted in their bodies.

The chips contain personal information and provide access to the company’s IT systems and headquarters, replacing existing ID cards.

The controversial devices raise questions about personal security and safety, including whether they may allow the movements of people with implants to be tracked.

Technology like this often starts off being “voluntary”, but then after enough people willingly accept it the transition to “mandatory” is not too difficult.

We live at one of the most critical moments in all of human history, and the globalists are certainly not going to lay down and die just because Donald Trump won the election.

The U.S. represents less than five percent of the population of the planet, and in most of the world the agenda of the globalists is on track and is rapidly advancing.

The globalists want a unified one world economy, a unified one world religion and a unified one world government.  The election of Donald Trump was a blow to the globalists, but it has also made them more dangerous, more ruthless and more determined than ever before.

And in case you think that using the term “globalists” is a bit strange, the truth is that even the New York Times is using it to describe the global elite and their global agenda.

We are in a life or death battle for the future of our society, and the globalists are never going to give up until they get what they want.  So now is not a time for complacency, because the very future of our country is at stake.

Olddogs Comments!

There is no doubt in my mind that humanity has already been surreptitiously adjusted to accept annihilation. How else can one explain the nearly total lack of outrage? The apparent lack of interest in what the globalist intend to do to the whole planet is mind numbing. By any sense of concern for their future, humanity as a whole should be clamoring for their heads. Trump should be assembling a military strike on every globalist wherever they are. It’s not like there is no proof what they have done and their goals, so why is the whole damn world sitting on their ass?

Mother of all Deceptions The Concept of Modern Day Slavery:

February 17th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/02/justinian-deception-hidden-foreign-text.html

JUSTINIAN DECEPTION HIDDEN FOREIGN TEXT KNOWN AS DOG LATIN)

GLOSSA
Introduction by Anna Von Reitz:

Many years ago I started wondering about the all capital letters names employed by the military.  I noticed that all names in the military were written in all capitals: LIEUTENANT RODNEY KNOX, for example, as were all the stenciled words plastered on packing crates and vehicles belonging to the US ARMY.  I even tasked my poor Father about it, and he mumbled, “When you are in the military, you are a slave, and all that you have as property does not belong to you.”

This cryptic reply made no particular sense to me, nor did the idea that those putting their lives at risk to defend us would suffer the status of slaves?  He was busy and the sun was hot and the road before us was dusty from the wheels of the endless military convoy passing by on the old US HIGHWAY 12.  I noted the answer and let it slip into the category of “things you will understand when you are older”—where it remained until my twenties, when I began seeing my name written in all capital letters on Federal Student Loan paperwork. 

I eventually tracked this odd style of name back to Ancient Rome and Roman Civil Law.  I even wrote a studious Memorandum of Law about the use of peculiar naming conventions in the Roman Civil Law going back to 200 B.C.

I discovered that noble Romans used names written in all small case letters: flavius gallus aurelius, while indentured servants used names in Upper and Lower Case: Flavius Gallus Aurelius—-and just as my Father said, slaves used names in all capitals: FLAVIUS GALLUS AURELIUS.

This did not bode well for whatever poor creature might be named ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER nor did it adequately explain how or why or by whom my given name would be so abused on government paperwork.  I never volunteered to join the Army.

I knew that names written in all capital letters were “slave names” and that it was not proper Latin, but as to what it was?  Well, I combed dutifully through dictionaries and style guides and the Government Printing Office publications but the entire net of this effort was to define what the NAME was not—– not proper English, not used officially, not proper Latin, not, not, not…. but precious little came forward to enlighten me any further on the topic of what it was being used for, or who or what was mandating its use?

The answer— that it was being used by private mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporations for the purpose of defrauding and mischaracterizing me for their own profit — is not the kind of thing that these organizations nor their employees would trumpet from the rooftops, is it? 

The Secret of Glossa–the use of Dog Latin embedded in English documents– has finally come to full and glorious light thanks to the efforts of a team of Australian researchers who have delved into this vicious fraud and breach of trust that has been perpetuated against humanity for many generations. 

Please read the information carefully and grasp the immensity and longevity of the enslavement and abuse that has been exercised against innocent people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, by the Roman Pontiffs and their bill collectors, the members of the Bar Associations worldwide.

A name written in Dog Latin, for example, JOHN MARK DOE,  is the equivalent of a siphon used by vampires to quietly, sneakily, with little risk to themselves—-suck away your life’s blood and energy for their own benefit. 

In itself, the mischaracterized name is a tool, lifeless and inert— like a siphon, a door handle, a rope, or a poppet— harmless until and unless it is used for the purpose of committing personage against you and providing access to your assets, including the value of your labor, your land, your businesses, and your very bodies.

The use of these false foreign names, embedded in any document written in English, is prima facie evidence of a crime.

This fundamental crime of personage must finally come to a halt, must be recognized for what it is and brought to an ignominious end.  The fruit of many years of research has now come into your hands, for you to use in your own defense and the defense of others— all thanks to men who live half a world away, but whose dream and need for freedom is the same as that that lives in every human breast. 

 

I understand that there will be a complete set of DVD’s available in the near future detailing the full extent of the research and the experience and thoughts of the researchers.  Both to support their work and to undergird your own knowledge, I heartily recommend that everyone secure a copy for their own families and communities and share the information as widely as possible. 

JUSTINIAN-DECEPTION: (HIDDEN-FOREIGN-TEXT-KNOWN-AS-DOG-LATIN) The Mother of all Deceptions: The Concept of Modern Day Slavery: 

By: Romley Stewart.

http://annavonreitz.com/doglatin/doglatin12817.pdf

Olddogs Comments!

I don’t believe I have ever read anything as powerful as this, and pledge my future to understanding it as much as my intellect will allow. I grieve thinking of how few will read this entire article, and continue stumbling in the darkness of tyranny. Please wake up folks and give our creator a chance to heal your soul.

And do not forget to pray for this gifted author and his family.

Mr. Romley Stewart.

GLOSSA

What Will Trump Do About the Central Banking Cartel?

February 16th, 2017 by

https://mises.org/blog/what-will-trump-do-about-central-bank-cartel

by Thorsten Polleit

The US is by far the biggest economy in the world. Its financial markets — be it equity, bonds or derivatives markets — are the largest and most liquid. The Greenback is the most important transaction currency. Many currencies in the world — be it the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the British pound or the Swiss franc — have actually been built upon the US dollar.

The world is effectively on a US-dollar-standard, and the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has risen to the unofficial status of the world’s central bank. The rise of the Greenback has to a large extent been propelled by international banking, which has basically “dollarized” in terms of its lending and issuing activities.

The Fed Sets Global Policy

The Fed’s policy not only determines credit and liquidity conditions in the US, but does so in many financial markets around the world as well. For instance, movements of long-term US interest rates regularly have effects on credit and equity markets in, say, Europe and Asia. The Fed’s actions are the blueprint for monetary policymaking in many countries around the world.

The graph shows the Fed’s supply of newly created US dollar liquidity sent to other central banks around the world. It also shows the so-called “euro cross currency basis swap,” which can be interpreted as a “stress indicator”: If it drops into negative territory, it means that euro banks find it increasingly difficult to obtain US dollar credit in the free market place. The Fed’s injection of new US dollar balances into the financial system has helped to reduce the euro currency basis swap. Since late 2016, however, it has started to venture again into negative territory — potentially signaling that euro banks are again heading for trouble.

CENTRAL BANKING

The financial and economic crisis 2008/2009 has increased further the dependency of the world’s financial system on the US dollar. As early as December 2008, the Fed provided so called “liquidity swap agreements.” Under the latter the Fed is prepared to lend newly created US dollars to other central banks around the globe.

For instance, the European Central Bank (ECB) can obtain US dollars from the Fed and lend the funds on to shaky domestic banks in need for US dollar funding. In other words: Liquidity swap agreements can easily replace foreign currency funding in the market place by foreign currency credit provided by central banks.

Meanwhile, all major central banks around the world — the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Chinese central bank, the Bank of England, and the Swiss National Bank — have joined the liquidity swap agreement club. They also have agreed to provide their own currencies to all other central banks — in actually unlimited amounts if needed.

It is no wonder, therefore, that credit default concerns in financial markets have declined substantially. Investors feel assured that big banks won’t default on their foreign currency liabilities — as such a credit event is considered politically undesirable, and central banks can simply avoid it by printing up new money.

Moving Toward a Worldwide Central Bank

The close cooperation and coordination among central banks under the Fed’s tutelage amounts to an international cartelization of central banking — paving the way toward a single world monetary policy run by a yet to be determined single world central bank. Such a development is, or course, in the very interest of those in favor of establishing a single world government.

How will President Donald J. Trump and his administration deal with the cartelization in central banking? Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to be an “internationalist,” seeking to build a new world order by political and military means. If that is so, he will sooner or later have to come to grips with the Fed’s policies — most notably with its liquidity swap agreements.

The Fed’s policy has made the world’s financial system addicted to ever greater amounts of US dollars, easily accessible and provided at fairly low interest rates. From this the US banks benefit greatly, while average Americans bear the brunt: they pay the price in terms of, for instance, boom and bust and an erosion of the purchasing power of the US dollar.

What Trump Should Do 

If the Trump administration really wishes to live up to its campaign promise “Make America great again,” there is no way of getting around addressing Fed policy. A first step in that direction is the idea to subject the US central bank to public scrutiny (“Audit the Fed”), bringing to public attention the scope of the Fed’s interventions into the world’s banking system.

Of course, the liquidity swap agreements in particular can be expected to be heavily defended by central bankers, bank representatives, big business lobbyists, and mainstream economists as being indispensable for financial system stability. And for sure, a sudden withdrawal from this practice would almost certainly deal a heavy blow to financial markets.

If push comes to shove, it could even make the worldwide credit pyramid, built on fiat money, come crashing down. However, the really important argument in this context is that the continuation of the practice of central bank cartelization will eventually result in a despotic regime: and that is a single world fiat currency regime.

Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle”:

The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.[1]

Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.

Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.

If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.

Dr. Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa, Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth, and Partner of Polleit & Riechert Investment Management.


And banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital…

CENTRAL BANKING

By Simon Black

In a scathing editorial published in the Wall Street Journal today, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, blasted US banks, saying that they still lacked sufficient capital to withstand a major crisis.

Kashkari makes a great analogy.

When you’re applying for a mortgage or business loan, sensible banks are supposed to demand a 20% down payment from their borrowers.

If you want to buy a $500,000 home, a conservative bank will loan creditworthy borrowers $400,000. The borrower must be able to scratch together a $100,000 down payment.

But when banks make investments and buy assets, they aren’t required to do the same thing.

Remember that when you deposit money at a bank, you’re essentially loaning them your savings.

As a bank depositor, you’re the lender. The bank is the borrower.

Banks pool together their deposits and make various loans and investments.

They buy government bonds, financial commercial trade, and fund real estate purchases.

Some of their investment decisions make sense. Others are completely idiotic, as we saw in the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the larger point is that banks don’t use their own money to make these investments. They use other people’s money. Your money.

A bank’s investment portfolio is almost entirely funded with its customers’ savings. Very little of the bank’s own money is at risk.

You can see the stark contrast here.

If you as an individual want to borrow money to invest in something, you’re obliged to put down 20%, perhaps even much more depending on the asset.

Your down payment provides a substantial cushion for the bank; if you stop paying the loan, the value of the property could decline 20% before the bank loses any money.

But if a bank wants to make an investment, they typically don’t have to put down a single penny.

The bank’s lenders, i.e. its depositors, put up all the money for the investment.

If the investment does well, the bank keeps all the profits.

But if the investment does poorly, the bank hasn’t risked any of its own money.

The bank’s lenders (i.e. the depositors) are taking on all the risk.

This seems pretty one-sided, especially considering that in exchange for assuming all the risk of a bank’s investment decisions, you are rewarded with a miniscule interest rate that fails to keep up with inflation.

(After which the government taxes you on the interest that you receive.)

It hardly seems worth it.

Back in 2008-2009, the entire financial system was on the brink of collapse because banks had been making wild bets without having sufficient capital.

In other words, the banks hadn’t made a sufficient “down payment” on the toxic investments they had purchased.

All those assets and idiotic loans were made almost exclusively with their customers’ savings.

Lehman Brothers, a now-defunct investment bank, infamously had about 3% capital at the time of its collapse, meaning that Lehman used just 3% of its own money to buy toxic assets.

Eventually the values of those toxic assets collapsed.

And not only was the bank wiped out, but investors who had loaned the bank money took a giant loss.

This happened across the entire financial system because banks had made idiotic investment decisions and failed to maintain sufficient capital to absorb the losses.

Nearly a decade later, Kashkari says that banks still aren’t sufficiently capitalized.

(He also points out that banks today are obsessed with pointless documentation and  seem “unable to exercise judgment or use common sense.”)

The banks themselves obviously don’t agree.

As Kashkari states, banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital.

Bizarre. They’re basically saying that they want to be LESS safe, like a stunt pilot complaining that his helmet is too sturdy.

I’ve written about this many times– the decision for where to hold your savings matters. It’s important.

In addition to solvency and liquidity concerns, there are a multitude of other issues, like routine violations of the public trust, collusion to fix interest and exchange rates, manipulation of asset prices, and all-out fraud.

(I personally got so fed up with our deceitful financial system that I started my own bank in 2015 to handle my companies’ financial transactions. More on that another time…)

Yet despite these obvious risks, most people simply assume away the safety of their bank.

They’ll spend more time thinking about what to watch on Netflix than which bank is the most responsible custodian of their life’s savings.

There are countless ways to figure this out, but here’s a short-cut: much much “capital” or “equity” does the bank have as a percentage of its total assets?

These are easy numbers to find. Just Google “XYZ bank balance sheet”.

Look at the bottom where it says “capital” or “equity”. That’s your numerator.

Then look above that number to find total assets. That’s your denominator.

Divide the two. The higher the percentage, the safer the bank.

Kashkari thinks the answer should be at least 20%, especially among mega-banks in the US.  

Until tomorrow, 

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Blacksmith Global Ltd.

Publisher of Sovereign Man

30 Cecil Street #19-08

Singapore, Singapore – No State 049712

Singapore 

CENTRAL BANKING

 

 

 

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

Which is the greatest sin murder of the body or murder of the mind?

February 14th, 2017 by

www.arkansasfreedom.com

 

By Barbara McCutchen

Regarding the proper role of education, the following Ayn Rand quote explains:

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past—and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.”

That means the child must start from the building blocks of logic which dictate the learning of any subject must require starting from the essential basic conceptual building blocks, then connecting them in logical order to build the pyramid of understanding that subject matter, e.g. mathematics, science, history, geography, reading, etc.

The “education” of today is anything but that, it is designed specifically to destroy the student’s ability to live his life rationally. The Cultural Marxists (Communists) of the 1920s-30s devised an imminently successful plan to destroy Western Civilization when they realized it couldn’t be done by bloody revolution (the Russian Revolution in particular) they attacked the mind/philosophy. It was to be achieved by their “march through the institutions”…infiltrating every important influential aspect of Western cultures. Names, dates, places are easily researched.  (They were precluded by John Dewey at the turn of the century with his emphasis on emotion rather than rationality, which made their goals easier to achieve.)

Elements of their philosophy included “Critical Theory”, i.e. criticize, relentlessly attack all aspects of western values…the family unit, the father figure, the use of reason, civility, etiquette, manners, knowledge of true history, merit, earned pride/self-esteem, high expectations, achievement, rugged individualism. Also, one was to be discriminating in their choice of friends, activities, values—meaning divesting oneself of any negative influences. Today we are taught the opposite, that discrimination is deplorable & to be vilified.

The principal tool used to accomplish their success is “Political Correctness”, i.e. feminism, sexism, racism, affirmative action, quotas, homophobia, group reliance, “takes a village to raise a child”, diversity, ad infinitum. Collectivism good, individualism bad.

Some of the first subjects to be banished were logic, ancient history, Latin, philosophy, epistemology, literary classics, poetry, challenging/higher mathematics & sciences…anything requiring excellence, effort, merit was deemed bad, whereas the emphasis more & more became the group, ease in subject matter, approximations instead of hard true facts(2+2 can = 5), feelings became more important than subject matter, history (& other subjects) were revised to suit the collectivist controllers.  Children were no longer to be challenged because their “feelings” might be hurt, expectations were lowered, false self-esteem instilled (everyone gets a trophy), their subject matter education was delayed and watered down. Discipline became a no no, it too might hurt “feelings”, therefore standards were badly diminished.

Rugged individualism, upon which this country was founded and grew to preeminence, was now verboten because that was the principal enemy of Collectivism where “each was given according to his need”, forced redistribution was not only expected but enforced.  The ruling elites were just more equal than all the others (Animal Farm).  Rugged individuals not only don’t fit in, they fight back.

Outcome: “Snowflakes” who wither in the light of day, slithering cowards seeking “safe places”, dysfunctional families, citizens who not only do not understand the proper role of government but do not seek that knowledge (willing slaves), children who’ve been conditioned not only to be arrogantly ignorant but even to doubt their own gender or that of others. Sheer insanity from which only the strongest of minds can escape.

But, as always, the blame falls on the taxpayers for not giving up more of their earnings to malevolent education/propaganda/conditioning institutions.  There are mega-bucks attached to failure, so the beat goes on & on. Funding follows failure. Today the parents & teachers are victims of the same mind-bending and have no idea what is wrong—but many know SOMETHING is wrong, but unequipped to think, use logic to discover what.

Outcome: Ignorant, propagandized students march in protest of things they do not comprehend, thugs & savages are in the streets, rioting, destroying, even killing without accountability because being held accountable was erased in our major institutions……education, justice system, politics, media, etc.  Eternal wars are waged against phantom enemies invented by the industrial/military/media complex for untold riches, while the patriotically conditioned youth (watch the military worship preceding public events) is used as mere cannon fodder.

The Collectivists knew the key to Western & Caucasian destruction was the elimination of true education and they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  Chaos, tribalism, & loss of individual freedoms are their results, along with ultimate power and $Trillions of unearned, bloody money. The “Camp of the Saints” is in full bloom, along with the end of civilization. Only the fabulously wealthy globalists will not pay the terrible price—they hope.

~Barbara McCutchen

www.arkansasfreedom.com

Abolish the Dept. of Education

End the ED, Support H.R. 899 to Abolish the Dept. of Education

On February 7, 2017, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education (also known as the ED), which was originally organized by President Jimmy Carter when he signed the Department of Education Organization Act on October 17, 1979. Rep. Massie’s bill, which is only one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

MURDEROn the same day as President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was confirmed by the Senate in a rare tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence, Massie accurately pointed out, “Neither Congress nor the President, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn.” Massie further stated:

Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school, or private school.

Among the bill’s original cosponsors, Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said of the bill, “For years, I have advocated returning education policy to where it belongs – the state and local level.” Jones added, “D.C. bureaucrats cannot begin to understand the needs of schools and its students on an individual basis. It is time that we get the feds out of the classroom, and terminate the Department of Education.”

In addition to Jones, the other original cosponsors of Massie’s bill include Congressmen Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho).

Also in support of the bill, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated on Facebook, “I’ve long supported getting rid of the unconstitutional Department of Education. Republicans going back to Ronald Reagan have talked about abolishing it, but it never amounted to anything more than talk.”

Both as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Reagan advocated for abolishing the Department of Education. On September 24, 1981 in his Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery, President Reagan proposed getting rid of the Department of Education. “By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children,” Reagan said.

However, by the time he left office after two-full presidential terms on January 20, 1989, the Department of Education had grown even larger and continued to expand under subsequent purportedly “conservative” Republican presidents, most notably President George W. Bush and his disastrous “No Child Left Behind” program.

Of Massie’s bill, Paul further stated on Facebook, “We desperately need to release the creative energy of teachers at the local level.”

Although Massie’s bill does not specifically address what would happen to the many unconstitutional federal laws related to education, federal student loans, and other various federal aid programs to public schools that have been passed either prior to or since the Department of Education was created, the bill is certainly an encouraging first step in the right direction toward removing the federal government from education.

If passed and signed by President Trump, Massie’s bill would accomplish what President Reagan originally promised, and more importantly it would begin returning control of education back to parents and local communities.

Please send a prewritten, editable message to your representative and senators and ask your representative to cosponsor H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education, in the House and ask your senators to introduce and cosponsor a companion bill in the Senate. Let them know that you want to remove the federal government from education and return control of education back to parents and local communities by abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education.

Phone calls can also be very effective, and of course the most effective way to educate your state legislators is by making personal visits to their offices. Click here for contact information.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

 

MURDER

STATE COURT AND COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

February 13th, 2017 by

Both articles posted today are designed to stimulate your attention to reality.

There is no way to return to lawful governance with an ignorant society.

 State court and county law libraries

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/law-libraries

WHO OWNS WHO

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

The Power and Authority of the County Sheriff

February 9th, 2017 by

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/countysheriff

 

The purpose of this page is to empower the County Sheriff and U.S. Marshal through knowledge of the Supreme Law of the Land and history; in order that they may serve the People and save/preserve America. There is no elected or appointed official that can remove the Sheriff or Marshal from office. The Sheriff is elected by the People of their county and the Marshal is appointed by the President who was vested with that power by We the People through the United States Constitution. In the case Marbury v Madison in 1803 the Court made it clear that the Constitution gave the power to the president to appoint but not the power to remove, that is reserved to the People alone through indictment for bad behavior.

 

There are only two Law Enforcement officers in America; The County Sheriff and the US Marshal. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcer whose duty it is to protect the unalienable rights of the People both in the court room and within the county. While the U.S. Marshal is responsible for protecting the unalienable rights of the People in the Federal Court room.

The Sheriff is the only person able to call for the posse comitatus (Latin, Power of the county) Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder. Today, under a national emergency the Sheriff is both the first and last line of defense should our government go rouge; since congress has been derelict of duty in the providing for the militia.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16: The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasionsTo provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

The Bill of Rights makes clear two (2) things (1) A well regulated militia is an unalienable right and (2) a well regulated militia is necessary to our security.

Amendment II “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Today all seats of government have unlawfully incorporated and therefore all police forces (city, town, village, state, etc.) work for corporations and owe their allegiance to the corporation, therein “code enforcement officers”; whereas Sheriffs and Marshals are “constitutional officers” owing allegiance to the People. There exists no Constitutional authority for police forces.

U.S. Constitution Article VI clause 2: “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are founded under common law, a/k/a the Supreme Law of the Land. ALL CASES AT LAW: Black’s Law 4th, “within constitutional guaranty of jury trial, refers to common law actions as distinguished from causes in equity and certain other proceedings.” Breimhorst v. Beck-man, 227 Minn. 409, 35 N.W.2d 719, 734.

The Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal just like We the People have lost their way. We have forgotten who we are and by what authority we act upon and therefore our servants rule over us. The purpose of this site is to help us find our way back to the Liberties our founding fathers discovered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish for themselves and their posterity. It is now our turn, our duty, to re-discover our roots for ourselves and our posterity. There are forces within our government that are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. These people are called progressives and over the years they have taken control of both major parties and thereby methodically removed civics, God and constitutional studies from our education and through the media, entertainment and education have demoralized us.

What We the People and our Sheriffs need to know is that:

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.” Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

When we the People ordained Common Law, U.S. Constitution Article VI, the Supreme Law of the Land We the People took control of all decision making within the courts through Grand and Trial Juries and the Common Law Sheriff became the only Law Enforcer of the court and the county. The common law court is well established and defined in history, Blacks Law and Bouviers Law.

“The Sheriff is the “Chief Executive and Administrative Officer” of a county chosen by popular election. His principal duties are in aid of the criminal and civil courts of record [common law courts]; such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgments, holding judicial sales and the like. He is also the chief conservator of the peace within his territorial jurisdiction.” Harston v. Langston, Tex.Civ. App., 292 S.W. 648, 650.

The word “Sheriff” is a contraction of the term “shire reeve”, meaning a royal official responsible for keeping the peace throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king(s). We the People “Ordained” the Constitution for the United States of America which puts the People as the said kings above the Constitution and our elected servants under the Constitution, therein the great American experiment. Our servants have no more power than that which We the People gave them and any law they write to the contrary is null and void as if it has never been passed; as we read:

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

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

SHERIFFS TERM OF OFFICE AND
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

State Constitutions require the election of the Sheriff for a two or four year term. His full authority is defined in common law history and cannot be altered. The Sheriff can only be removed from power at the ballot box or by the People for bad behaviour through indictment. Not upholding his oath would be bad behavior.

GOOD BEHAVIOR: “The term ‘good behavior’ means conduct that is authorized by law, and ‘bad behavior’ means conduct such as the law will punish.” State v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815, 112 S.E. 593, 594. “Orderly and lawful conduct;” Huyser v. Com., 25 Ky.L. Rep. 608, 76 S.W. 175; In re Spenser, 22 Fed.Cas. 921. “‘Good behavior,’ means merely conduct conformable to law, or to the particular law theretofore breached.” Ex parte Hamm, 24 N.M. 33, 172 P. 190, 191, L.R. A.1918D, 694; Baker v. Commonwealth, 181 Ky. 437, 205 S.W. 399, 401.

SHERIFF AND THE JURY

Although many states write statutes on how the state, usually through the prosecutor, calls the Grand Jury; such statutes have no control over the Sheriff or the People. History recalls that the Sheriff is usually the one who calls for the Grand Jury after or before he makes an arrest and the state calls for the Grand Jury if the state wants to accuse someone of a crime.

In all cases it is the People through the Grand Jury who will decide if a crime was committed or not by indictment. The administration for the Grand Jury also known as the investigative body for the Grand Jury is made up of four People who are “not” elected or appointed but rise out from among the People. We find this process has been established since at least 1215AD and is described in the Magna Carta. Most states have statutory Commissioner of Jurors that are political appointments and therefore are an abomination to common law.

THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE

In the 1992 court case United States v Williams Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.

We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice. In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), whereas the Court said:Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists, “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result),the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). “In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the  constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

“The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.'” United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. —-, —- , 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950)). “It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). “The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation,” see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, “nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge.” See Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617. “It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy,” see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. “we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge ‘. . . . Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273).

“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all, including some more appealing than the one presented today. In Calandra v. United States, supra, a grand jury witness faced questions that were allegedly based upon physical evidence the Government had obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment; we rejected the proposal that the exclusionary rule be extended to grand jury proceedings, because of “the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury.” 414 U.S., at 349, 94 S.Ct., at 620. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), “we declined to enforce the hearsay rule in grand jury proceedings, since that “would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules.” Id., at 364, 76 S.Ct., at 409.

JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS
ACT ABOVE THE LAW

A common complaint from Sheriffs is, “I cannot arrest a judge without first getting the prosecutor to agree otherwise the prosecutor may refuse to prosecute.” The question that begs answering is where did the prosecutor get such power? Certainly We the People did not give it to them in the Constitution and certainly congress can make no Law that we did not give them the power to make. We the People did not ordain the prosecutor “Chief Law Enforcer”, but the Sheriff! Solution: if the prosecutor refuses to prosecute they should be arrested for “felony rescue”.

The Sheriff is not to go begging the prosecutor for an indictment, he shouldn’t even be going to the prosecutor at all, but to the Grand Jury directly and ask them for an indictment. The problem is that the Judge and the prosecutor deny Sheriffs and the People access to the Grand Jury. After six years of practicing law without a BAR degree we found out that many judges and prosecutors have something to hide so they protect each other by blocking access to the Grand Jury, they fear what you may ask of the Grand Jury.

So, if the Sheriff needs to ask permission, he’s not the Chief and he passes his duties to others, and any Sheriff that does that is in “Bad Behavior”. If the Sheriff cannot get access to the Jury Administrators (a/k/a Commissioners of Jurors) directly he has the power and authority to summons 25 People, out of any pool (phone book, etc.) to the courthouse jury room and ask for an indictment.

We the People did not give prosecutors power to negotiate deals with People under indictment. Prosecutors may propose the deal to the Grand Jury for decision; but the arrangement must offer a plan for restitution acceptable to the injured party or due process, trial by jury, must run its course.

GUN CONTROL

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have no law requiring pistol owners to have a permit to carry. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia, according to the NRA are considering bills in current legislative sessions to end permit requirements. The United States Supreme Court quoting the rules of criminal and civil procedure said: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197

The Bill of Rights Amendment II states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This Amendment protects two unalienable rights, both of which articulate the right of self-defense, one personal, the right to protect your-self from another individual shall not be infringed and the other to protect our-self from a rouge government, shall not be infringed. Some may say the right to keep and bear Arms is for the militia; this makes no sense because We the People are the militia, nor are We the People willing to give up an unalienable right.

Conclusion: if the Sheriff does not protect the right of the People to keep and bear arms he is in violation of his oath and thereby in bad behavior and subject to removal from office by the People through indictment. The real test of the Sheriffs Constitutional fortitude in states that require permits is; is he going to protect the People from rogue statutes and bureaucrats or compromise the Law?

ARREST OR SEIZURE WARRANTS

All arrest or seizure warrants must have a wet ink signature of a Federal or State Judge (not city, town or village) supported by an affidavit.

IRS seizure requires a wet ink signature of a Federal Judge and two form affidavits they are (1) IRS Form 56 Fiduciary relationship and (2) IRS Form 4490 Proof of claim; both must be signed under notary/magistrate.

Bill of Rights Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sheriffs must refuse warrant execution without signatures and affidavits, to proceed without would be a vilation of their oath and therefore in bad behavior.

SWAT: Any time any police force including federal agents uses SWAT and raid attacks, usually in the middle of the night, against one of the People because they “allegedly” owe money is an assault upon Liberty and the Sheriff is obligated by oath to stop it and make arrests if necessary.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The right to travel canot be licensed “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience “Regulated” here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. – licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.” Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

Blacks 2nd, “License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.”

RIGHTS

The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime4. Miller v. U.S.,

INALIENABLE (Blacks 4th) Not subject to alienation (separation); the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

RIGHT (Blacks 4th) “Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. FREE. Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to “slave.”

Rights are not a crime We the People have right to exercise rights, right to practice law, right to proceed in courts without cost, right to travel, right of privacy, right to be let alone and right to defend just to name a few. In conclusion I have a right to do anything I please as long as I do not injure another or currupt the morals of a minor.

DUE PROCESS

Bill of Rights Amendment V: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The question is what is an Infamous crime: Blacks Law 4th states: “A crime which entails infamy (state of dishonor) upon one who has committed it. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 A. 456, 17 L.R.A. 764. The term “infamous” e., without fame or good report—was applied at common law to certain crimes, upon the conviction of which a person became incompetent to testify as a witness. A crime punishable by imprisonment.”

Conclusion: Anybody that is facing jail time “MUST” be indcited and tried in a Court of Law, a summons or a police report is not sufficient. Additionally there is a common law maxim that states “in order for there to be a crime there must be a sworn affidavit by an injured party and the state cannot be that injured party.”

Any Sheriffs finding that he inherited the housing of prisoners in the County Jail that did not get due process, is housing political prisoners and would be guilty of conspiracy if he did not do the right thing as soon as he awakened and realized it.

Any court that does not necessitate due process, would not be a Court of Law; city courts, town courts and village courts do not necessitate due process but statutes. So, what is the solution? The answer is to petition the Grand Jury in a Federal Court for a Habeas Corpus and the court will demand proof of due process and if they fail to prove due process the Court will order their release. If you cannot find a Common Law Grand Jury in your Federal District we already have jury pools nation-wide in all ninety-four (94) Federal Districts in America and our Administrators can help initiate the paper work and court process.

JURISDICTION

Only Courts of Record, a/k/a Common Law Courts have jurisdiction over the People. All courts of record proceed with a tribunal a/k/a Jury under the rules of Common Law. All city, town, criminal, and village courts are not courts of record because they proceed according to the rules of chancery and not law and therefore have no jurisdiction over the People. If a Judge refuses to answer the accused by what authority they act then they do not have jurisdiction. The only answer is “Common Law”, U.S. Constitution article VI.

“Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, …” State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971,354 Md. 573 (1999)

Any court that proceeds with summary judgments are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

Summary proceeding: Blacks 4th “Any proceeding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a prompt and simple manner, without the aid of a jury, without presentment or indictment, or in other respects out of the regular course of the common law. In procedure, proceedings are said to be summary ‘when they are short and simple in comparison with regular proceedings; ie., in comparison with the proceedings which alone would have been applicable, either in the same or analogous cases, if summary proceedings had not been available.” Sweet. See Phillips v. Phillips, 8 N.J.L. 122.

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law. The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings1 and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” – 16American Jurisprudence 2d., Sec. 114:

“If there is no sworn affidavit by an injured party there is no crime, there can be no case: No more than an affidavit is necessary to make the prima facie case.”  United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982

Allegations in an affidavit in support of a motion (action) must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.” Group v Finletter, Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

“The appropriate party to attest to the facts is the plaintiff himself, not the plaintiff’s attorney, an attorney’s affidavit that is not based upon personal knowledge is without value and is insufficient as an affidavit.” Romel v. Reale, 155 A.D.2d 747, 547 N.Y.S.2d 691 (3d Dep’t 1989)

Any court that proceed against the People with statutes and not the law of the land are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”– Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)]

“There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

Sheriffs are not to carry out the decisions of courts not of record and have a duty to arrest judges and prosecutors who continue to precede under the color of law to prosecute We the People.

THE COMMON LAW COURT STRUCTURE

  1. “The Tribunal (grand or trial jury) A judicial tribunal  having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it.” Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
  2. Magistrate (maintains order has no power to judge)
  3. Coroner (usually in murder cases and can perform the duties of a magistrate)
  4. Prosecutor (district attorney or U.S. attorney)
  5. Bailiff (Sheriffs’ or Marshalls’ Deputies) without a Sheriff or a Marshal there can be no common law court because there would be no one to enforce the law (Constitution). The Sheriff and the Marshal has a duty to arrest any elected or appointed court officer if they violate the Peoples unalienable rights and this includes the Magistrate (Judge) and the prosecutor.

LAW v STATUTES

Laws are created by God (common law) and written in the hearts of all men thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal and simply put thou shall do no harm. Statutes are written by men to control society. Lawful statutes that become law are governed by two documents the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Constitutions are written and initiated by the People to give government limited but necessary powers. U.S. legislative power is limited to eighteen (18) powers see U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8, and Quo Warranto from We the People, filed in all 94 Federal District Courts, served upon all State and U.S. Governments reminding them of their limited powers. All state constitutions are restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article VI “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. Being free is to be not subject to legal constraint of another. Being unconstrained is having power to follow the dictates of one’s own will; not subject to the dominion of another; not compelled to involuntary servitude as opposed to “slave.” [Black’s Law 4th edition]

“Rights are not a crime; the claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights.” [Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)].

We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” [Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389(1968)].

The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

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

Governments use statutes to control the will of society and the individuals. This kind of statutory control dates back to Babylon and as a government ratchets down the control of the People, they become more and more authoritarian, whereas egotistical power hungry people fill the positions, that lord over the People to the point that just challenging these People will find them in jail, whether they are guilty of a crime or not. A Society will be as just as its courts. The American People do not need government to control their will and punish ttheir every action, thats what totalitarian governments do.

Under common law We the People are responsible for our own actions, this is written in the hearts of men and if we injure another just courts require restitution not punishment, whereas crimes often require both restitution and punishment that actually restores people back into society. Clearly our out of control judiciary does not, will not and cannot accomplish this goal because they rule by status quo, statutes and vindictiveness and not just laws. The following videos prove the point.

John Stossel Spontaneous Order

Traffic control the road to nowhere
v
Spontaneous Order

OREGON – GROUND ZERO — Malheur Wildlife Refuge Update

NEWS – FEDERAL COURT FILINGS – The line in the sand

DOCUMENTS

The following documents can and will restore America to the America our founding fathers envisioned if We the People and our Sheriffs work together to restore Law and Order again. Thomas Jefferson said: “If a People expect to be ignorant and free; they expect what never was and never will be.”

More powerful documents

Great Quotes by Great men.

NLA Papers

We offer a FREE CIVICS COURSE for all our members all Grand Jury Adminstrators are requied to take the course before serving the People and their Juries. We welcome all Sheriffs, their deputies and other elected servants to take our free course. Our 120 hour course covers American History, Constitution, Common Law lectures and how America lost her way.

ATTENTION SHERIFFS: For free Constitutional and Sheriffs pocket handbooks simply send an email to us@uclgj.org Please include your title, name, address and how many handbooks for yourself and deputies we should send.

AUTHORITY

Constitution for the United States of America

“The tax which will be paid for education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests andnobleswhowillriseupifweleavethepeopletoignorance.”– Thomas Jefferson

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” –  Thomas Jefferson

AUTHORITY

FIRST PRINCIPLES DUE PROCESS

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are not in office to serve government servants they are there to serve the People by guarding against government abuse. They are to make sure that the accused receive Due Process. If the County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal do not understand Due Process they are to forthwith learn or resign.

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to make sure that no warrant is executed without a sworn affidavit and a wet ink signature of a judge without which it is no warrant and cannot be executed. The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to receive no prisoners that have not been indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to make sure that Habeas Corpus is obeyed and if the court and or witnesses fail to respond it is the duty of the County Sheriff and or the U.S. Marshal to release the prisoner(s) immediately.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 9 Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with due process of law or law of the land and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542

Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: No person shall—be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases due course of law, and the law of the land are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616

Law  in  its regular  course of  administration through  courts  of  justice is  due process.Leeper vs.

Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225

 

The Due Process Clause has its origin in Magna Carta. As originally drafted, the Great Charter provided that “[n]o freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” MagnaCarta, ch. 29, in 1 E. Coke, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45 (1797)KERRY v. DIN Decided June 15, 2015


The Simplicity of Law

Statutes that control men places men under the rule of other men and thereby enslave them. Common Law places men under the rule of the Governor of the Universe, who thereby rules over them. And the Governor of the Universe established His bench which is the Jury who is to judge under his principles.

Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.William Penn

 

There are two Common Law principles (maxims) which state that (1) for there to be a crime there must be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime, and (2) there must be a remedy for every injury.

… In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. “In all other cases,” he says, it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded. And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress…” 5 U.S. 137,

Marbury v. Madison

 

Corpus delicti. The body of a crime. The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed.People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 281

For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed  upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945

COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

America was built upon God’s Law which is called “Natural Law” or “Common Law”. AT LAW, Blacks 4th: This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity.

 

THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURES GOD When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them … We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Declaration of Independence

U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law

 

The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

Common law as distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.” 1 Kent, Comm. 492 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 21 S.Ct. 561, 181 U.S. 92, 45 L.Ed. 765; Barry

  1. Port Jervis, 72 N.Y.S. 104, 64 App. Div. 268; U. S. v. Miller, D.C.Wash., 236 F. 798, 800.

 

As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114

  • Constitution Article VI Clause 2: 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

THE FOUNDATION OF GODS LAW is found in Mathew 22:35-40– “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

We the People empowered the Legislative Branch to write codes and statutes to control money, commerce, naturalization, bankruptcies, counterfeiting, law of the sea, etc. U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6 and 9. We the People did “NOT” give Congress power to write codes and statutes to  control the behavior of We the People. We the People are the master Congress are our servants. To legislate We the Peoples’ behavior is to rule over the People, servants do not rule over the People.

The BAR teaches lawyers that the Common Law has been abrogated and lawyers advise all elected servants that the Common Law has been abrogated and that is advocating the overthrow the “Law of the Land” which is the overthrow of the United States of America in violation of 18 USC §2385 Advocating overthrow of Government: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises,  or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof

 

THE COUNTY SHERIFF

 

COUNTY SHERIFF conservator of the peace — The County Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer; elected by the People; and, bound by oath as guardian of the Peoples’ unalienable rights secured by the

 

Constitution. The Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights is the “Law of the Land”; and, all statutes and state constitutions repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America are null and void. If the Sheriff lacks a full understanding of the Constitution which is “Common Law”, it  would stand to reason that he is vulnerable to violation of his oath in that he may not recognize and comprehend when judges and politicians   violate   the   Common   Law;   thus,   making     himself

technically guilty of treason.

 

THE DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SHERIFF CANNOT BE DIMINISHED by those

in the legislature and courts; nor can it be diminished by any state constitution. When it comes to enforcing the Law, which is to say enforcing the Constitution for the United States of America, the Sheriff, being the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer”, answers to We the People; no one else, not even the Governor; like any other elected official, the Sheriff cannot be removed from office by another elected official. He can only be removed by the People at the ballot box; or, by recall; or, by indictment by the Grand Jury.

The United States Supreme Court said: “The Sheriff is the ‘Chief Executive  and  Administrative Officer’ of a county, chosen by popular election. His principal duties are in aid of the criminal and civil courts of record [Common Law Courts] such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgments, holding judicial sales and the like. He is also the ‘Chief Conservator of the Peace’ within his territorial jurisdiction.”

The Sheriff, being the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and the highest Peace Officer of the entire County in which he was elected, is under the obligation to secure the peace; he answers to the People alone – unlike the State Police, who are code enforcement officers, serving the state and answering to the governor; and, unlike city, town or village police, who are also code enforcement officers serving the corporate municipalities, answering to commissioners or mayors. All these officers have a conflict of interest because they have no constitutional authority or concerns; they serve the system of codes and statutes instead of upholding the Constitution and serving the People; whereas, the Sheriff reports directly to the People, not the corporate municipalities; the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the County Sheriff, as a Constitutional Officer, are, at a minimum, the same as they were when the State Constitutions were originally written.

When a Sheriff or a U.S. Marshall consults a BAR judge, a BAR attorney or a bureaucrat to ask whether the judge, attorney or bureaucrat is acting outside of his authority, the Sheriff is doing something no different than consulting the fox as to whether the fox is raiding the hen house. If the Sheriff cannot ascertain whether a judge, or any other government servant, is abusing his powers, thereby violating the unalienable rights of the People, without asking that servant whether he is doing so, how can the Sheriff perform his duty? If a politician, judge or prosecutor violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Sheriff and the U.S. Marshall to call the Grand Jury and ask the People for an Indictment. This is the Sheriff’s responsibility. Were the Sheriff to seek “permission” of a prosecutor  or judge for an arrest of a politician, judge or prosecutor whom the Sheriff finds in violation of the Constitution, the Sheriff would be disempowering his own authority; he would be functioning as a tool to the very ones violating the Constitution; he would, thereby, be violating his own oath. Obviously then, no politician can come between the Sheriff and the People. Regardless of what they have been taught, it is the duty of the Sheriff to seek an indictment, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors call the Grand Jury when the state has an issue; but, the Peoples’ business is the Sheriff’s business; and, it is the Sheriff’s duty to protect the People from those who would encroach upon their rights. Likewise, the courts were designed to exist for the purpose of serving and protecting the People from criminals and tyrants.

What the Sheriff needs to realize is that all states, cities, towns, and villages in America have been moving towards corporatism; that is to say they have corporate charters; and, that the police forces, such as State Police, City Police, Town Police and Village Police work for the corporation, not the People; they are hired by the corporate municipality to uphold codes, not the Constitution; they are code enforcement officers, not law enforcement officers; and, it is the duty of the Sheriff to know  when the People within his county are suffering violation of their unalienable rights by code enforcement officers; and, if he fails that duty, then that County is Lawless and the Sheriff is to blame.

The Sheriff works for and answers to the People alone. His sole duty is to protect the unalienable rights of the People within his County and within the courts against police brutality, tyrannical judges and abusive government agencies. Sheriffs rarely perform the duties that they were actually elected to exercise, because they are, unfortunately, constitutionally ignorant.

The Sheriff is to make sure that “Due Process of Law” is met before any arrest or seizure by police enforcement within his County; and, before any executions of judgments. Even a U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent cannot execute a Warrant of any sort within a county without first notifying the Sheriff; and, it is the duty of the Sheriff to make sure “Due Process of Law” is met before allowing a Code Enforcement Officer, a U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent to proceed. He is also duty bound to prevent SWAT team raids against, innocent under the law, code violators.

DUE PROCESS

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

 

ALL ARREST WARRANTS MUST:

1.)  have a “wet-ink signature of a judge”; and,

2.) have a “Sworn Affidavit” attached by a “witness” or “injured party”. If there is no injured party, there is no crime. The State can never be the injured party.

 

Few Internal Revenue Service Liens are lawful; and, yet, County Clerks, on a daily basis, file “Notices of Lien” in counties without proof of “Due Process”; and, Sheriffs execute them, becoming complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime. In order for an IRS Lien to be lawful the following documents “must” be served:

  • There must be a warrant with a wet ink signature of a Judge, not a
  • An Affidavit of Proof of Claim, i.e., an IRS Form 4490;
  • An Affidavit of Proof of Fiduciary Relationship, i.e., an IRS Form 56

 

All of the above “must” accompany the “Notice of Lien” before the Clerk can file the Lien; and,  before the Sheriff can act upon such Lien.

All Federal or State Warrants “MUST” have the following:

 

  • Warrant must have a wet ink signature of a Judge, not a
  • There must be a sworn Affidavit by an accusing party accompanying the

 

Sheriffs “MUST” prevent the execution of any warrants served upon person or property by Federal, State, County, City, Town or Village code enforcement officers that do not meet the two requirements above. If there is no indictment the Sheriff can only hold the person for 48 hours after which they must be released. If the arrest with or without an indictment is challenged with a Habeas Corpus and the Party holding the person does not answer within three days the Sheriff “MUST” release the person. THIS IS DUE PROCESS. Rarely should a person be arrested for a crime before receiving an indictment, Sheriffs should use their common sense before permitting Federal and State arrests in his County without an indictment. All code violation arrests must show constitutional authority for the legislation of such codes. Any code violation that violates the unalienable right(s) of a person is null and void.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law“. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”  Shuttlesworth

v. Birmingham AI. 373 US 262:(1962)

 

All town, city and village courts are administrative courts; they are not adhering to the “Law of the Land”, i.e., the Constitution; and, therefore, they have “no power” to fine or incarcerate; therefore,

 

every time a County Sheriff receives a prisoner from these courts, the Sheriff becomes complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime.

When a judge violates the right of a People to Due Process in court; and, the Sheriff does nothing, the Sheriff becomes complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime.

When the Sheriff seeks the consent of a prosecutor before arresting a judge, the Sheriff transfers his duty to the prosecutor; the Sheriff violates his oath – a crime. When the Sheriff witnesses, or receives a Sworn Affidavit that a judge is violating the unalienable rights of a People, the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the judge; and, if a prosecutor tries to commit “Felony Rescue” by dismissing the case, the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the prosecutor as well. The Sheriff is well served by first calling forth a “Grand Jury” to seek an “Indictment”; should the Grand Jury then issue an Indictment the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the judge. History recalls that the Grand Jury  was normally called by the Sheriff or Coroner; rarely by the prosecutor. The Sheriff can call the Grand Jury at will; and, as often as he wills; and, he should in order to secure an indictment upon which to base an arrest. Since legislative provisions were made for the prosecutor to call for the Grand Jury overtime the State monopolized on the calling of the Grand Jury and overtime the State morphed into the “injured party” in the name of the People, resulting today in the absence of restitution to the real “injured party”; and thereby removing the common law maxim “there must be a remedy for every injury”.

The Sheriff can arrest any Federal Agent or Police officer whom he finds violating the unalienable rights of a People. The Sheriff can arrest the Governor or any elected or appointed official whom he finds violating the unalienable rights of a People. If the Sheriff feels more comfortable seeking an indictment before an arrest, he should do so.

The Sheriff’s “Rule of Thumb” when it comes to knowing the authority of a Judge, should be “American Jurisprudence”; any Judge acting outside of jurisprudence should be arrested for violating the unalienable rights of their victim.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER V. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: The principal challenge for the Sheriff is embodied in code enforcement officers. Codes and statutes that attempt to control the behavior of People are repugnant to the Constitution; and, are, therefore, null and void. Of course We the People, through our Constitution, vested our Legislatures, at both the Federal and State level, to write statutes; but, not statutes that violate our unalienable rights. Our Constitution never vested County, City, Township or Village Legislatures with statute-writing powers. The Sheriff has a duty to uphold the Constitution. The dilemma of the Sheriff, then, in order to obey the United States Supreme Court rulings, and the United States Constitution to uphold his oath; is that he must first understand the Constitution; and, that is the purpose of this course.

Does the Sheriff have the fortitude to keep his oath to uphold the Common Law? Will he betray his oath; and, therefore, the People who have entrusted him as their Constitutional law enforcer? Will he uphold the Common Law above the will of BAR-driven legislators, judges, prosecutors and their code enforcement officers, i.e. those who truly believe that statutes are above the Constitution?   Treasonous

 

BAR schools have been teaching codes and statutes as law for more than fifty (50) years. If we fail now to correct this error, America will be lost.

WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT: A form of government guaranteed by The Constitution for the United States of America at Article IV, Section 4; which means we have a government that in mandated by our Constitution to obey the Rule of Law, which, in our case, is Common Law.

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government; and, shall protect each of them against invasion.” – U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4

When an organization like the BAR advocates the overthrow of the Constitution, that is to say, the overthrow of Common Law, such organization is advocating the overthrow of our Government in violation of 18 USC §2385.

ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT: “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government; prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence; or attempts to do so…” – 18 USC §2385

WHEN A JUDGE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION; were the Sheriff to seek permission from a prosecutor to seek an indictment; were the prosecutor to fail to call forth a Grand Jury to seek such an indictment; and, were the Sheriff to acquiesce to this; the Sheriff would be disempowering his own authority; submitting to the will of the prosecutor; breaking his oath; becoming part of the conspiracy to cover up a crime; guilty of felony rescue – a crime. When a judge breaks the law, it is the duty of the sheriff to arrest the judge; and, go directly to the Grand Jury for an Indictment. It has only been recently, in the last fifty (50) years or so, that the Sheriff has been unlawfully told that he must first filter the crime through the BARtaught prosecutors who work for the state, not the People; and, who, almost always, refuse to bring a crime before the Grand Jury when a state official is involved. This is “exactly why” America is in a Constitutional crisis. Only by educating the Sheriff can We the People, working with the Sheriff, save America.

Another obstacle, a two-fold obstacle, that the Sheriff must recognize is the puppet Grand Jury and the puppet Trial jury. Because these juries are controlled by the foxes; which is to say they are controlled by judges and prosecutors; the jurors are given their guidelines upon which to deliberate by the all- controlling  BAR  prosecutor.  The Jurors  are instructed  in  the statutes;  told  they must  follow these

 

statutes as law; the BAR prosecutor in this way is trumping Common Law; which, of course, is “jury tampering” – a crime.

The ultimate dilemma for the Sheriff is: “What am I to do?” The solution is simple: take the case to the Common Law Grand Jury. Clearly, the Sheriff cannot take a case involving a judge, a prosecutor or a corporate pay-rolled official to the unlawful puppet jury; a jury controlled by the foxes. Lysander Spooner said:

Any government that is its own judge of; and, determines authoritatively for the people what are its own powers over the people; is an absolute government, of course. It has  all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other; or, at least, no more accurate definition of despotism, than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course, retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this  is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.” – Trial by Jury, 1852

We the People, across America, in every state of the union, are doing exactly that which we should have been doing all along. We were helped to discover these truths through a United States Supreme Court decision in which Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, made clear the Law of the Land when he said:

Because the Grand Jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at   least, no such supervisory judicial authority exists; and, that the Disclosure Rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit’s authority. [R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights; but, not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.” – U.S. v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 504 U.S. 36 118 L.Ed.2d 352, 1992

 

This is the authority by which We the People act; and, by which we come with a determination to put that fox back in its cage and save America. Now the Sheriff knows and the question before him is: “Are you going to continue feeding that fox; thereby participate in his treasonous acts against the People of  the  United  States  of  America; or,  will  you  develop  a  constitutional  back-bone through


education; and, join the People to bring law and order back into our courts; and, thereby back into  our government; and, save America?”

Clearly it takes fortitude for a People to step up, take control and do that which is right for God, country and posterity. This is the Sheriff’s duty. This is the moment in time and history that will define integrity or lack thereof. We the People under the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury have tolerated the inaction of our Sheriffs because we understand, having once been without understanding of the Constitution ourselves. We have awakened to the hard reality; we have decided to do that which is just for ourselves and for our posterity. Now our Sheriffs know! The choices are: 1.) step up and enforce the law of the land; 2.) resign; or, 3.) prepare to face the Grand Jury for treason. The due time is upon us.

The Constitution for the United States of America is a Common Law document which demands obedience to the Common Law.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – U.S. Constitution Article VI Clause 2

Therefore, when there is a conflict between the Law of the Land and the statutes of the corporate charters, the Constitution must prevail. Only those statutes, for which We the People have given our consent for legislators to write, are law; law consistent with the Constitution. Our Sheriffs have now embarked upon the Constitutional Course of “Law 101”; yet, it does not get any more difficult than this.

A sheriff well trained in constitutional (law) enforcement can uphold the Constitution. The Sheriff and his deputies have been trained in the law of statute and code enforcement, in technique and self- defense. Now it is the sheriff’s responsibility to make sure that he and his deputies are well trained in the Constitution for the United States of America so they can serve the People. Were any of his deputies to violate the Constitution, even unknowingly, the sheriff would bear the guilt and the responsibility complicit with his deputies.

The sheriff is responsible for his entire county, including the court and the jail. Wherever legislators, past or present, have removed the Duties of the Constitutional Sheriff; claiming to have entrusted them to code enforcement officers; the People can be sure that the Common Law of our Constitution is not being applied in our courts, in our jails or in our counties; for the very nature of the system of code enforcement serves the corporate government charters, not the People.

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE COURTS: Bailiffs “must be deputies of the sheriff”; trained to understand their duties. They must be approachable by the People in order that the People may report constitutional violations within the court. Bailiffs must have the fortitude to remove a judge from the bench were the judge to violate the unalienable right of a People. Unalienable rights are God-

 

given; cannot be trumped by legislators. Where there is a conflict between a statute of a legislature and the Common Law, the Constitutional Common Law must prevail. A few of the many United States Supreme Court rulings that follow are offered here for the empowerment of the Sheriff; that the Sheriff may enforce the law; that in thus honoring his oath to the Constitution, the People and the Law of the Land, the Common Law Grand Juries will rise up in full support of him.

Law of the Land”, “Due Course of Law” and “Due Process of Law” are synonymous.

– People v. Skinner, Cal., 110 P.2d 41, 45; State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323,

326; Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70,

72, 137 A.L.R.1058; Stoner v. Higginson, 316Pa.481, 175A. 527, 531

 

All laws, rules and practices, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void– Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution), it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, no courts  are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

 

“…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as [to] his/her conduct to[wards] others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v.

Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

 

Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US22, at 24.

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113


JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS: Courts today are de facto, operating contrary to Common Law; under the rules of chancery, not common law. Bailiffs, being deputies of the sheriff, trained to understand their duties, must ensure that courts operate according to law.

 

There are only two (2) courts that We the People have ordained to operate within America under the Constitution; called law and equity; as we read:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2

COURTS OF EQUITY: Have Jurisdiction where Judges hear and decide commercial/contract cases and other disputes; where there exists one jurist called the judge who is bound by the Article VI Law of the Land. Cases ruled upon in Equity Courts can be appealed to higher courts.

COURTS OF LAW: Have Jurisdiction where juries, i.e., a tribunal, hears and decides “all” criminal cases, commercial/contract cases and other disputes; all Criminal Courts are called Courts of Record; they are to proceed under Common Law. In a trial by jury, the judge is to act as administrator and can make “no Rulings”; were he to make a ruling, he would be acting under the “Color of Law” – a crime. The Constitution calls this “bad behavior” (not adhering to the Constitution); such a judge should be immediately removed from the Bench by the Bailiff; and, brought before the Grand Jury for Indictment.

“In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars

$20.00, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and, no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law.– Bill of Rights Amendment VII

“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior” – U.S. Constitution Article III Section 1

The requirements for a criminal case to proceed are as follows:

 

  • THERE MUST BE AN INJURED PARTY: Corpus delecti; The body of a crime; The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man; the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed.” – People v. Dick, 37 281

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” –    Sherar

v. Cullen, 481 F. 945

 

  • THERE MUST BE AN INDICTMENT BY AN “UNFETTERED” GRAND JURY: This means a Grand Jury that is not controlled by a judge or a prosecutor. If there is no indictment, a person cannot be “held” to answer:

 

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, [a crime that requires a prison sentence] unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

– U.S. Constitution Amendment V

 

  • ALL DECISIONS IN A COURT OF RECORD ARE BY THE JURY ALONE: Called a tribunal, without any interference from a judge. The definition of a court of record is: “A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate [judge] designated generally to hold it; proceeding according to the course of Common Law; its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony; has power to fine or imprison for contempt; generally possesses a seal.” – Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v.

Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689; Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426.

JUDICIAL PROCESS – WARRANTS – THE BILL OF RIGHTS: Amendment V provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law as supported by the following U.S. Supreme Court rulings:

“…no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense.”  

Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336

 

Amendment V of the Constitution for the United States provides that no person  shall

… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases ‘due course of law’, and ‘the law of the land’ are sometimes used; but, all three of these phrases have the same meaning; and, that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.” – Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616

Therefore, no Warrant is to be executed by a Sheriff without a wet-ink signature of a judge; a rubber stamp or a clerk’s signature is not sufficient. No legal instrument has executional powers without a signature; and, must be accompanied with a Sworn Affidavit; this includes Federal Liens and IRS Liens. A Notice of Lien or Notice of Levy is not due process according to the Bill of Rights.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects  against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and, no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation; and, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

– Amendment IV

 

HABEAS CORPUS – “THE GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY”: In the early days, Habeas Corpus was not connected with the idea of Liberty. It was a useful device in the struggle for control between Common Law and Equity Courts. By the middle of the fifteenth century, the issue of Habeas Corpus, together with privilege, was a wellestablished way to remove a cause from an inferior court where the defendant could show some special connection with one of the central courts which entitled him to  have his case tried there. In the early seventeenth century The Five Knights’ Case involved the clash

 

between the Stuart claims of prerogative and the Common Law; and, was, in the words of one of the judges: “the greatest cause that I ever knew in this court.” Over the centuries the Writ became a viable bulwark between the powers of government and the rights of the people in both England and the United States.

 

In the United States Habeas Corpus exists in two forms: Common Law and statutory. The Constitution for the United States of America acknowledges the right of the Peoples to the Common Law of England as it was in 1789. What is that Common Law? It does not consist of absolute, fixed and inflexible rules; but, broad and comprehensive principles based on justice, reason and common sense… The Constitution for the United States of America mandates that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…” Habeas Corpus is a case in law, i.e., proceeding according to the Common Law in a Court of Record; therefore, it is the Grand Jury as arbiter that shall be enforcer of the law; the first Grand Jury of twenty-five (25) free men, summoned itself and wrote the following:

 

“If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the people in any respect; and, they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay; or, shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security; and, their transgression shall have been shown to four (4) Jurors of the aforesaid twenty five (25); and, if those four

  • Jurors are unable to settle the transgression, they shall come to the twenty-five (25), showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land.– Magna Charta, June 15, A.D. 1215, 61

 

THE   CONSTITUTION   GUARANTEES   A   REPUBLICAN   FORM   OF   GOVERNMENT:   Protecting   such

Republic against all violence, foreign and domestic violence. Thus, were a judge to enforce anything outside of his authority under the color of law, “Judicial Immunity” would be lost; it would be nothing less than lawless violence. Likewise, legislative jurisdiction not authorized by the United  States Constitution is as inoperative as though it had never been passed; and a judge that would  proceed without jurisdiction, would be indictable for treason; judges are expected to know the law. – The Constitution for the United States of America Article IV Section 4:

COLOR OF LAW: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of  legal right.” Black’s Law 4th; State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148

“Misuse of power; possessed by virtue of state law; and, made possible only because  the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state; is action taken under the ‘color of state law’.” – Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188

“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction; or, acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction; judicial immunity is lost.” –Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451   U.S.

939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326


“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and, an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries, is nothing less than lawless violence.”

– Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)

 

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” – Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264; U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200

No State can 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. Any court that ignores due process is not a Common Law Court; such an action proves a court unlawful; and, consequently, has no legal authority over the petitioner without his consent.

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM: “Sovereign People shall not be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or anywise destroyed … but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” – Magna Charta Chapter 39.

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

 

DUE COURSE OF LAW: “This phrase is synonymous with ‘Due Process of Law’ or ‘Law of the Land’; and, means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” [Court of Record] – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.

“Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice [Court of Record]

is due process.” – Leeper v. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225

 

Some have argued that the People have relinquished sovereignty through various contractual devices in which rights were not expressly reserved. However, that cannot hold because rights are unalienable. The People retain all rights of sovereignty at all times. The exercise of sovereignty by the People is further clarified when one considers that the Constitutional government agencies have no genuine sovereign power of their own; but, must rely upon such authority as is granted by the People.

In the 1930s in New York, the Judiciary and the BAR pressed for a Constitutional Convention endeavoring to eliminate the unalienable right of Habeas Corpus, among other issues. The People were so concerned about the attack on their liberties that instead of abolishing Habeas Corpus, the people submitted in writing their overwhelmingly approval.

“The privilege of a Writ or Order of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.” §4 Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938; and, approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.

 

When our founders debated the Constitution, they included Habeas Corpus as a remedy against evil: “The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the Habeas-Corpus Act, seems, therefore, to be alone concerned in the question. And, both of these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan  of the convention.”… The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and, the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave a man of life,’ says he, ‘or, by violence to confiscate his estate without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but, confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and, therefore, a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.’ And, as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the Habeas-Corpus Act, which, in one place, he calls ‘the bulwark of the British Constitution.’” – Federalist Papers Nos. 83, 84, Hamilton to the People of the State of New York

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.– U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2

THE UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 28: acknowledges that it is not the responsibility of the petitioner to know by what claim or authority the state acts; but, that the petitioner may inquire as to the cause of the restraint by Habeas Corpus. “A court, justice or judge [tribunal] entertaining an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus shall forthwith award the Writ or issue an Order directing the respondents to Show Cause why the Writ should not be granted.” – 28 USC §2243

 

“Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus … shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention; the name of the person who has custody over him; and, by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.” – 28 USC §2242

 

When the persons holding the prisoner neglect to answer said Habeas Corpus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure activate; and, the prisoner must be released under the entry of Default. “When a party, against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought, has failed to plead or otherwise defend, as provided by these rules; and, that fact is made to appear by Affidavit or otherwise [under seal], the clerk shall enter the party’s Default.” – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55

  • “Whoever willfully and unlawfully removes or conceals a proceeding filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States; or, in any public office; or, with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or ”
  • “Whoever, having the custody of any such proceeding, willfully and unlawfully conceals, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or both; and, shall forfeit his office; and, be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” – 18 USC 2071


Habeas Corpus is a judicial process, not open for debate. If the prisoner were not released, the party that continued to restrain the prisoner would become guilty of false imprisonment and kidnaping. The arrest of said perpetrators would be the appropriate action by the Sheriff; and, the said perpetrators would need to be brought before the Grand Jury for indictment.

COURT FILING: If a clerk were to refuse to file any legal document, the clerk would be committing a crime.

“Whoever, being a clerk of a District Court of the United States, willfully refuses or neglects to make or forward any report, certificate, statement or document as required by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both.

– 18 USC §2076

 

If a clerk, judge or anyone were to conceal, remove or mutilate any document filed within the Court that person would be committing a crime; and, the Sheriff would be duty-bound to arrest him.

CONCEALMENT – REMOVAL – MUTILATION GENERALLY:

  • “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or, attempts to do so; or, with intent to do so, takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing; filed or “deposited” with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States; or, in any public office; or, with any judicial or public officer of the United States; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or ”
  • “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper or other thing; willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys the same; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or both; and, shall forfeit his office; and, be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.– 18 USC 2071

RIGHT TO COUNCIL BY NON-BAR MEMBERS: Often, in criminal courts, when people desire to speak for themselves; or, have “assistance of counsel” that are not BAR members; judges reject and resist any move in that direction. Judges continue to force BAR lawyers that are taught in their BAR schools to never bring Common Law into the courts. If they were to do so, the BAR judge and/or the BAR prosecutor would report them; and, they would lose their BAR license; and, be barred from the court. If the victim were to continue to resist, the judge might incarcerate the victim for “contempt”; or, order a “Competency Test”; and, then, the judge might force a BAR attorney on the victim; were the Sheriff and his deputies to fail to realize that the judge was violating the unalienable right of the victim, which right is protected by   the

6th Amendment; and, if the Sheriff were then to do nothing; the Sheriff would be complicit to

conspiracy – a crime.

 

“Right to have the Assistance of Counsel…” – Bill of Rights Amendment VI


“The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state.” – Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239

“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” – Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)

“Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.” – Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377; U.S. v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Sheriff Hamlin 407 U.S. 425

AMERICA RUNS ON FICTION OF LAW: All attorneys and judges are BAR taught. Courts today operate under the rules of chancery; not the rules of Common Law. Our founding fathers rejected chancery; did not include it in the Constitution; it is in direct conflict with Common Law.

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.– U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2

Therefore most of our courts are running on fiction; not on law.

 

FICTION OF LAW: Something known to be false is assumed to be true.” – Ryan v.

Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621

 

“…that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” – Hoke v. Henderson, 15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677

Our elected servants are out of control. America is operating under fiction of law. It is the duty of the Sheriff, working with the People if necessary, to protect the unalienable rights of the People by simply enforcing the laws as enumerated herein. Only then will America run on the Law again.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Sheriff took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; but, to fulfill his oath; to uphold and defend the Constitution; the Sheriff must know the Constitution. The Sheriff needs to learn the Common Law; and, he needs to teach the Common Law to his deputies. Any Sheriff that would fail to do so, would be required to resign his position.

ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN SAVE AMERICA: AND, it is the Sheriff’s duty to lawfully protect and serve the People. Were the People to rise up together; were the People to stand against tyrants in our government; only then would the People be able to return to our former state under Common Law. Were the People to accomplish that noble feat, the whole mass of the People would first need to become well informed and well educated in the Law; for, the People have already, nearly lost America to fascism.

 

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with  a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them; but, to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

“An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self- government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them  to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE JAIL: The sheriff is responsible for the lawful implementation of the county correctional facility; and is, therefore, liable for any unlawful detention. Simply stated, an unlawful detention would be anyone held without a presentment or indictment by a grand jury; unless he were detained for a violent act; being held for indictment of a grand jury; and,

then, brought before a court of law to answer; this is the unalienable right of the Peoples; a right protected by the 5th Amendment.

“Law, in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process.”

– Leeper v. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225

 

“By the Law of the Land is more clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.” – Dartmouth College Case, 4Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629

“No person shall be held to answer for a … crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without ‘Due Process of Law’.” – Bill of Rights Amendment V

 

‘DUE COURSE OF LAW’: “this phrase is synonymous with ‘Due Process of Law’ or ‘Law of the Land’; and, means law in its regular course of administration through Courts of Justice.” – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542

All Federal and State Courts are to be Courts of Record. When declared by a State Constitution to be a Court of Record, a County Court, as well, would be a Court of Record; and, proceed according to the Common Law. All city, town and village courts are NOT courts of record; they proceed according to

statutes; not the Constitution; therefore, they violate due process; and, thus they have NO power to fine or incarcerate. There are a few exceptions: Whereas New York City courts, under the New York State Constitution, are Courts of Record; they, therefore, are to proceed according to the Common Law.

 

COURTS OF RECORD AND COURTS NOT OF RECORD: “The former, being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled or recorded for a perpetual memory and testimony; and, which have power to fine or imprison for contempt; Error lies to their judgments; and, they generally possess a seal. Courts NOT of record are those of

inferior dignity; which have NO power to fine or imprison; and, in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded.” – 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117

N.E. 229, 231

 

“The decisions of a Superior Court may only be challenged in a Court of Appeal. The decisions of an Inferior Court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a Superior Court, one may sue an Inferior Court directly, rather than resort to Appeal to an Appellate Court. A Decision of a Court of Record may not be appealed. It is  binding

on ALL other courts. However, no Statutory or Constitutional Court – whether it be an Appellate or a Supreme Court – can second guess the Judgment of a Court of Record … The judgment of a Court of Record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the Judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)

It is imperative that the Sheriff know the difference between a Court of record and a Court not of Record because a Court not of Record CANNOT incarcerate; THEREFORE, were a Sheriff to incarcerate someone held or tried in a Court not of Record, that Sheriff would be participating in the

violation the unalienable right of that person to the due process of law protected by the 4th  and 5th

Amendments – a crime.

 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects  against unreasonable searches and seizures shall NOT be violated; and, NO Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or Affirmation; and,  particularly describing the place to be searched; and, the persons or things to be seized.

– Bill of Rights Amendment IV

 

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.– Bill of Rights Amendment V

We realize this is a major problem, considering that county jails are filled with people tried in Courts NOT of Record. Some of these people may be guilty of a crime; which is something We the People will have to ascertain; and, We the People, through grand juries and trial juries, WILL endeavor to solve this HUGE  problem as soon as we are able to access the courts. Nevertheless, the Sheriff

CANNOT continue to receive prisoners who were tried in Courts NOT of Record. Were the Sheriff to hold the belief that one of the accused was in fact guilty of a crime, he would need to bring the issue to

 

a Grand Jury for indictment; and, then, to be tried in a Court of Record. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which we now offer to more thoroughly education the Sheriff, were based on Common Law; and, thereby authenticate and substantiate this most important point.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways; and,  to transport his property thereon; either by carriage or by automobile; is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will; but, [is] a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.– Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion; the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination; is an attribute of personal liberty; and, the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment; and, by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v. Dulles,   96

App D.C. 287, 293

 

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right CANNOT be converted into a  crime.”

– Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

 

“There can be NO sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” – Sherar v. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” – Simmons v. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968)

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule-making  or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. – Bill of Rights Amendment II

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the

general principles follow that it imposes NO duties, confers NO right, creates NO office, bestows NO power or authority on anyone, affords NO protection and justifies NO acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An

unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as   a

statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, NO courts are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)


“…every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is NOT bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

“Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does NOT claim to control him/her except as his/her conduct to others; leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

 

“The assertion of Federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is NOT to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22 at 24

 

“A State may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113

 

“The State CANNOT diminish rights of the people.” – Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

 

“There can be NO sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.” – Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

those things which are considered as inalienable rights, which all citizens possess, cannot be licensed since those acts are NOT held to be a privilege.” – City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

“Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.” – Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” – Simmons v. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968)

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule-making  or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” – Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 USs 262

 

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government exists and acts; and, the law is the definition and limitation of power …


For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems  to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails; as being the essence of slavery itself.” – Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE COUNTY: The Sheriff, being Chief Executive and Administrative Officer; the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) and Highest Peace Officer of the entire County in which he was elected, has the absolute authority to arrest even the Governor or a Judge; and, then to call the Grand Jury directly for an Indictment; a Sheriff need not get permission from the District Attorney.

The Sheriff also has the authority and duty to secure liberty and peace within his county; and, if necessary, call the Posse Comitatus to assist. The challenge of the Sheriff today is from forces within our federal government that are unlawfully moving toward Martial Law in an effort to disarm the American People; the only motive of Martial Law is control of a captured population. We the   People

have NOT given authority to the three (3) branches of Government to declare Martial Law; for, to have done so, would be self-destruction. Any attempt by Congress or the Executive to use military forces, foreign or domestic, against the People to bring them under Martial Law is an act of treason; war against the People; and, We the People will be dependent upon the Sheriff within each county to secure the peace by any means necessary; seeing that congress has been negligent in providing for the Militia.

Therefore, in times of emergency, the “only” Constitutional Authority to keep the peace during an invasion is the Posse Comitatus.

Whereas: the Sheriff is to call upon We the People of the county to secure the peace. Federal Agents and Foreign Troops on State Soil would be repugnant to our Constitution; an act of “war”. – II Amendment

POSSE COMITATUS: “The power or force of the county; the entire population of a county above the age of fifteen (15); which a Sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases; as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons, etc.”

– 1 Bl.Comm. 343; Com. v. Martin, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 224

 

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, shall not be infringed.” – The Bill of Rights Amendment II

“To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia; and, for governing  such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” – U.S. Constitution Section 8 paragraph 16


UNITED STATES MARSHAL: The power, authority and duty of a U.S. Marshal is similar to that of the County Sheriff in that he is a constitutional officer having the power and authority to arrest any judge who might violate the unalienable rights of the People. One (1) Marshal is appointed by the President for each of the ninety-four (94) Federal Districts. The powers of the Marshal are defined, by constitutional authority, under the Judiciary act of 1789. The Marshal serves for a term of four (4) years; takes an oath of office; has the power to appoint deputies; and, shall produce a bond.

The duties of the U.S. Marshal, similar to those of the Sheriff, are to attend the District and Circuit Courts; execute throughout the District those lawful precepts directed to him; deliver Writs; Summon jurors; secure an impartial Trial; execute Warrants; and fulfill the responsibility of retaining, delivering and transporting prisoners in his custody as directed by the Courts.

Once a Marshal is appointed, he can be removed from office only by the People in Grand Jury by an Indictment for bad behavior.

“The power of appointing the person nominated, are [is a] political power[s], to be exercised by the President according to his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power; and, his discretion has been completely applied to the case… the appointment cannot be annihilated; and, consequently, if the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President, the rights he has acquired are protected by the law...Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803); 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) 1803

 

Marshals take an oath of office swearing to faithfully execute all “lawful precepts”; thereby remaining in “good behavior”, the Marshal is required to execute all the “lawful orders” of the Court. Marshals are Constitutional Judicial Officers; and, therefore, like the Sheriff, are required to execute the “Law of the Land1 and protect the “Due Process” of the People;2 were the Marshal to fail to do all that is required of him; without acting outside of those powers to which the People consent, he would put

himself in bad behavior; and, would then be subject to removal from office by the People by  Indictment from the Grand Jury.

When Federal SWAT Teams knock down doors in the middle of the night; terrify families; kill people; execute a violence so grave as to sometimes result even in the death of children and pets; all in the name of enforcing a Federal Lien; or; in retaliation of liberty group members whose noble interest is to restore the Constitution for the United States of America; but, in doing so pose a serious, even extinguishing threat to those Federal agencies and/or their agents that would violate the Law of the Land; it is the duty of the Marshal to prevent tyrannical abuse of power. Were the Marshal to allow this abuse he would be guilty of “felony rescue”; and, the Sheriff then would become dutybound to  arrest

 

 

1 U.S. Constitution Article VI. 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

2 Law of the Land”, “Due Course of Law” and “Due Process of Law” are synonymous. People v. Skinner, Cal., 110 P.2d 41, 45; State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323, 326; Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R. 1058; Stoner v. Higginson, 316

Pa. 481, 175 A. 527, 531.

 

all parties complicit in the event. The Common Law Grand Jury is on highalert concerning such  abuse; and, will be seeking indictments across the nation.

The Marshal, like the Sheriff, is the guardian of the Constitution, thereby duty bound to protect the due process of anyone standing before the court; as much as duty bound to execute all the lawful orders of the Court. Due process requires a presentment or indictment of an impartial Grand Jury for all criminal cases.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor, shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor, shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor, be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor, shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. – Amendment V

From the Bill of Rights and its Amendments, it is abundantly clear that the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers includes the fact that the jury would decide whether the Law upon which a People is brought to trial is itself a just Law and/or whether said Law should be applied in the case at hand; any interference with the prerogative of the jury in this most important aspect of due process would constitute “tampering with the jury”; and, would thereby constitute “denial of due process”. Were a judge or a prosecutor to address a jury in such manner as to persuade in the Law, the jury would no longer stand impartial; that judge and/or that prosecutor would be guilty of jury tampering – a crime.

“The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent; (as in electing their functionaries, executive and legislative; and, deciding, by a jury of themselves, both fact and law in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or, they [the People] may ask [that the power of the People be exercised] by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be, at all times, armed; [that the People have the right] to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and, freedom of the press.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright; June 5, 1824

NULLIFICATION OF LAW: A series of resolutions prepared by Jefferson and adopted by the legislature of Kentucky in 1799; protested against the “Alien and Sedition Acts”, declared the laws within those Acts illegal; announced the strict constructionist theory of the Federal government; and, declared “nullification” to be “the rightful remedy”. – Kentucky Resolutions

 

THE LAWFUL PATH: The Sheriff is the last line of defense for the People. American Sheriffs must educate themselves with respect to all the duties enumerated in this course; all those duties enumerated in the Law of the Land; Sheriffs must work with People who are awakening all across America; Sheriffs must receive and ask for Indictments; they must enforce the Law; and, execute arrests. Only then can We save America from the tyrants that would destroy our American way of life; that would

 

replace our just, honorable and merciful Common Law, natural law, God’s law with despotic, tyrannical, abusive fiction. Whenever the Sheriff encounters dilemma or feels unsure with respect to the understanding or enforcement of his duties, We the People stand ready; the Sheriff can call upon the Jury Administrators who are yearning, laboring and praying to soon be seated in the Courts; and, until that glorious, victorious and liberating day, the Sheriff is invited to fax any and all concerns to the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury at (888) 891-8977; We the People will always endeavor to answer concerns with the necessary and appropriate Constitutional Common  Law that  will empower both the Sheriff and the People; additionally, the Sheriff may, at any time deemed necessary or prudent, call together twenty five (25) people in his own county to serve as a Grand Jury; should the Sheriff feel adequate to the orientation of the Jury he may certainly accomplish that; should the Sheriff desire assistance, We the People stand ready to provide either the orientation itself or sufficient materials to help the Sheriff accomplish a successful orientation of the jurors. The fate of America literally rests upon the oath of the Sheriff; upon the fulfillment of that oath; and thereby upon the Sheriff doing the just thing, the honorable thing and the merciful thing.

 

 

THE SURETIES OF THE PEACE

In a stunning 6 to 3 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 1992 case United

States v. Williams, confirmed that:

 

“the American grand jury is neither part of the Judicial, Executive nor Legislative branch of government; but, instead belongs to the People; it is, in effect, a fourth  branch  of  government  ‘governed’  and  administered     to

directly by, and on behalf of, the American People; and, its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, drawing from history and many Supreme Court rulings, went on to say:

 

“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. The common law of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional, functioning grand jury… It is in effect a fourth branch of government governed and administered to directly by, and on behalf of, the American people; and, its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation; and, in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge; and, deliberates in total secrecy. We have insisted that the grand jury remain ‘free to pursue its investigations  unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the


legitimate rights of any witness called before it.’ Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s ‘constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body acting independently of either prosecuting attorney  or judge’.– United States v. Williams

The first grand jury of twenty-five (25) free men summoned itself and wrote the following:

 

“If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the people in any respect; and, they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay; or, shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security; and, their transgression shall have been shown to four ( 4) Jurors of the aforesaid twenty five (25); and, if those four

(4) Jurors are unable to settle the transgression they shall come to the twenty-five (25), showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land.” – Magna Charta, June 15, AD. 1215

 

 

 

And, it is under our own authority as sovereign People and therefore co-authors of the Magna Charta, connected in spirit and in fact, to remind our tyrannical servants that We the People, being the sureties of   the  peace,   authored   the  Declaration   of   Independence,   the  U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these tyrants hold in contempt; and, we intend to bring to remembrance the Preamble to the Declaration  of Independence that when government becomes destructive, We the People act correctively, whereas we read:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it… laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Preamble

 

The governments of the United States belong to We the People, not these tyrants that fleece us daily  in our own courts over which they have seized control. Therefore, We the People have reconstituted the Common Law Grand Juries in all 3,134 Counties of the United States. We have organized all  Fifty

(50) States of our Union; and, have taken extraordinary steps to unify every State; and, We the People, presently many thousands strong in every State, have come together as the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury to liberate America from the tyrants that have seized control of the reigns of our government; and, to bring them to justice.

Once we restore Justice in our courts, thereby restoring our union through law enforcement, the blessings of liberty will be secured once again. Meanwhile, we are educating the People through this Constitutional Course and our Civics Course as we form administrations composed of four (4) of the People in each County of the United States in order to provide for the orientation of juries, bring civics and constitutional studies back into our schools, perform as a conduit between the People and sitting Grand Juries; and, to act as the investigative body of the Grand Juries.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

AUTHORITY

John F. Kennedy 26th  President of the United States from 1961-1963 The President and the  Press

Before the American Newspaper Publishers’ Association in New York City on April 27, 1961.

 

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

 

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

 

You bear heavy responsibilities these days; and, an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

 

You may remember that in 1851, the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed, as its London correspondent, an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

 

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke; and, with a family ill and undernourished; constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5.00 per installment; a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty Bourgeois cheating”.

 

But, when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood  and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

 

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent; history might have been different. And, I hope all publishers will bear this

 

lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper.

 

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press”. Some may suggest  that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press”. But, those are not my sentiments tonight.

 

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague, it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

 

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising  of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

 

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press  should allow to any President and his family.

 

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

 

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

 

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But, neither, on the other hand, had he ever been a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober  one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

 

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some: [Bay of Pigs – was a military attack on Cuba, without Administrative knowledge, until a request by CIA operative George Bush to the President for military air support, which JFK refused] but, the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future for reducing this threat; or, for living with it there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival; and, to our security – a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

 

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern, both to the press and to the President two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone; but, which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

 

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and, we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We   decided

 

long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And, there is very grave danger  that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That, I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And, no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

 

But, I do ask every publisher, every editor and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his  own standards; and, to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger”, the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

 

Today no war has been declared; and, however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And, yet, no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

 

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger”, then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear; and, its presence has never been more imminent.

 

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions; by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic,  scientific and political operations.

 

Its preparations are concealed, not published; its mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned; no rumor is printed; no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

 

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security; and, the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

 

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring, through our newspapers, information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations

 

have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons; and, our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and, that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

 

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But, in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And, my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

 

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But, I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear; and, all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities; if I did not commend this problem to your attention; and, urge its thoughtful consideration.

 

On many earlier occasions, I have said; and, your newspapers have constantly said; that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

 

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed; and, would not seek to impose it if I had one. But, I am  asking the members of the newspaper profession; and, the industry in this country; to reexamine their own responsibilities; to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger; and, to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

 

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And, I hope that every group in America unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors; and, subject their actions to this same exacting test.

 

And, should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

 

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But, this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

 

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation an obligation which I share. And, that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people; to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need; and, understand them as well – the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program; and, the choices that we face.

 

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For, from that scrutiny, comes understanding; and, from that understanding, comes support or opposition. And, both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration; but, I am asking your help in the tremendous task  of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

 

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and, we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

 

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed; and, no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And, that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”; but, to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate; and, sometimes, even anger public opinion.

 

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news for it is no longer far away and foreign; but, close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And, it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security; and, we intend to do that.

 

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three (3) recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing    press.

Now the links between the Nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the World; the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one World’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

 

And,   so,   it   is   to   the   printing   press   –   to   the   recorder   of   man’s   deeds,   the     keeper   of   his   conscience,   the   courier   of   his   news   –   that   we   look   for   strength    and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be – free and independent.

 

Note: The President spoke at the annual dinner of the Association’s Bureau of Advertising held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. His opening words “Mr. Chairman” referred to Palmer Hoyt, Editor and Publisher of the Denver Post, who acted as chairman of the dinner.

Citation: John F. Kennedy: “Address “The President and the Press” Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.,” April 27, 1961. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,

AUTHORITY

RETURN TO SELF-GOVERNANCE

WE HAVE LOST OUR WAY – We have forgotten our place in history; that beacon upon the top of a mountain as an ensign on a hill. Our strength has become our shame because we put our trust in the shadow  of  cunning,  ambitious  and  unprincipled  men  who   have

trodden down the Law and shackled us with statutes of men. We have become a land of trouble and anguish; deaf to the Law of the Land; a place of oppression and perverseness; we have become the potters’ broken vessel. [Isaiah 30]

How did America succumb to such a state of being? Unknown forces covertly altered our course without our consent by seizing the reigns of our government. Questions that beg asking are:

  • Why is our education void of classes on “Civics”; void of classes on “The Constitution”; void of classes on “Common Law”?
  • Why have we been told that we need lawyers to interpret the very subjects that define who we are as a People and our control of our own destiny?
  • Why have we been told that America was “not” founded on Common Law?
  • Why have we been told that People who claim that they are “Sovereign” or demand their “Constitutional Rights” are “Terrorists”?
  • And, the most disturbing question: Why do we believe them?
  • How could we have been so blind to all these things when our Founding Documents have been right there for us to see all along; and, why have we been so late in looking!
  • Just exactly who is it that has been whispering these things into our ears? Has it been the Lawyers? The Politicians? The Political parties? Those who Disdain liberty? The Press? The Schools? Entertainment? Or, could it have been “all” of the above?

 

The answer to the question of “who” is the nefarious “Powers that Be”; Discover the struggle of America against this hidden power in our Free Civics Course right here at www.NationalLibertyAlliance.org. If you have not already taken the course, please add it to your curriculum now; it is critical to understanding and recognizing the “Enemy of Liberty”.

LIBERTY RISING Only the People, working together with our Sheriffs and Marshals, can save America; and, they can do so simply by enforcing the law and re-establishing Justice in our courts.  This we can accomplish only with informed Common Law Juries and informed Constitutional  Officers.

NATIONAL LIBERTY ALLIANCE IS A FACILITATOR of education, organization, communication and principles with the sole objective of empowering People in the re-founding of America; and,  instructing those who respond in how to do so. We are thousands of People poised in every State  across America, approaching the intersection of terminal velocity and critical mass which we trust will be met in 2016 by the juncture of the will of God with that of his People.

 

OUR PLAN, founded in the Magna C[h]arta, Paragraph 61; and, being propelled into fruition, is to build Civil Administrations in every county that will serve as a conduit between the People and the Grand Jury; and, an investigative body for the Grand Jury. This Administrative Body will provide orientation, guidance and administration for the trial and grand juries. Grand Juries are seated for short periods of time; maybe a week; or, maybe five (5) or six (6) days out of a month, depending upon the county  court case workload. It would be a wrong-doing to seat a Grand Jury indefinitely.

After filing press releases in every county across America which called for an assemblage of the People to re-constitute the Common Law Grand Jury in each of the 3,143 counties, we established a Unified State Common Law Grand Jury in each of the fifty (50) States; then, we assembled across the Nation to form the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury; an extraordinary act necessary to secure our Nation.

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS GRAND JURY is to meet head-on those subverts of the United States of America who are warring against the Constitution; and, thereby, warring against We the People. This Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury, as is customary to juries, will remain seated until it achieves its goal of securing Liberty and reinstating self-government at the grass-roots level, i.e., the county level, by reinstating justice in our courts.

SELF-GOVERNMENT requires self-rule and a liberated mind; a mind uncontrolled by Uncle Sam. The political process is one thing; politics is another. Because we desire liberty, we must exercise the former and exorcize the latter. The idea that we can elect lawyers and politicians to solve our woes is absurd. We have been indoctrinated by the powers that be to think in the following opposing terms which are in reality “two sides of the same coin”. To think in opposing terms would leave us divided, never able to come to solidarity of truth.

  • As long as We the People are pitted by right verses left, we will never find the center, which is where liberty
  • A liberal mind requires conservative thinking, which is where liberty is
  • A republican government requires a democratic selection of our representatives which is where liberty is

Unalienable rights can only be had by those who have found and live under a Common Law Constitution. George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to  irresponsible action.” And yet, we have been indoctrinated into believing we can control that fire with politics, which is the epitome of irresponsible actions. George Washington, in his farewell address, left us the following warning: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people; and, to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” And, it was Thomas Jefferson who pulled back the curtain, unveiling the power behind that fire when he said: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around


them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent  their Fathers conquered.”

Presently the BAR Association, created and controlled by banksters, control our judicial system. They have corporatized our government at every level; from the most menial village to Washington. They control our legislators; they control our financial system; they robbed our gold and silver; they destroyed our manufacturing base; they taxed us into submission; they drove us into a debt from which it is impossible to recover; they keep us in perpetual war; they stole our press; they control our entertainment and media; and, through those means, they have demoralized us; they control our education; they rewrote our history; they spy on us; they track us; they licensed our liberties; they have taken control of our families; they send swarms of “child protective service workers” to interfere with the rearing of our children; they have incorporated our churches; they rob our elderly in probate courts; they steal our children in family court; they send swarms of code enforcement officers to control our every move; they incarcerate anyone who challenges their authority and claims their God-given right  as a sovereign; they have bankrupted our nation; and, they are auctioning off our resources to foreign countries. They have done and continue to do all this because they control our courts; and, thereby, our government. This is the work of the veiled “powers that be”. By taking back our courts, we will take back everything; we will reset the clock to 1789; and, we will then introduce the corrupt “powers that be” to the righteous power of Justice.

CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE 2016 — Now that you have an understanding of what America was meant to be, which is “FREE” and “INDEPENDENT”, you have a duty to yourself and your posterity to act upon this new-found knowledge by sounding the alarm; and, thereby, joining We the People peacefully save America in We the Peoples’ Campaign for Justice.

Through this paper Sheriffs and Marshal are being reminded that an oath to defend the Constitution for the United States of America was taken by each; therefore, each has a duty to act. When a Sheriff or Marshal remains silent or inactive he becomes a co-conspirator in the subversion.

AUTHORITY

KENNEDY AND THE PRESS

The FBI: The Silent Terror of the Fourth Reich

February 8th, 2017 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_fbi_the_silent_terror_of_the_fourth_reich

 TYRANTS

By John W. Whitehead
“After five years of Hitler’s dictatorship, the Nazi police had won the FBI’s seal of approval.”— Historian Robert Gellately

Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.”—Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, on the danger posed by the FBI to our civil liberties

Lately, there’s been a lot of rhetoric comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. The concern is that a Nazi-type regime may be rising in America.

That process, however, began a long time ago.

In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order, implemented his tactics in incremental steps, and began to lay the foundations for the rise of the Fourth Reich.

Sounds far-fetched? Read on. It’s all documented.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police—the Gestapo.

The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies and informants, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government’s payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

Indeed, with every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention.

These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where the only law that counts comes in the form of heavy-handed, unilateral dictates from a supreme ruler who uses a secret police to control the populace.

That danger is now posed by the FBI, whose laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.

Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government; recruiting high school students to spy on and report fellow students who show signs of being future terrorists; or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work of ensuring compliance, keeping tabs on potential dissidents, and punishing those who dare to challenge the status quo.

Whatever minimal restrictions initially kept the FBI’s surveillance activities within the bounds of the law have all but disappeared post-9/11. Since then, the FBI has been transformed into a mammoth federal policing and surveillance agency that largely operates as a power unto itself, beyond the reach of established laws, court rulings and legislative mandates.

Consider the FBI’s far-reaching powers to surveil, detain, interrogate, investigate, prosecute, punish, police and generally act as a law unto themselves—much like their Nazi cousins, the Gestapo—and then try to convince yourself that the United States is still a constitutional republic.

Just like the Gestapo, the FBI has vast resources, vast investigatory powers, and vast discretion to determine who is an enemy of the state.

Today, the FBI employs more than 35,000 individuals and operates more than 56 field offices in major cities across the U.S., as well as 400 resident agencies in smaller towns, and more than 50 international offices. In addition to their “data campus,” which houses more than 96 million sets of fingerprints from across the United States and elsewhere, the FBI has also built a vast repository of “profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.” The FBI’s burgeoning databases on Americans are not only being added to and used by local police agencies, but are also being made available to employers for real-time background checks.

All of this is made possible by the agency’s nearly unlimited resources (its minimum budget alone in fiscal year 2015 was $8.3 billion), the government’s vast arsenal of technology, the interconnectedness of government intelligence agencies, and information sharing through fusion centers—data collecting intelligence agencies spread throughout the country that constantly monitor communications (including those of American citizens), everything from internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails.

Much like the Gestapo spied on mail and phone calls, FBI agents have carte blanche access to the citizenry’s most personal information.

Working through the U.S. Post Office, the FBI has access to every piece of mail that passes through the postal system: more than 160 billion pieces are scanned and recorded annually. Moreover, the agency’s National Security Letters, one of the many illicit powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to secretly demand that banks, phone companies, and other businesses provide them with customer information and not disclose those demands to the customer. An internal audit of the agency found that the FBI practice of issuing tens of thousands of NSLs every year for sensitive information such as phone and financial records, often in non-emergency cases, is riddled with widespread constitutional violations.

Much like the Gestapo’s sophisticated surveillance programs, the FBI’s spying capabilities can delve into Americans’ most intimate details (and allow local police to do so, as well).

In addition to technology (which is shared with police agencies) that allows them to listen in on phone calls, read emails and text messages, and monitor web activities, the FBI’s surveillance boasts an invasive collection of spy tools ranging from Stingray devices that can track the location of cell phones to Triggerfish devices which allow agents to eavesdrop on phone calls.  In one case, the FBI actually managed to remotely reprogram a “suspect’s” wireless internet card so that it would send “real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI.” Law enforcement agencies are also using social media tracking software to monitor Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts. Moreover, secret FBI rules also allow agents to spy on journalists without significant judicial oversight.

Much like the Gestapo’s ability to profile based on race and religion, and its assumption of guilt by association, the FBI’s approach to pre-crime allows it to profile Americans based on a broad range of characteristics including race and religion.

The agency’s biometric database has grown to massive proportions, the largest in the world, encompassing everything from fingerprints, palm, face and iris scans to DNA, and is being increasingly shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to target potential criminals long before they ever commit a crime. This is what’s known as pre-crime. Yet it’s not just your actions that will get you in trouble. In many cases, it’s also who you know—even minimally—and where your sympathies lie that could land you on a government watch list. Moreover, as the Intercept reports, despite anti-profiling prohibitions, the bureau “claims considerable latitude to use race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in deciding which people and communities to investigate.”

Much like the Gestapo’s power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the power to label anyone a domestic terrorist.

As part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the nation’s de facto secret police force has begun using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably. Moreover, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that can be used to identify an individual (especially anyone who disagrees with the government) as a potential domestic terrorist. For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:

  • express libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
  • exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership)
  • read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books
  • show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
  • fear an economic collapse
  • buy gold and barter items
  • subscribe to religious views concerning the book of Revelation
  • voice fears about Big Brother or big government
  • expound about constitutional rights and civil liberties
  • believe in a New World Order conspiracy

Much like the Gestapo infiltrated communities in order to spy on the German citizenry, the FBI routinely infiltrates political and religious groups, as well as businesses.

As Cora Currier writes for the Intercept: “Using loopholes it has kept secret for years, the FBI can in certain circumstances bypass its own rules in order to send undercover agents or informants into political and religious organizations, as well as schools, clubs, and businesses…” The FBI has even been paying Geek Squad technicians at Best Buy to spy on customers’ computers without a warrant.

Just as the Gestapo united and militarized Germany’s police forces into a national police force, America’s police forces have largely been federalized and turned into a national police force.

In addition to government programs that provide the nation’s police forces with military equipment and training, the FBI also operates a National Academy that trains thousands of police chiefs every year and indoctrinates them into an agency mindset that advocates the use of surveillance technology and information sharing between local, state, federal, and international agencies.

Just as the Gestapo’s secret files on political leaders were used to intimidate and coerce, the FBI’s files on anyone suspected of “anti-government” sentiment have been similarly abused.

As countless documents make clear, the FBI has no qualms about using its extensive powers in order to blackmail politicians, spy on celebrities and high-ranking government officials, and intimidate and attempt to discredit dissidents of all stripes. For example, not only did the FBI follow Martin Luther King Jr. and bug his phones and hotel rooms, but agents also sent him anonymous letters urging him to commit suicide and pressured a Massachusetts college into dropping King as its commencement speaker.

Just as the Gestapo carried out entrapment operations, the FBI has become a master in the art of entrapment.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the FBI has not only targeted vulnerable individuals but has also lured or blackmailed them into fake terror plots while actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing or deporting them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.” In addition to creating certain crimes in order to then “solve” them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law, “including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies,” in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts. USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day. Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums: one particularly unsavory fellow, later arrested for attempting to run over a police officer, was actually paid $85,000 for his help laying the trap for an entrapment scheme.

When and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America, in much the same way that the empowerment of Germany’s secret police tracked with the rise of the Nazi regime.

How did the Gestapo become the terror of the Third Reich?

It did so by creating a sophisticated surveillance and law enforcement system that relied for its success on the cooperation of the military, the police, the intelligence community, neighborhood watchdogs, government workers for the post office and railroads, ordinary civil servants, and a nation of snitches inclined to report “rumors, deviant behavior, or even just loose talk.”

In other words, ordinary citizens working with government agents helped create the monster that became Nazi Germany. Writing for the New York Times, Barry Ewen paints a particularly chilling portrait of how an entire nation becomes complicit in its own downfall by looking the other way:

In what may be his most provocative statement, [author Eric A.] Johnson says that ‘‘most Germans may not even have realized until very late in the war, if ever, that they were living in a vile dictatorship.’’ This is not to say that they were unaware of the Holocaust; Johnson demonstrates that millions of Germans must have known at least some of the truth. But, he concludes, ‘‘a tacit Faustian bargain was struck between the regime and the citizenry.’’ The government looked the other way when petty crimes were being committed. Ordinary Germans looked the other way when Jews were being rounded up and murdered; they abetted one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century not through active collaboration but through passivity, denial and indifference.

Much like the German people, “we the people” have become passive, polarized, gullible, easily manipulated, and lacking in critical thinking skills.  Distracted by entertainment spectacles, politics and screen devices, we too are complicit, silent partners in creating a police state similar to the terror practiced by former regimes.

Can the Fourth Reich happen here?

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s already happening right under our noses.

 

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

TYRANTS

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

One Freemans War In the Second American Revolution – Mark Emery

February 6th, 2017 by

https://www.amazon.com/One-Freemans-War-American-Revolution/dp/0692360980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486396279&sr=1-1&keywords=One+freeman%27s+War+Mark+Emery

OLDDOGS MUST READ LIST

By Olddog

I have heard it said “A man is what he reads”, so what is he if he does not read? Well like so many Americans these days, I would say he is NOT MUCH. He is probably an air-head TV junkie at best and intellectually defiant, only taking what he can, and uninterested in anything requiring though or labor.

Hopefully that is not you; the reader of this rant.

My opinion of this book is that every human being in this woebegone land should be forced to read it, so his/her brain could be exposed to some oxygen that is produced by cognitive activity in the tissue occupying the frontal cortex.

Amazing true story about American heroes who dared to challenge tyranny at every level. (Adventure, Philosophy, Intelligence)

Ordinary citizens had the government running scared!

With a background in International Business, Rex Freeman was recruited heavily by the C.I.A. to do work overseas under ‘private cover’. He endured a gruelling screening process which spanned nearly 8 months. When he was finally invited to the Langley headquarters to make the final step, he declined the offer. Being a man of strong principles he knew he wouldn’t fit in any situation in which he’d have to sell his soul for nefarious black ops.

It wasn’t long before he had a run in with the I.R.S. which didn’t suit him much. He uncovered fraud in the process and this led him to start studying the law. The more he studied, the more fraud, deception and misapplication of the law he uncovered and it wasn’t long before he became a citizen advocate for natural rights and lawful government. Instead of working ‘for’ the government as he nearly did, he was now attacking it head on and trying to put overzealous tyrants back in their proper place as servants to their masters, the people.

Rex became very public with weekly seminars and public training exposing the corruption and then offering solutions on what people can do about it to protect themselves and hold tyrants accountable. This led to a radio show and that ‘did it’. He became a threat to ‘business as usual’ by the ‘status quo’. The game was on and he became a target for persecution. The more government tried to silence him, the more he discovered and he became even more effective in countering the their attacks and suppression tactics.

They threw him in jail, and he broadcast his radio show from the phone in his cell pod interviewing the inmates about abuses they had suffered. They couldn’t shut him up. He wouldn’t back down. The more they threatened him, the more he pushed back and he exposed their iniquity for all to see.

Rex and others like him took on;

Overzealous Police

Corrupt Courts

Errant Public Officials

The I.R.S.

and even The Fed and the U.S. Treasury.

They proved that the Government Goliath could be humbled by their Citizen Masters!

We all know that ‘Knowledge is Power’. Rex and others like him had acquired the knowledge and the power to defend themselves and challenge ‘the machine’ which so many of us feel so helpless to stand up against. This is a story of hope. It is a gripping adventure. It’s entertaining and funny! Yet it is as serious as a heart attack. You will be enlightened when you learn some of the amazing discoveries that were made and you will see the key issues that have bound you over to servitude in our current system of law.

Lessons and Discoveries for all Americans & Freedom Lovers Worldwide.

The issues raised in this book are critical to understand as it comes down to pure operation of law and how your rights are converted into privileges and regulated by the government. Which do you prefer; the status quo where temporary government granted privileges can be suspended on a whim? Or immutable Natural, God Given rights, which nobody can infringe upon? The choice is yours.

Reclaim those natural rights. Understand the issues.

Read this book to advance your knowledge (while being entertained at the same time)

 

$19.95 at Amazon Books

Top Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 starsA Revelation of Compassionate Service

ByPouvre Toveson May 28, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition

This book is unmistakably, an autobiography, set in the most recent time-frame and applicable to all Americans who love liberty and long for the freedoms we have lost.
It unveils a chronology of historical details few could know by direct experience.
It exposes a cesspool of corruption and reflects upon the evil at the core of our cultural demise. This IS a record of the global cabal masquerading behind a veil of darkness even when illuminated by the light of truth. And it is intimate with our sorrow as a Fallen Nation – not unlike how the Native Americans were beaten into submission not so long ago.
Our Founding Fathers admonished us to keep vigilant to defend our GREAT REPUBLIC against the forces they knew all too well would work to undermine, corrupt and usurp our freedoms. We did not listen.
This book shows how we have become slaves – how the terms of our capture are dictated and how we are granted permission to live and work for ‘them.’
One Freeman’s War is our war – though few choose to stand up and fight or have the guts to take a stand for what is ethical, compassionate and liberating. How often we choose to fight against each other than join together to reclaim what is ours – granted only by God.
In this book you will read about the way some freedom fighters broke through the walls of this great deception and walked into the illusion and stood for a time in that other world of sheer greed and power. They saw the puppeteers behind that shroud and engaged them. They were emboldened by what they learned and entered their castle keep to reclaim what had been stolen – from us all.
Using their discoveries we now have a map we can all study to follow – a map that leads to a new land of liberty for all as Freemen.

Read more

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsA MUST READ

ByDGon July 10, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase

This is a must read for those who still have their heads buried in the sand as to how crooked our judicial system is and how they will lie, cheat and steal to take away anybody’s freedom if they aren’t one of the sheeple and marching to the beat of the drum. I only wish I were as versed on the law of the land as well as the author. He gives very good information regarding the legal processes he used to defend himself against the system, which could be useful in helping anyone who chooses to live life as a free man, as God intended. I admire the author for writing this book in hopes that it will become a best seller, whereas awakening the masses to the fact that even though freedom is a God given right, if we don’t fight for it, it will be lost forever. Good work, Mark!!!

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsA story of a modern Don Quixote

Bysquireon June 9, 2015

Format: Paperback

This is the story of a modern Don Quixote with all of the adventure and humor, but with a great deal of sadness since it is not based upon the imagination of a writer, but mostly upon the real life drama that Americans suffer through every day. Yes, suffer through, even if most Americans are too blind and indifferent to see the reality of their own situation. The story of Rex Freeman is a story of the desire to live free. Not everyone will agree with his methods, or even his direction, but who cannot desire to be free? There are many paths for many people, and the adventure is figuring out which one is for you. Or you can just sit at home on your couch watching Reality TV while Reality quietly slips past you, and you are bound by the soft cords of modern tyranny.

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

4.0 out of 5 starsA BRILLIANT LESSON TO PROTECT FROM TYRANNY.

ByPierre Herberton May 29, 2015

Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

Within less than 350 pages, you learn, if you did not know it before, that honest people need to protect themselves against tyranny:
If people do not know how they can be manipulated, they will be controlled. our God given rights are “legislated away” and speculators, money powers, other potential and powerful tyrants will govern you, already own you thru the bank system and the public servants modus operandi.
Nowadays, God’s law has been hijacked by man’s law and, if ignorant, we boast about it like we boast about man’s technological progress which is about to destroy our planet and ourselves.
Would we be able to teach every one what it is all about, oppression would have to vanish and honest people would have another chance to live free.
Mark Emery is trying here to give us the first lesson to adapt and find solutions. The book is brilliantly written and evident power games are well documented. I find it very entertaining.

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsI will participate in the revelution! I have re-read the book and find it even more compelling ! I take it as acall to action

ByEarl Thompsonon April 20, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase

The book is well written and very informative.
You have fought a variant fight and aI am proud to be associated
With you.ven
I plan to recommend this book to everyone I know.

In recent days I have learned that homeland security has become
We’ll trained and heavily armed force and Is surely preparing to
Implement marshal law.
I do not see any way “we the people” can win this battle.
We are all hooked on feeding at the government trough!
I hope to visit Pamama in the near future!

American Revolution

Irreversible Damage – The U. S. Economy Cannot Be Repaired

February 4th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3121-irreversible-damage-the-us-economy-cannot-be-repaired

By Brandon Smith

As I outlined in my article ‘The False Economic Narrative Will Die In 2017’, the mainstream media has been carefully crafting the propaganda meme that the Trump administration is inheriting a global economy in “ascension,” when in fact, the opposite is true. Trump enters office at a time of longstanding decline and will likely witness severe and accelerated decline over the course of the next year. The signs are already present, and this fits exactly with the basis for my prediction of the Trump election win — conservative movements are indeed being set up as scapegoats for a global economic crisis that international financiers actually created.

Plus, it doesn’t help that Trump keeps boasting about the farcical Dow hitting record highs after his entry into the White House. Talk about the perfect setup…

With the speed at which Trump is issuing executive orders, my concern is that people’s heads will be spinning so fast they will start to assume an appearance of economic progress. Here is the issue — some problems simply cannot be fixed, at least not in a top down fashion. Some disasters cannot be prevented. Sometimes, a crisis has to run its course before a nation or society or economy can return to stability. This is invariably true of the underlying crisis within the U.S. economy.

It is imperative that liberty activists and conservatives avoid false hope in fiscal recovery and remain vigilant and prepared for a breakdown within the system. Despite the sudden political sea change with Trump and the Republican party in majority control of the D.C. apparatus, there is nothing that can be done through government to ease fiscal tensions at this time. Here are some of the primary reasons why:

Government Does Not Create Wealth

Government is a wealth-devouring machine. The bigger the government, the more adept it is at snatching capital and misallocating it. Such a system is inherently unequipped to repair an economy in a stagflationary spiral.

I’m hearing a whole lot of talk lately on all the jobs that will be created through Trump’s infrastructure spending plans, which reminds me of the desperation at the onset of the Great Depression and the efforts by Herbert Hoover to reignite the U.S. economy through a series of public works programs. Reality does not support a successful outcome for this endeavor.

First off, Trump’s ideas for infrastructure spending to kick start a U.S. recovery are not new. The Obama administration and Congress passed the largest transportation spending bill in more than a decade in 2015 and pushed for a similar strategy to what is now being suggested by Trump. I should point out though that like Herbert Hoover, Obama’s efforts in this area were essentially fruitless. Obama was the first president since Hoover to see “official” annual U.S. GDP growth drop below 3 percent for the entirety of his presidency, with GDP in 2016 dropping to a dismal 1.6 percent.

Though projects like the Hoover Dam were epic in scope and electrifying to the public imagination during the Depression, they did little to fuel the overall long-term prospects of the American economy. This is because government is incapable of creating wealth; it can only steal wealth from the citizenry through taxation to pay debts conjured out of thin air, or, it can strike a devil’s bargain with central banks to print its way to fake prosperity.

Some might argue that Trump is more likely to redirect funds from poorly conceived Obama-era programs instead of increasing taxes or printing, but this does not change the bigger picture. Redirected funds are still taxpayer funds, and those funds would be far better spent if they were returned to taxpayers rather than wasted in a vain effort to increase GDP by a percentage point. Beyond this, the number of jobs generated through the process will be a drop in the bucket compared to the 100 million plus people no longer employed within the U.S. at this time.

Bottom line? Though new roads and a wall on the southern border are winners for many conservatives, infrastructure spending is a non-solution in preventing a long-term fiscal disaster.

Interdependency Is Hard To Break

Another prospect for raising funds to pay for job generating public works projects is the use of tariffs on foreign imports. Specifically, imports of goods from countries which have maintained unfair trade advantages through global agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA or the China Trade Bill. This is obviously a practical concept and it was always the intention of the founding father post-revolution for government to generate most of its funding through taxation of foreign imports and interstate commerce, rather than taxation of the hard earned incomes of the citizenry. However, the idea is not without consequences.

Unfortunately, globalists have spent the better part of a half-century ensuring that individual nations are completely financially dependent on one another. The U.S. is at the very CENTER of this interdependency with our currency as the world reserve standard. In order to change the nature of the inderdependent system, we have to change the nature of our participation within that system. This means, in order to assert large tariffs on countries like China (which Trump has suggested), America would have to be willing to sacrifice the main advantage it enjoys within the interdependent model — we would have to sacrifice the dollar’s world reserve status.

Keep in mind, this is likely to be done for us in an aggressive manner by nations like China. China’s considerable dollar and treasury bond holds can be liquidated, and despite claims by mainstream shills, this WILL in fact have destructive effects on the U.S. economy.

Also keep in mind that with higher tariffs come higher prices on the shelf. The majority of goods consumed by Americans come from outside the country. Higher tariffs only work to our advantage when we have a manufacturing base capable of producing the goods we need at prices we can afford. The American manufacturing base within our own nation is essentially nonexistent compared to the Great Depression. In order to levy tariffs we would need a level of production support we simply do not have.

The point is, an unprecedented change in America’s production dynamic would have to happen so that we do not face heavy fiscal consequences for the use of tariffs as an economic weapon.

Manufacturing Takes Time To Rebuild

Much excitement has been garnered by reports that certain U.S. corporations will be bringing some manufacturing back within our borders over the course of Trump’s first term as president. And certainly this is something that needs to happen. We should have never outsourced our manufacturing capability in the first place. But, is this too little too late? I believe so.

I remember back in 2008/2009 mainstream economists were applauding the Federal Reserve’s bailout efforts and the call for quantitative easing, because, they argued, this would diminish the dollar’s value on the global market, which would make American goods less expensive, and by extension inspire a manufacturing renaissance. Of course, this never happened, which only adds to the mountain of evidence proving that most mainstream economists are intellectual idiots.

It is important that we do not fall into the same false-hope trap in 2017. While Trump may or may not handle matters more aggressively, there is only so much that can be accomplished through politics. Rebuilding a manufacturing base after decades of outsourcing takes time. Many years, in fact. Factories have to be commissioned, money has to change many hands, wages have to be scouted for the best possible labor per-dollar spent and people have to be trained from the very ground up in how to produce goods again. In many cases, the skill sets required to maintain functioning factories in the U.S. (from engineers to machinists to assembly line labor to the people who know how to manage it all) just don’t exist anymore.  All we have left are millions of retail and food service workers forming mobs to demand $15 an hour, which is simply not going to encourage a return to manufacturing.

Beyond this, at least in the short term, America will have a much stronger dollar on the global market, rather than a weaker dollar, due to the fact that the Federal Reserve has initiated a renewed series of interest rate increases just as Trump entered office.  While the mainstream theorizes that the Fed will turn “dovish” and back away from rate hikes, I think this is a rather naive notion.  It serves the elites far better to create a battle between Trump and the Fed – therefore, I see no reason for the Fed to back away from its rate hike process.  Trump will demand a weaker dollar, the Fed won’t give it to him, and ultimately, the global economy will start to see the dollar as a risky venture and dump it as the world reserve; which is what the globalist have wanted all along so that they can introduce the SDR as a bridge to a new world currency.

With a “strong” dollar (relative to other indexes) there is even LESS incentive for foreign nations to buy our goods now than there was after the credit crisis in 2008. If the dollar loses world reserve status (as I believe it will during Trump’s first term), then at that point we will have a swiftly falling currency — but too swift to fuel a manufacturing reboot.

Is there even enough internal wealth to support the rise of manufacturing within the U.S. for a period of time necessary for our economy to rebalance?  If there is I’m not seeing it.  We are a nation mired in debt.  So much so that even selling off our natural resources would not erase the problem.

Ultimately, the shift away from being tied to a globalized system towards a self-contained producer nation with a citizenry wealthy enough to sustain that production in light of limited exports to foreign buyers is a shift that requires incredible foresight, precision and ample time. It is not something that can be ramrodded into existence through force or by government decree. In fact, the act of trying to force the change haphazardly will only agitate an economy already on the verge of calamity.

Solutions Start With The Citizenry, Not Washington

I understand that conservatives in particular want to “make America great again,” and I fully agree with that goal. But, someone has to point out the inconsistencies in the current strategy and recognize that the situation is beyond repair. To make America great again would require decentralized efforts to maximize production and self reliance at a local level, not centralized federal tinkering with the economy. The globalists have been far too thorough in their programs of interdependency. The only way out now is for the system to crash and for the right people to be in place to rebuild.

Sadly, not only will a crash result in great tragedy for many Americans, but it is also an outcome the globalists prefer. They believe that THEY will be the men in the right place at the right time to rebuild the system in an even more centralized fashion. They hope to sacrifice the old world order to inspire the social desperation needed to convince the masses of the need for a “new world order.” Again, this crash cannot be avoided, it can only be mitigated. We can prepare and become self sufficient. We can fight to ensure that the globalists are not in a position to rebuild the system in their image once the dust settles. But, we should not place too much expectation that the Trump administration will be able to solve any of our economic problems, if that is even their intent.  The solution remains in our hands, not in the hands of the White House.

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

Irreversible Damage

Thank You, and No, I Can’t Keep Up…. And Did You Know You Are in The Service?

February 3rd, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/02/thank-you-and-no-i-cant-keep-upand-did.html

JUSTICEBy Anna Von Reitz

This morning I looked in my email inbox and saw 50,410 unanswered emails blinking at me.  There is no way on Earth that I can answer all or even a small fraction of these. It just isn’t possible.  If I had a full-time staff devoted to answering emails for me, they might keep up.  As it is, it would take 50 people working over 1,000 emails each today.

Realizing— and finally admitting—- that I am never, ever going to be able to get through all those emails, I just had to hit the “delete” button and hope that the ultimate answers to the mysteries of government and life were not part of the overload.

I also had a heartbreaking question forwarded to me by my Webmaster — a friend who has been sending $10 a month since September and never got a thank you from me.  Did it arrive?  Did it make a difference?  I burst into tears.

We could never come so far, so fast, without the good wishes and help and prayers and $10 donations.  This has been a very, very hard winter for everyone on my team, including me.  There have been deaths, accidents, illnesses, injuries— you name it, we’ve had it.  It’s as if Satan himself took an interest in making our lives miserable the past four months, and with all those setbacks, we wouldn’t have survived it without all of you coming forward and sending us money for gas and copy service and stamps.

I had to sit back and shake my head. I can’t even keep up with thanking all the people all over this country who are and who have been loyally supporting the research and the efforts of our Living Law Firm team.  Again, it just isn’t possible.  I would have to spend all day every day on nothing but correspondence —- and then I wouldn’t get the actual work done that you want me to do.

So, yes, your PayPal donations to avannavon@gmail.com do matter, and so do all the checks and money orders and other gifts sent to me in care of Post Office Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska 99652.   You have all helped lift the burden and make it bearable and though I admit to many sins, ingratitude is not one of them!  I do get the mail eventually and I bless you all and thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Here is today’s strange but true tidbit that we all need to know:  your SURNAME is that of a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marines known as a Withholding Agent; HE is under a services contract which makes HIM responsible for paying the DEBTS of the government. 

Isn’t that cute?  All these years they had you convinced that you were paying debts that you owed, but in fact, you are merely a faceless military services subcontractor tasked with paying off the debts of the UNITED STATES and its franchises. As long as you retain a SURNAME, you are presumed to be operating in their foreign system and to be obligated in this way.

So one of the key points to make and prove is that you are no longer in any form of military, quasi-military, or civil service employment.  And if they think you are, then they need to produce the contract and the dates and the amounts you have been paid and the name of your supervisor and your job description and all the rest of it.

Once again we find that this entire system is built on nothing more than deceit and self-interested lies.  Pure bunko. 

So the work excavating the manure pile goes on, and this is what occupies my time and the time of many others every day.  We are now at a point where we can begin pulling together the actual pleadings to bring suit against the rats in international courts.  Stay tuned for more to come. 

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

We can delight in the fact that we have an all mighty God who will use some of us to put in place justice and recompense, and then woe to the Banking Cartels and their puppets, who will burn in hell forever.

THANK YOU ANNA, AND ALL YOUR HELPERS AND DONORS.

JUSTICE

Guess How Many Nations In The World Do Not Have A Central Bank?

February 2nd, 2017 by

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/guess-how-many-nations-in-the-world-do-not-have-a-central-bankank?

CENTRAL BANKS

By Michael Snyder

Central banking has truly taken over the entire planet.  At this point, the only major nation on the globe that does not have a central bank is North Korea.  Yes, there are some small island countries such as the Federated States of Micronesia that do not have a central bank, but even if you count them, more than 99.9% of the population of the world still lives in a country that has a central bank.  So how has this happened?  How have we gotten the entire planet to agree that central banking is the best system?  Did the people of the world willingly choose this?  Of course not.  To my knowledge, there has never been a single vote where the people of a nation have willingly chosen to establish a central bank.  Instead, what has happened is that central banks have been imposed on all of us.  All over the world, people have been told that monetary issues are “too important” to be subject to politics, and that the only solution is to have a group of unelected, unaccountable bankers control those things for us.

So precisely what does a central bank do?

You would be surprised at how few people can actually answer that question accurately.  The following is how Wikipedia describes what a central bank does…

A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages a state’s currency, money supply, and interest rates. Central banks also usually oversee the commercial banking system of their respective countries. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in the state, and usually also prints the national currency, which usually serves as the state’s legal tender. Examples include the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve of the United States and the People’s Bank of China.

In the United States, we are told that we have a free market system.  But in a true free market system, market forces would determine what interest rates are.  We wouldn’t need anyone to “set interest rates” for us.

And why have we given a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) the authority to create and manage our money supply?  The U.S. Constitution specifically delegates that authority to Congress.

It is not as if we actually need the Federal Reserve.  In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history happened during the decades before the Federal Reserve was created.

Unfortunately, a little over 100 years ago our leaders decided that it would be best to turn over our financial future to a newly created private banking cartel that was designed by very powerful Wall Street interests.  Since that time, the value of our currency has diminished by more than 96 percent and our national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger.

But despite all of the problems, the vast majority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans are not even willing to consider slightly curtailing the immense power of the Federal Reserve.  And the idea of getting rid of the Fed altogether is tantamount to blasphemy to most of our politicians.

Of course the same thing is true all over the planet.  Central banks are truly “the untouchables” of the modern world.  Even though everybody can see what they are doing, there has not been a single successful political movement anywhere on the globe (that I know about) to shut a central bank down.

Instead, in recent years we have just seen the reach of central banking just continue to expand.

For example, just look at what has happened to some of the countries that were not considered to be “integrated” into the “global community”…

-In 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan.  In 2003, Da Afghanistan Bank (who picked that name?) was established by presidential decree.  You can find the official website of the bank right here.  Now Afghanistan has a modern central bank just like the rest of us.

-In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq.  In early 2004, the Central Bank of Iraq was established to manage the Iraqi currency and integrate Iraq into the global financial system.  The following comes from the official website of the Central Bank of Iraq

Following the deposition of Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance began printing more Saddam dinar notes as a stopgap measure to maintain the money supply until new currency could be introduced.

The Banking Law was issued September 19, 2003. The law brings Iraq’s legal framework for banking in line with international standards, and seeks to promote confidence in the banking system by establishing a safe, sound, competitive and accessible banking system.

Between October 15, 2003 and January 15, 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued new Iraqi dinar coins and notes, with the notes printed using modern anti-forgery techniques, to “create a single unified currency that is used throughout all of Iraq and will also make money more convenient to use in people’s everyday lives. Old banknotes were exchanged for new at a one-to-one rate, except for the Swiss dinars, which were exchanged at a rate of 150 new dinars for one Swiss dinar.

The Central Bank of Iraq (Arabic: البنك المركزي العراقي) was established as Iraq’s independent central bank by the Central Bank of Iraq Law of March 6, 2004

-In 2011, the United States bombed the living daylights out of Libya.  Before Muammar Gaddafi was even overthrown, the U.S. helped the rebels establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company.

Central banks are specifically designed to trap nations in debt spirals from which they can never possibly escape.  Today, the debt to GDP ratio for the entire planet is up to an all-time high record of 286 percent.  Humanity is being enslaved by a perpetual debt machine, but most people are not even aware that it is happening.

It is time for an awakening.  We need to educate as many people as possible about why we need to get rid of the central banks.  For those living in the United States, my previous article entitled “On The 100th Anniversary Of The Federal Reserve Here Are 100 Reasons To Shut It Down Forever” is a good place to start.  In other countries, we need people to write similar articles about their own central banks in their own languages.

The global elite dominate us because we allow them to dominate us.  Their debt-based system greatly enriches them while it enslaves the remainder of the planet.  We need to expose their evil system and the dark agenda behind it while we still have time.

Tags: Bankers, Central Bank, Central Banking, Central Banks, Debt, Debts, Michael T. Snyder, Monetary, Monetary Issues, North Korea, The Federated States Of Micronesia | Category: Banksters, Commentary, Federal Reserve

CENTRAL BANKS

The Government That Isn’t – Part 29

February 1st, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/01/the-government-that-isnt-or-stop-being.html

TYRANNYBy Anna Von Reitz

What we call “the federal government” isn’t a government.  It is not and it never has been. It is a governmental services corporation, which is a different matter entirely. 

Please take this outrageous but true statement into your mind and let it rattle around a bit. Savor the fact.  Consider the consequences.

The so-called “United States Government” is not a sovereign government of any kind. It is at best an association of sovereign states entered into a mutual services contract with the United States (Trading Company) and its Successors by default.

From the very beginning, the states have been the sovereign units of government. Any power of the “federal government” has been delegated to it by the states, not the other way around.

Nineteen very important powers including production of our money, control of our commerce and trade policies, control of our armed forces (except the militia) and control of our foreign policy were delegated to the British Monarch and the United States (Trading Company) in a quid pro quo in which the British Monarch agreed to act as our Trustee and protector on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways in exchange for these concessions.

That agreement was initially brokered and conceptualized as The Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, and particularized as The Constitution for the united States of America several years later.

So from the start, there was the “united States of America”— an association of states subscribing to the service to be provided by the United States (Trading Company) and there was the British Servicer doing business as the United States. This has been the cause of a great deal of mostly deliberate confusion.

When the states “assembled” in “Congress” it meant that they elected fiduciary deputies accountable to the states —- people known as “Senators” and “Congressmen” — and sent them to a meeting called a “Congress” of the states to discuss and decide matters of mutual interest and establish a body of law applicable in all states known as the “United States Statutes at Large”.

Things went along well enough for several decades, but the British Monarch and the Pope conspired in secret Breach of Trust to undermine the American Government via the Treaty of Verona (1822). 

What then commenced can only be called a gigantic fraud scheme.

The Constitution agreed to by the states has always prohibited anyone holding a foreign title of nobility from holding public elected office in the government at any level.  In 1819, this provision was strengthened and ratified by the states as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. As a result no member of the Bar Association bearing the title “Esquire” could serve in the American government in any public elected office.

When Abraham Lincoln, a Bar Member, was elected President of the United States in 1860, he was not eligible to serve as President of the United States of America — the association of sovereign states participating in the Congress.  

Do you see the trick now?

It was then and is now permitted for members of the Bar to hold any private corporate office, even elected corporate offices, of the United States (Trading Company) or any other such governmental services corporation that followed.

They were only prohibited from holding public elected office in our government.

Lincoln used his private corporate office, President of the United States, to overthrow the public elected government of the United States of America, and he did it by fraud and similar names deceits.

The so-called “federal government” has operated under conditions of Breach of Trust, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure, and inland piracy ever since, shamelessly substituting its private corporate offices for the public offices we are owed.

Each President since Lincoln has functioned as “President of the United States” and the vast majority of them have been Bar Members ineligible to function as “President of the United States of America” even if they had been properly elected and empowered.

As a result of this egregious and carefully concealed fraud upon the American people, there has been no lawfully elected government since 1860—- merely what appears to be one.  Even the great conflict giving rise to this circumstance has been misrepresented as “The American Civil War” when in fact no such “war” can be shown to exist: there was never a valid declaration of war and never a peace treaty ending it.  It is simply an illegal mercenary conflict that the perpetrators of all this rot have kept simmering on our shores for 150 years.

Lincoln, like Barack Obama, was a British Crown agent and an attorney who did not meet the requirements to be President of the united States of America, nor even President of the United States of America—-but who was eligible to serve as President of the United States, and in that foreign, private, corporate office— they have wrecked havoc and misery upon the innocent American people.

It is well past the hour in which we must wake up and realize that our supposed friends and allies have been closer to fiends and allegories.  The so-called “federal government” is merely a storefront for competing international banking cartels. 

The so-called FEDERAL RESERVE cartel claims to have purchased the name and copyrights and trademarks to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the IMF cartel claims the same about THE UNITED STATES.  They are both commercial crime syndicates that deserve nothing but a prompt liquidation of assets and claims and the return of all property to their Priority Creditors, the American states and people.

It’s time that we all rose up with one voice and accused the Roman Pontiff and the British Monarch of the crimes of their predecessors and addressed the Gross Breach of Trust that their predecessors have been guilty of and the equally Gross Fraud that has been practiced against us, together with the crimes of identity theft, press-ganging, inland piracy, unlawful conversion of assets, enslavement and kidnapping that have been the daily fare of their regimes for the past 150 years.

The good names of the States of America and United States of America belong to us as the lawful heirs and Holders in Due Course without respect to any claims made by the banks of the FEDERAL RESERVE.   THE UNITED STATES deserves nothing but a swift kick to the curb. 

All these fraudulent claims and operations must be exposed and these conditions must be completely reformed.  We must work hard to fully restore our lawful government on the land, call together our jural assemblies to operate our actual counties and states, and regain our senses. 

For a hundred and fifty years Americans have been asleep at the wheel, being deliberately misled to believe that a governmental services corporation is the same thing as their own lawful government.  That gullibility has cost us millions of lives, trillions of dollars, and sullied our name throughout the world as we have been blamed for the lawlessness, treachery, bigotry, and immorality of the pirates that have claimed to represent us and done terrible and oppressive things in our names.

The Bad News is that we have been clueless and trusting enough to allow this.  The Good News is that we don’t have to allow it anymore. 

If you love your country and value your lives, it is time to sit —hard— on the Archbishops and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide.  Make them all fully aware of the absolutely immoral and duplicitous actions of generations of Popes with regard to this country—-Popes who have waved olive branches and preached love out of one side of their mouths and then, as the Roman Pontiffs, have secretly pursued war and profit and committed all manner of crimes under cover of the Church’s skirts.

If  FRANCISCUS thinks he is going to continue these practices unobserved, let’s give him a good salvo and inform him that no, he is not.  Let him know that the entire world is watching and that the Church is not going to be able to play duplicitous games in Breach of Trust without paying the full and awful price for its hypocrisy and criminality and double-mindedness.  It is, indeed, time for confession and the making of amends, and if not, it is time for the Roman Cult to be recognized as a Satanic festering cancerous sore in the Body of the Church— a disease that needs to be eradicated both from within and without, or it will most certainly kill its host.

The same basic message needs to be carried to the Lords of the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor of London, and the British Monarch.  They have not escaped detection.  Their hideous mismanagement of their American concession in Washington, DC, has been duly noted by the Americans as well as the rest of the world—which places them squarely between a rock and a very hard place.  All these years that they have been wheedling and cheating and dealing in fraud and pretending to “represent” us —they have misused and abused American Servicemen and women who now know the truth of the matter—-that they have been slaughtered and become unwitting murderers in wars for profit, lied to, and then left abandoned as human flotsam, without jobs, without health care, without educations, without a future. 

Our veterans have little to lose and good reason to hate everything that the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor, the Queen, and the Bar Associations have stood for.

The rest of the world that has suffered — seemingly at the hands of the Americans —now knows who the actual culprits are. 

And it is high time that we told the Federales where to get off our soil and our backs.

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Well there you have it folks! How much clearer do you need it?

Now, maybe you will get off your “you know what” and buy her book for more details. You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback)

by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

If you are so stupid you still have those feelings of patriotism to this rotten corporation, and or a hundred excuses to sit on your ass, then you deserve what you are getting!!! A good screwing! Consider for a minute what this country could be like if we demanded the elimination of this tyranny. Consider the millions of American lives’ lost in all the wars for profit, but most of all consider what globalism is going to do to your future. At the very least, send this article to every person you can. Write about it in your local newspaper letters to the editor. Or, do you love liars for leaders?

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

Intel via email – Republic 1/31/17 (REAL NEWS) Not FAKE NEWS as found on MSM

Posted By: Mr.Ed
Date: Tuesday, 31-Jan-2017 15:52:35

 

A bunch of ” conspiracy Theories”  right?
On 911, 2001, the entire U.S. financial system was going to be replaced with the National Economic and Reformation Act which would kill the corrupt cabal money system. Look up N.E.S.A.R.A. It was the Khazarian Mafia Zionists and their Mossad agents stationed in Fort Lee New Jersey who pulled off this attack to steal gold under the buildings and keep their phony dollar system going.

Trump, who now runs the restored republic, has banned 7 countries from immigrating to America because the cabal has given them Dinar and Zim to exchange for higher prices here.

Trump appointed certain individuals to positions of power to test their loyalty. Those who faltered were exposed and fired.

Special operations troops are in the last phase of arrests which number in the thousands of corrupted officials.

Further arrests by the FBI, and the setting up of trials in March continues for all in the world to see.

It is security that has prevented the roll out of the revaluation and exchanges of currencies as test after test is conducted to deny the old regimes any access to wealth.

Our nation has been a cash cow for these thieves whose illegal IRS sends payments to the Queen and Federal Reserve members and does nothing for the nation.

Everything is changing folks and what you were “mind controlled” to perceive as good was actually rotten to the core. The free stuff was designed to make you compliant and dependent as the secret operation to exterminate minorities would reduce the population to only those individuals who contribute something to the system will be left.

Fema Camps, Rail Cars with handcuffs and guillotines, large coffins, chemtrails, Gwen Towers, GMO’s, Non cancer cures, Mercury in fillings and fluoride in drinking water were contributors to their plan.

The information that you have been denied will be forthcoming soon. Some won’t believe it and some will end their lives rather that face this transition from the dark to the light.

TYRANNY


SEO Powered By SEOPressor