What does this obtuse and open-ended catch-phrase actually mean?
Have you ever asked yourself that question?
–=–
It is fairly obvious and easy enough to say that the police are not actually there to “protect and serve” the people of the land in the conversational sense of the words, but indeed protect and serve only the interests and continuity of the corporations called States, Counties, and Cities.
But we must also define what “protecting” and “serving” actually mean in the legal language. Of course, because we are talking about the sales pitch of the municipal corporation (government) police departments, we must answer this question with the best legal definitions of these words, instead of relying on our mislead perceptions of this misleading moniker as portrayed by the media and entertainment industries.
To protect and serve… Who? What? Where? When? Why?
We will now use U.S. CODE and the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, to get a full description of this open ended statement, “To Protect And Serve“.
–=–
TO PROTECT
–=–
The observation that police are driving around in expensive taxpayer-funded vehicles while being paid by taxpayers to do so, issuing citations for speeding, crossing double yellow lines, making illegal U-turns, and other pointless victimless crimes, should be quite enough evidence that the police aren’t driving around looking for an opportunity to protect you from danger or to serve or help you, but are instead driving around looking for ways to earn money through exaction and force for the corporation (government) that they are employed by – so as to fulfill their monthly quotas.
But if this concept isn’t readily obvious to you – that police officers are there to extort money out of your pockets – then let’s examine together the legal definition of the word “protect”.
First, we must understand what a legal right is as opposed to a natural right.
This section of U.S. CODE does a very nice job of making that distinction…
42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, andshall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditionsof the contractual relationship.
Here we see the difference between a God-given natural right and a right that is bestowed by the government under color of civil law, which in fact is nothing more than a contracted privilege you agree to by signature and consent. When one understands what is stated here in U.S. CODE, one understands that political rights are the definition of tyranny and extortion.
In fact, the word exaction is specifically defined as extortion.
EXACTION, torts. A willful wrong done by an officer, or by one who, under color of his office, takes more fee or pay for his services than what the law allows. Between extortion and exaction there is this difference; that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due,when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not his due, when there is nothing due to him. Wishard; Co. Litt. 368.
“A willful wrong…“
This means that government claims under TITLE 42, Section 1981, that it is your right to be exacted (extorted) from by government or other corporations through the “contractual relationship”. And that it is your right to be wronged by men in uniform who willfully harm you while acting under the “color of law”
By signing a ticket or citation (a contract) and then by paying the fee imposed by that contract and agreed upon by you, the fine line of extortion and exaction is crossed, and exaction (nothing due) by contract under threat and duress is created and becomes extortion (what is now due). Add a few late fees and other charges by the courts (more than is due) and exaction is legally upon you via contract. So how does a police officer under the color of his office extort money from you in a way that “exacts what is not due” to him? He forces you to sign a contract which obligates you to pay his office a fine or fee. Thus, exaction (taking what is not due) becomes a legal function of legal contract law, and your “right” to be extorted from (stealing what is now due) as listed in U.S. CODE as an “equal right” (privilege) is justified by your signature on the ticket (contract).
Do you understand? Being extorted and exacted form is a right, benefit, and a privilege. Being taxed is a right, benefit, and privilege. And being subject to pains, penalties, and punishment is a right, benefit, and a privilege. These are the wonderful rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen (person) of the United States enjoying the “contractual relationship” between yourself and government.
You enjoy those rights now, ya hear…?
Ok. So what exactly does the word “protect” mean, considering that pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions (extortion) are the so-called rights enumerated and “protected” by police?
PROTECTION, government. That benefit or safety which the government affords to the citizens.
Yeah… so “to protect” can legally be defined as: to ensure the entering into and enforcement of the contractual relationship between government and the citizen by officer willfully wronging the citizens, for which a citizen may be forced into contract under duress and color of law so as to ensure commerce (exaction) for government through such contract, or be imprisoned for breach of that forced contract. And so, police officers (employees of government) are there for the “protection” of the authority and jurisdiction of government to tax, exact (extort), penalize, put into pain, and punish contracted “citizens” through its police “officers” and its “legal system”.
Great…
So what does government mean when it offers to protect your equal rights under the law?
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
And so once again, we can plainly see that civil rights were and are not created to make all men equal in the eyes of the law/government, but instead are instilled to make all men equally liable to the legal statutes and codes created by government. In short, civil rights make all Persons of the United States equally enslaved by diminishing natural rights into codified civil rights – turning unalienable God-given rights into State sanctioned and revocable privileges under contract and force.
–=–
TO SERVE
–=–
So what does it mean for the police to serve the people?
Probably not what you think…
SERVICE, practice. To execute a writ or process; as, to serve a writ of capias signifies to arrest a defendant under the process; Kirby, 48; 2 Aik. R. 338; 11 Mass. 181; to serve a summons, is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him; notices and other papers are served by delivering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person.
Hmmm… So legally, “to serve” actually means to serve process, to arrest under that process, to serve a summons, or to deliver a notice. Ok, so “service” is not quite what we thought it was…
But remember, the police are protecting your right to be served by government, and your right to be exacted from and punished.
So what happens when a police officer (a corporate officer of a municipality, county, or State) serves me with a summons, process, or notice?
SUMMONS,practice. The name of a writ commanding the sheriff, or other authorized officer to notify a party to appear in court to answer a complaint made against him and in the said writ specified, on a day therein mentioned. 21 Vin. Ab. 42 2 Sell. Pr. 356; 3 Bl. Com. 279.
SUMMONERS. Petty officers who cite men to appear in any court (i.e. municipal police).
TO SUMMON,practice. The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer, that an action has been instituted against him, and that he is required to answer to it at a time and place named. This is done either by giving the defendant a copy of the summons, or leaving it at his house (i.e. mail); or by reading the summons to him.
Interesting. Just one problem though…
The problem with a police officer witnessing, writing (creating), and delivering at the same time a “ticket” for a code violation – which is a summons and notice to appear in court – is that the police officer is the creator of the complaint, as well as the authorized officer who is citing in the ticket (summons) a time to appear in court to answer an action. This ultimately means that a “ticket” is an illegal summons, as there is no action that has been created by a court of law, magistrate, or by an actual victim.
The “officer” may legally serve a summons written by a court, but does not have the legal authority to create a summons without the court… (Without means outside of its jurisdiction) A lawful summons must come from a judge or magistrate.
Of course, this is why the officer requires your driver’s or other license with a current address and personhood name. The license represents the contract agreed to, signed, and broken by you (i.e. vehicle code, etc.). Without the license and the consent presumed by it, no legal statute in code could be broken, and thus no citation could be created. That would mean no money could be exacted, oh my!
But can an officer make a complaint?
COMPLAINT, crim. law. The allegation made to a proper officer, that some person, whether known or unknown, has been guilty of a designated offense, with an offer to prove the fact, and a request that the offender may be punished.
COMPLAINANT. One who makes a complaint. A plaintiff in a suit in chancery is so called. 2. To have a legal effect, the complaint must be supported by such evidence as shows that an offense has been committed, and renders it certain or probable that it was committed by the person named or described in the complaint.
A better question would be: Can a police officer make a complaint to himself about you, and then punish you for the offense that he complained about to himself without a judge and jury? Can he complain to himself?
Isn’t that bypassing the whole concept of law and a fair trial?
The officer is supposed to be receiving a complaint, and serving a notice of that complaint. Can he do both lawfully? Isn’t there a checks and balances system for these types of lawless behaviors?
As we all know, the police officer generally has no complaint received for traffic and other citations, and is creating the complaint himself, and then creating a summons to appear in court to answer for that complaint/misdemeanor crime.
In fact, one might construe and even be able to prove that the police officer who issued the citation is indeed impersonating an officer of the court by issuing an unlawful summons to appear in that court. This, of course, is a serious felony crime – the impersonating of a court official. Thus, the magistrate would be required to answer to this fact when presiding over the trial. So the magistrate must admit to the fact that the police officer acted with or without his consent and jurisdiction to issue a summons to appear before this magistrate. If the answer is no, the summons holds no legal authority. If the answer is yes, then the magistrate is admitting on the record to cooperating in criminal coercion with intent to extort. Either way, I’m betting the case would be dismissed.
This is really no different than if a Girl Scout came up to you on the street and forced you at gunpoint under threat of arrest to buy her cookies, and by doing so, you must either pay a fine for her services or appear in court. This, in effect, is forced commerce through a forced contract (citation/ticket) under duress and threat of incarceration. The ticket is a get out of jail card. Sign the summons or go to jail…
So what is the definition of an “action”?
ACTION, in practice… Actions are divided into criminal and civil… 2. – 1. A criminal action is a prosecution in a court of justice in the name of the government, against one or more individuals accused of a crime… 2. A civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due… (lawful vs. legal)
“A legal demand of one’s right…“.
Think about what that means for a moment. And remember, your “rights” are taxation, pains, punishments, and extortion under the “contractual relationship”. Thus, these “rights” can be demanded of you.
What a messed up system we have…
Criminal actions require a victim harmed. Civil actions require a contract broken or unfulfilled.
So the legal rules, codes, and municipal corporation statutes, which require the consent and contract of the governed to have authority and jurisdiction, are all based on “civil action” – a legal (not lawful) demand to pay what is due to government – when government police officers bypass the court system altogether to create a demand to pay via an illegal summons. In other words, you must pay the fine or go to court.
But what is the cause of action? Who is the injured party? What contract has been broken?
That’s just it, there is no victim and therefore there is no criminal law broken (no victim, no crime). The action, therefore, is based solely on extortion under threat of arrest in the civil realm. This is an unlawful action, and is created or action without cause with an illegal summons to appear, which you may pay money for (extortion) to avoid making an appearance in court. All of this happens when the citation is signed, becoming a contract.
Ok. So what is a “demand”?
DEMAND, contracts. A claim; a legal obligation…
DEMAND, practice. A requisition or a request by one individual to another to do a particular thing. 2. Demands are either express or implied. In many cases, an express demand must be made before the commencement of an action… in other cases an implied demand is all that the law requires, and the bringing of an action is a sufficient demand in those cases… A demand is frequently necessary to secure to a man all his rights, both in actions arising on contracts and those which are founded on some tort. It is requisite also, when it is intended to bring the party into contempt for not performing an order which has been made a rule of court… 4. – 1. Whether a demand is requisite before the plaintiff can commence an action arising on contract, depends upon express or implied stipulations of the parties… 13. – 2. In cases where the taking of goods is lawful, but their subsequent detention becomes illegal, it is absolutely necessary, in order to secure sufficient evidence of a conversion on the trial, to give a formal notice of the owner’s right to the property and possession, and to make a formal demand in writing of the delivery of such possession to the owner. The refusal to comply with such a demand, unless justified by some right which the possessor may have in the thing detained, will in general afford sufficient evidence of a conversion… 14. – 3. When a nuisance has been erected or continued by a man on his own land, it is advisable, particularly in the case of a private nuisance, to give the party notice and request him to remove it, either before an entry is made for the purpose of abating it, or an action is commenced against the wrong doer and a demand is always indispensable in cases of a continuance of a nuisance originally created by another person… 15. – 4. When an order to pay money, or to do any other thing, has been made a rule of court, a demand for the payment of the money, or performance of the thing, must be made before an attachment will be issued for a contempt…
So technically, the police officer is making a demand before an action is created in a court of law. In other words, the officer is acting illegally as both the party that is harmed (legal codes broken) and the judge of a court who would otherwise issue a demand to answer and pay for an action. This paradox, where the demand for payment is created without a cause of action for payment having been created, is why the “ticket” is actually an illegal summons. No judge ordered you to appear before him, and the police officer is not a judge. Thus, your signature on the “ticket” becomes a private contract created through threat and duress between you and the corporate municipality for which that officer is an employee of – which automatically makes that contract null and void. For a contract must be entered into voluntarily. If you break that contract with consent (by ignoring it, not paying, or not appearing), then you are guilty of breach of contract, and more civil actions will be placed upon you, including liens on your home and personal property – the taking of property to pay the fine created illegally in the first place through coercion and duress.
This is the job description of police officers…
This is service at the barrel of a gun.
So can a ticket be an “order”?
ORDER, contracts. An indorsement (endorsement) or short writing put upon the back of a negotiable bill or note, for the purpose of passing the title to it, and making it payable to another person. 2. When a bill or note is payable to order, which is generally expressed by this formula, “to A B, or order,”or” to the order of A B,” in this case the payee, A B may either receive the money secured by such instrument, or by his order, which is generally done by a simple indorsement, (q. v.) pass the right to receive it to another. But a bill or note wanting these words, although not negotiable, does not lose the general qualities of such instruments… Vide Bill of Exchange; Indorsement. 3. An informal bill of exchange or a paper which requires one person to pay or deliver to another goods on account of the maker to a third party, is called an order.
The police officer is creating a bill of exchange (an order) requiring you to pay or deliver yourself (as surety) to the third party (the court/government). You are agreeing to this order with your signature.
PARTY, practice, contracts. When applied to practice, by party is understood either the plaintiff or defendant. In contracts, a party is one or more persons who engage to perform or receive the performance of some agreement. Vide Parties to contrads; Parties to ‘actions; Parties to a suit in equity.
PERFORMANCE. The act of doing something; the thing done is also called a performance; as, Paul is exonerated from the obligation of his contract by its performance… 2. When a contract has been made by parol, which, under the statute of frauds and perjuries, could not be enforced, because it was not in writing, and the party seeking to avoid it, has received the whole or a part performance of such agreement, he cannot afterwards avoid it… and such part performance will enable the other party to prove it aliunde (from another place)…
PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech. It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called parol… which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties… It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract… 2. Pleadings are frequently denominated in the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age… But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected…
SEAL – OFFICE, English practice. The office at which certain judicial writs are sealed with the prerogative seal, and without which they are of no authority. The officer whose duty it is to seal such writs is called “sealer of writs;”
SEALING OF A VERDICT,practice. The putting a verdict in writing, and placing it in an envelop, which is sealed. To relieve jurors after they have agreed, it is not unusual for the counsel to agree that the jury shall seal their verdict, and then separate. When the court is again in session, the jury come in and give their verdict, in all respects as if it had not been sealed, and a juror may dissent from it, if since the sealing, he has honestly changed his mind.
By now, we should realize that this whole exchange is an attempt to exact (extort) money from people by government. The police officer is having you sign an informal bill (contract) requiring you to pay on account of the officer to the government court system, which in this case is the “third party”. The police man is an employee or officer of the government corporation, and is securing the bill as a title backed by yourself as surety to pay exaction (extortion money) to the government corporation (third party). If you don’t pay, you and your property (registered property with the State) are the collateral that will be collected or put in jail.
As a parol(e) contract, a ticket/citation (illegal summons) has no authority accept that which you give to it with your consent and signature. It is based on the presumption of law (prima facie law) and orated (without seal) by the officer of the government, and relies upon the consent of the governed (you) for its authority and jurisdiction.
A “ticket”, as an illegal summons to appear, is a contract signed by you to avoid being placed in jail (parole). If you do not sign the summons, you will be arrested. Under this threat, most people sign the ticket, just as they would give their wallet over to an armed robber who threatened to harm or kill them.
Thus, the summons is not lawful. It is an illegal contract based on coercion and fear.
Of course, most people just accept and consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the police officer due to their fear of that officer and to that of the illegitimate for-profit court system of the corporations called municipalities and their prisons. If they decide to take a stand against this ridiculous extortion and racketeering ring hilariously called “law enforcement”, they must then do as the illegal summons requires them to do under their forced signature, which is to make an appearance in court.
APPEARANCE, practice. Signifies the filing common or special bail to the action. 2. The appearance… should (in accordance with the ancient practice) purport to be in term time… yet, in fact, much of the business is now done, in periods of vacation (without appearing). 3. The appearance of the parties is no longer (as formerly) by the actual presence in court, either by themselves or their attorneys; but, it must be remembered, an appearance of this kind is still supposed, and exists in contemplation of law. The appearance is effected on the part of the defendant (when he is not arrested) by making certain formal entries in the proper office of the court, expressing his appearance… or, in case of arrest, it may be considered as effected by giving bail to the action. On the part of the plaintiff no formality expressive of appearance is observed.
The most important aspect of this term is the fact that it can be done through the certified mail using a notary public. In short, the notary is your court away from court. By responding (answering) via certified mail (certification show proof of receipt by the court) with a notarized letter (the notary makes the letter official by witness), the court must then consider that answer as a contract. It must answer that contract or be in violation of it. Thus, a time period (generally 21 days) for the answer of the court must be included within your letter, just as the original illegal summons allowed you a certain amount of time to pay for your fine or appear in court. Items requested should be things like the judges oath and affirmation to the united states of America (not the United States without America), a fee schedule showing the fees required by you to conduct commerce in that court, and demands for cause of action among other things.
This is your appearance and your answer to the illegal summons. And the last thing you want to do is to appear in a court, unless it is with a grand jury.
In a grand jury, the judge has no real authority over you, and the people of the grand jury decide the outcome of the case. Chances are, since the court system is a for-profit enterprise, the case will be dismissed long before it reaches an expensive and arduous grand jury process that must be paid for by the government. After all, they just wanted to exact you of the amount of the citation, and hope you will just be a good little slave and pay it via mail or online with a credit card. And with the judge and police officer participating in organized crime, the last thing they would want is to be indicted by a grand jury for coercion, racketeering, and illegal contracts created at gunpoint.
It is important to note here that when we show up to what is commonly referred to as “traffic court”, we are not really going to court at all. In fact, often times the presiding attorney over the traffic court is not even a true judge, but is just an administrative clerk assigned to arbitrate the proceedings. In order to actually make an appearance, the traffic court would have to schedule a hearing, which it does for those who are fooled into making a plea of “not guilty”. Of course, the only true answer to the question posed by the court as to your being guilty, not guilty, or no contest, is the word “innocent”.
INNOCENCE, The absence of guilt. 2. The law presumes in favor of innocence, even against another presumption of law…
Making a plea of “not guilty” is not synonymous with being innocent. In a municipal administrative traffic court (legal setting), you are presumed guilty. Only in law is one presumed innocent. This is why “traffic courts” are set up as the first place the people will appear. Traffic courts are like spider webs – they catch the 99% of the ignorant people who make an appearance there, and entrap them with a plea. Claiming innocence is not a plea. It is a demand.
CLAIM. A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession, and is wrongfully withheld by another…
The claim of the innocence of a man by that man cannot be withheld or challenged by the court.
However, the guilt of a man who claims his person (a corporation/thing) to be not guilty can be so held and presumed under contract created by the plea.
With the plea of “not guilty”, guilt is still assumed by the court under the contract (ticket) signed. After all, you signed the ticket – and this could be construed as an admission of guilt (though you had no choice and would be arrested if you didn’t sign). The plea itself is also a contractual agreement with the court, and the court will demand (legal obligation) action (recovery of what is due the court by contract) based on any plea. A plea of any type is not a demand, but is instead literally a process of begging of the courts forgiveness by answering the declaration (challenge) of the unlawful plaintiff (police officer of the court or government), as opposed to answering the court’s claim with your own demand for the cause of action through the notarized and certified mail, as talked about above.
PLEA, practice. The defendant’s answer by matter of fact, to the plaintiff’s declaration.
PLEA, chancery practice… A plea is a special answer to a bill, and differs in this from an answer in the common form, as it demands the judgment of the court in the first instance, whether the matter urged by it does not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill requires… 2. Pleas are of three sorts: 1. To the jurisdiction of the court. 2. To the person of the plaintiff. 3. In bar of the plaintiff’s suit…
This process of making a plea takes place within the court, and binds the plea maker (defendant) to the court in contract. One should never make a plea, for this assigns the jurisdiction of the court to the case, and places the person under that jurisdiction.
In opposition to this, an answer may be created by the innocent man to the the courts (plaintiff’s) claim prior to the date of the summons, which may challenge the jurisdiction of the court and require a cause of action of the plaintiff. In most traffic citation cases, there is no cause of action, because the demand was created without the cause of action existing. So there is no official cause of action that dated prior to the illegal summons issued by the police officer (plaintiff), thus the demand (citation and summons) was not based on a legal action of that court – which would have created the summons in the first place. And so your notarized “answer” to the court listed on the “ticket” (illegal summons) through the certified mail is to demand the cause of action, for which the court cannot produce because the summons was created without an action by the court.
Thus, this paradox is not answerable by the court, and its jurisdiction is challenged successfully. Remember, in traffic code violation cases, a civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due.
There is no law that gives a corporate for-profit municipal traffic court the lawful ability to recover what is due to them under a contract (citation/illegal summons) that was created under duress and by force and coercion. If you pay the fee listed on a ticket, you are doing so under your own free will with consent (and ignorance of the law), and accepting the validity, pain, and punishment of the unlawful contract by paying the fee, so as to not have to appear physically in court. This is extortion, and you submit to it by payment or by appearing in traffic court, instead of standing on your natural, God-given rights against tyranny.
What does it mean to legally answer the court?
ANSWER, practice. The declaration of a fact by a witness after a question has been put asking for it…
ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defense in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity… 2. As a defendant is called by a bill or information to make a discovery of the several charges it contains, he must do so, unless he is protected either by a demurrer, a plea, or disclaimer…
DISCOVERY, practice, pleading. The act of disclosing or revealing by a defendant, in his answer to a bill filed against him in a court of equity.
The answer is part of the discovery process in our case. It should be done by mail.
PLEADING, practice. The statement in a logical, and legal form, of the facts which constitutethe plaintiff’s cause of action, or the defendant’s ground of defense; it is the formal mode of alleging that on the record, which would be the support, or the defense of the party in evidence… In a general sense, it is that which either party to a suit at law alleges for himself in a court, with respect to the subject-matter of the cause, and the mode in which it is carried on, including the demand which is made by the plaintiff; but in strictness, it is no more than setting forth those facts or arguments which show thejustice or legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s demand, and the defendant’s defense, without including the statement of the demand itself, which is contained in the declaration or count. Bac. Abr. Pleas and Pleading.
So what does it mean for a police officer to “serve” a process or a notice?
PROCESS, practice. So denominated because it proceeds or issues forthin order to bring the defendant into court, to answer the charge preferred against him, and signifies the writ or judicial means by which he is brought to answer… 3. In criminal cases that proceeding which is called a warrant, before the finding of the bill, is termed process whenissued after the indictment has been found by the jury…
PROCESS, rights. The means or method of accomplishing a thing.
NOTICE. The information given of some act done, or the interpolation by which some act is required to be done. It also signifies, simply, knowledge; as A had notice that B was a slave… 2. Notices should always be in writing; they should state, in precise terms, their object, and be signed by the proper person, or his authorized agent, be dated, and addressed to the person to be affected by them.
In case you missed that, the “serve” part of “To Protect and Serve” is to deliver notices and to issue process (serve process) so as to give official notice to you that you are either required to pay a fine, fee, tax, or other exaction (extortion), or are required to appear in court via a warrent in criminal charges, or as a defendant in a civil case.
To “serve” does not mean to “help”.
It means to “force” or to “deliver”.
“Serving” is a legal term, not a lawful one. Cops are not required to help you or to protect you in any way, accept those which are required of the cop in serving legal documents in process, notice, or summons.
But let’s go back further into the roots of the word serve under feudal law:
SERVICE,feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate. 2. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bl. Com. 62. 3. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. (q. v.)
SERVITUDE,civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing… 4. The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.
SERVITUS,civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.
SERVITUS.Servitude; slavery; a state of bondage. “Servitus autem, est constitutio,” say the Institutes of Justinian, 1, 3, 2, “qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur.” Servitude is a disposition of the law of nations, by which, against common right, one man has been subjected to the dominion of another. See Bract. 4 b; Co. Litt. 116.
SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others.
SUBJECT,contracts. The thing (i.e.person) which is the object of an agreement…
SUBJECT,persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights (not the same as natural rights – political rights are codified civil legal privileges granted via contract. Natural rights are God-given and above the laws of men.).
SLAVE.A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another. 2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master… 3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such… In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate… In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot…
Remember, the 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made all persons as equal slaves through conviction. This is what government calls equal rights!
Remember, the police are there to serve you process and notice and to protect your rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind.
What more really needs to be said here?
.
For more fun and understanding of our collective disposition within this government fraud per the legal definitions of the words that bind us, you may wish to explore my other essay, here:
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am not offering legal advice. I am not practicing law. I will never act as or within any of these presumptions. Claims put forth otherwise will be met with a lawsuit for defamation of my character and slander… If you understand this, then you understand self-actualization and liberty.
.
P.S. I turned 40 years old today. Happy berth-day to me…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 8th, 2012
In the March 12, 2012 issue of Time Magazine, the following article was published in the “conversation” section on page 2:
“Is this the group that’s really going to pick the next president?”
“CNN’s Soledad O’brien sounded a bit skeptical when she questioned Michael Scherer about his March 5 cover story, “Why Latino Voters Will Swing The 2012 Election”. But MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry had no such doubts: “I imagine [GOP candidates] will be digging into their Spanish-language dictionaries when the get a glance at this week’s TIME. “The cover was widely discussed among Latino bloggers and social media users, some of whom were disappointed that it did not feature any Afro-Latinos, but most of whom saluted TIME for its first cover line in Spanish, Yo Decido…“
First of all, my Spanish friends, you must understand that even if every last one of you voted for president of the United States in the 2012 election this year, absolutely none of your votes would count.
That’s right… in the United States, we have an indirect election for president. According to the Constitution of the United States and its several Amendments, the president of the United States is elected by 538 people each election sometime in January.
There are 438 National congressmen in the House of Representatives, and 100 United States Senators in Congress. These are the people you actually get to vote for – the people who make the rules and Amend the Constitution. And the Constitution states that these men and women each receive 1 vote for president, which is delegated to an “elector”. These electors are then appointed by the political parties and the president of the United States is chosen by a vote of these 538 electors.
A list of these electors for 2008 – the 538 people who actually elected President Barack Obama for president – can be found here:
So, the answer to the question posed in the question above can be answered two ways…
Will Latino’s pick the next president?
Answer #1 – NO! – The popular vote doesn’t count towards the election of the president. The president is not elected by the people, and the color of peoples skin at the voting poles makes absolutely no difference to who gets elected president.
Answer #2 – MAYBE… The popular vote is called popular for a reason. It relies on the fact that most Latino, White, Black, and every color in between does not understand the election process of the electoral college. In other words, it relies on a big colorful bunch of stupid Americans! In short, the popular vote is a popularity contest; a beauty pageant for ugly old men. It means nothing accept in the fact that the vast majority of colorful Americans voted for their favorite American idol without realizing that their votes – as in Hollywood – are just for show, and that the 538 electors do the actual voting on behalf of each State. But if the Latino voters woke up to this open secret and organized crime, and realized that the Republican and Democratic Political parties have been responsible for appointing these electors for so many decades, then maybe, just maybe, this chain could be broken. The combined Latino vote could only make a difference if, as a group, you vote outside of the two-party system, which would ensure that the electors of president would not be loyal to the political parties, but to all the people of America regardless of their skin color. In this way, the Latino vote could actually change the world.
But even with the possibility of this happening, your leaders are dependent upon this system as well. They might even try to sell you a story that, as a white man, I am the devil, and shouldn’t be trusted. Of course, the black leaders might be telling their people the same thing about you. And the white leaders will no doubt be using you and the Chinese as the excuse for their participation in the legal, organized crime we call politics.
So don’t be stupid American’s like us this year… vote for a non-party candidate. Vot for your mother or father. Vote for a nun. Vote for anybody that has the people at heart. But do not vote as sheep for the latest wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Or, you could collectively send a real message to Washington D.C, by not playing the election fraud game at all. Make 2012 the first year that the people of America tell our government that we want a real election like Russia – a direct election of a non-party president of the people by the people of America.
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)(Clint4p.com)
–Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Did you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against “Obama-care”?
Just what exactly do you think the Supreme Court is?
Perhaps a reality check is in order here. And for that matter, a little history lesson…
–=–
This tome of research was originally planned as an educational-documentary movie script, but with the election process just around the corner and rumors of a major internet “change”, I feel it absolutely necessary to give it my best shot to create a wide-awake, openhearted, non-consenting public. In fact, my whole mock-presidential campaign was to expose the following facts – and that you the people cannot, no matter how much campaigning you do, elect me as president (or for that matter Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, or any alternative 3rd party or non-two-party candidate) because you don’t get to vote for president.
Perhaps this all was dreaming too big on my part; that I can wake up an entire nation, but here it goes anyway…
We will now delve extensively into the Department Of Justice as well as the electoral college, and we will learn exactly what the role of the Attorney General is – and I guarantee you that none of these things are anything close to what you might think you know or have been taught in your public (government) school system. In short, we will learn the actual law, and that the law and the entirety of the United States does not exist without your contractual consent to it.
Sit back and hold on, for it is my hope that this is going to be a serious wake up call. I recommend that you read and re-read this entire presentation several times, until these definitions and concepts are familiar and completely understood, for you cannot be free without the knowledge of what enslaves you, especially if you do not know the hidden legal language of the Law Society. Certain words and phrases are underlined, highlighted, and emboldened. Do not take this lightly. Give these your special attention. And by the end, be sure you know the legal meanings of all these words.
If you read nothing else before you cast your vote for the office of president this year, I beg of you to take the time to learn why your vote absolutely does not, never has, and never will count towards the actual official election process of the president of the United States. This is the law. It is more accurate to say that your vote as a registered United States voter is not officially counted in the actual election process for the office of the president of the United States.
So why do you vote?
Why does the government waste our time allowing us to go through the charade of voting for the popular fake-election of president by the “people”?
Why will going through the process of “voting” to replace Obama not do anything to actually officially or legally replace Obama?
And why is Obama-care absolutely constitutional according to the Supreme Court?
Let’s find out…
–=–
What Was The Original Supreme Court?
–=–
The so-called “Founding Fathers” have become the stuff of legend.
They are credited as being radical new thinkers whose ideals were original in their context, and that these ideas created the first free country and a modern republic. And yet, the entire structure of government for the Federal United States, as well as the concepts of individual and state’s rights, liberty, and social contracts, date back not only to the Mayflower Compact, but to the roots of British history and common law, as well as Roman law in the Roman “Republic” and in the Magna Carta, created in 1215. In fact, as it turns out, everything that our “Founding Fathers” did in their declaration of independence was specifically to preserve their “natural-born rights as Englishmen“, which was in fact a perfectly legal pursuit as a crown colony. The Crown of England, in fact, had the same reaction to this declaration and the following constitution as the Northern “States” did when the Southern “States” seceded from the corrupt central government of the United States in the 1860’s – in order to form their own more perfect union and constitution in the South… which was for the Crown to unlawfully call it treason and to take its control back through occupation and military rule.
Why were the colonists of America always, and even to this day, so interested in retaining their English-born rights?
Samuel Adams wrote:
“All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. —The Rights of the Colonists: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.
John Allen also stated:
For the rights of the people, which is the supreme glory of the crown and the kingdom of Britain, is the Magna Charta of the king as well as of the people; it is as much his previledge, as it is his glory, to maintain their rights; and he is as much under a law (I mean the law of the rights of the people), as the people are under the oath of allegiance to him… And therefore whatever power destroys their rights, destroys at the same time, his right to reign, or any right to his kingdom, crown, or glory; nay, his right to the name of a king among the people… Shall a man be deem’d a rebel that supports his own rights? — Excerpts from the sermon, “ORATION, upon the Beauties of LIBERTY, OR the Essential RIGHTS of the AMERICANS” preached to the Second Baptist Church in Boston Dec. 3, 1772.
Resolution #2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765, was written:
“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.“
The “Charter of Massachusetts Bay (colony)” issued by the king in 1629 proclaimed that the people of the colony:
…shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.
The colonists wanted nothing more than and insisted upon being treated as natural-born Englishmen with all rights and privileges thereof. This was reflected in every facet of the New America. And it is part of the basis of the term God-given natural rights, as the “king” was considered to be of “God” – the “divine” right of kings…
Thomas Jefferson himself, in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, wrote about the Declaration of Independence that it was:
“…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress,an appeal to thetribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..”
One could translate this as the freedom of the press, where that declaration was written as an appeal to pity by the rest of the world – an appeal to the court of popular opinion – and a reminder of the already historically established philosophies that were re-worded in the constitution and declaration.
It is also important to make the distinction between natural and political (contractual) “independence”. Independence, as a legal description or term, does not automatically mean free and clear of something as it might be perceived or misconstrued in every day conversation:
INDEPENDENCE. A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior; the United States are free and independent of all earthly power. 2. Independence may be divided into political and natural independence. By the former (political independence) is to be understood that we have contracted no tieexcept those which flow from the three great natural rights ofsafety, liberty and property. The latter (natural independence) consists in the power of being able to enjoy a permanent well-being, whatever may be the disposition of those from whom we call ourselves independent. In that sense a nation may be independent with regard to most people, but not independent of the whole world. Vide on of Independence. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
And just what does the 5th Amendment to the Constitution actually say about this?
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.
So the constitution states quite clearly that your natural rights of life (safety), liberty, and property can in fact be taken away from you with “due process of law and just compensation”. This is because these are actually your political rights enumerated, not your natural ones. This is not a protection from tyranny of government, but is instead tyranny defined! And this “right” – to have your life, liberty, and property taken away from you – is literally in the hands of the government created federal judicial system. As we will see, this is extremely deceptive and problematic with regards to the “justice” doled out by the “justice system”. Thus, the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition of “independence” above perfectly describes the illusion that we all have of our constitutional (political) “independence”. As contracted citizens of this government, natural independence is forfeited and political independence does not exist…
We must also understand that the “Judicial Branch” of this constitution was not in any way new as either the highest court of jurisdiction or of being a so-called “check and balance” of the other government entities. A government creation is not really in a position to monitor another government creation. This fallacy is why we are in the mess we are in today – government supervision and regulation of itself!
Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the “Supreme Court”.
Most importantly to the Federal government and to any government who uses this structure of legal precedent, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged once the government appointed Court members decide on what “justice” is. Therefore, once the Supreme Court decides that something is constitutional – like war, capital punishment, crime and punishment, fines, taxes, incarceration, eminent domain, and other government intrusions into the life (safety), liberty, and property of the people of the United States, the people have no recourse for the taking of their life, liberty, and property. In this way, the Judicial branch serves as a “check and balance” that ensures the tyranny of government is never challenged.
This hierarchy of jurisdiction is called stare decisis.
STARE DECISIS – To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be binding upon lower courts. Importantly, this is to ensure uniformity in the legal functioning of the United States and its corporate structure. This uniformity is further ensured by requiring BAR certification for the “practice” of the now copyrighted public policy that is called “law” in the United States. Civil law jurisdictions, however, are not generally considered to apply, and so supreme court decisions are not necessarily binding. But the decisions of the supreme court are meant to provide a very strong precedent (jurisprudence constante) for both itself and all lower courts.
So what does jurisdiction mean?
JURISDICTION –Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without (outside of) his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2. 3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction… 4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction;the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213. 5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
JURISPRUDENCE – The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connection of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents. 1 Ayl. Pand. 3 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 1, 12, 99; Merl. Rep. h. t.; 19 Amer. Jurist, 3. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
The original Federal United States Supreme Court was created within the jurisprudence of the “organic” constitution “for” the united states of America via Article 3, as the third lawful “branch” of government – a check and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. This organic constitution was very specific, and was meant to be the permanent structure of the three branches of government.
“The term “organic” statute originated from the French term Reglement Organique, which means regulations for an organization or governmental body.
Organic statute is a statute that establishes an administrative agency or local government and defines its authorities and responsibilities.
An organic statute forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization’s body of rules. A constitution is a particular from of organic law for a sovereign state.”
And so, for the purposes of the original, as-written constitution of 1786, the description of the constitution as “organic” is best understood as “original”. Once it was amended, it was not organic (original) any more. The foundational organic nature of the constitution is broken with every amendment added, for a foundation is not meant to be altered, just as food is either organic or altered (non-organic/non-original -vs- as natural law [nature] intended).
But as we are all no doubt aware, everything certainly changes…
On march 27, 1861, the dis-satisfied representative congressmen of seven of the “southern” States decided to leave the “union” as was their right as constitutionally established “sovereign” nation States, according to the very constitution that organically (originally) held that union together, in order to form what many scholars claim to be their own new nation of southern states based on the original intent of that same organic constitution for the united states of America. These elected representatives walked out of Congress, never to return. This was indeed abandonmentsine die – (without day – when the court or other body rise at the end of a session or term they adjourn “sine die”). At this critical juncture at the end of true American history, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful (organic, constitutional) body, and could no longer lawfully declare war (without all congressmen present in vote). In the end, 11 states in total lawfully left the union via constitutional succession and declared their sovereignty and independence from the United States (Washington D.C.).
With the union now divided and the lawful (constitutional) congress canceled, drastic measures had to be taken by the remaining elite structure of this defunct “government” corporation. And so on April 15th, 1861 (not so coincidentally the now “national tax day”), Abraham Lincoln – who was no longer a lawful or constitutional president and was now acting under military rule without congress – issued the first Executive Order #1, which placed military rule (martial law) over the entirety of the U.S. territories. This soon became known as the “civil war” against the south by the now unlawful government – a government held together in continuity by the first declared state of emergency and the first declared “Executive Order” (#1) by the first unlawful and unconstitutional president, Abraham Lincoln. This was also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. But the war was, as we will see, a war to force civil lawon all the people of the United States.
These General War Executive Orders were, as they still are today, declared without congressional approval or consent by the Executive:
Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress
April 15, 1861
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fitto call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that thefirst service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
.
(Author’s note: Take note here that in no way could the Congress of the organic united states of America convene together lawfully, as the southern state representatives were purposefully absent in abandonment of the ever-increasing corrupt and unfair legislature. In this Executive Order, the United States and the Constitution are capitalized and are both not followed by the words “of America. Why demonize England when the United States was worse to its own people?)
.
Executive Order 1 January 22, 1862
The purpose of this war is to attack, pursue, and destroy a rebellious enemy and to deliver the country from danger menaced by traitors. Alacrity, daring, courageous spirit, and patriotic zeal on all occasions and under every circumstance are expected from the Army of the United States. In the prompt and spirited movements and daring battle of Mill Springs the nation will realize its hopes, and the people of the United States will rejoice to honor every soldier and officer who proves his courage by charging with the bayonet and storming intrenchments or in the blaze of the enemy’s fire.
By order of the President:
EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.
PRESIDENT’S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. I.
.
(Author’s note: The lawful people acting within their constitutional and God-given natural rights are now considered “rebellious enemies” and “traitors”. In fact, the president himself was the traitor, defiling the organic constitution and the rights it stood for.)
.
Executive Order – General War Order No. 1 January 27, 1862
Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.
That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.
That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
.
.
Very importantly, this action by and against the southern States by the United States brought out what are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, 15th) and later on the 16th, and 17th Amendments – or what I like to refer to as the legal person-ization and incorporation of the “people” of America from free men into indentured debt slaves, from the years 186o-1871. Or we could call this the corporeal enslavement of the people by turning us into own-able and transferable things (chattels), with the presumed consent of our unsuspecting, purposefully deceived and uneducated, incorporeal souls.
The 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made it legal for government to create them by convicting them of a crime. The people alone, not the government, could no longer own or indenture themselves.
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.
Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.
–=–
What Is A Constitution?
–=–
Should we romanticize the “constitution” as our cherished law of the land that was derived from divine inspiration without question?
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 – the only law dictionary officially incorporated by Congress as part of the United States constitution and officially as part of the Supreme Court – let’s us know what the word “constitution” really stands for:
CONSTITUTION – contracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell’s Com. 332, 5th ed.
CONSTITUTOR – civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.
(That’s you, by the way… you who are reading this as a citizen – you are the “constitutors” of the “constitution”)
TO CONSTITUTE – contracts. To empower, to authorize. In the common form of letters of attorney, these words occur, “I nominate, constitute and appoint.”
CONSTITUENT – He who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.
CONSTITUIMUS – A Latin word which signifies we constitute. Whenever the king of England is vested with the right of creating a new office, he must use proper words to do so, for example, erigimus, constituimus, c . Bac. Ab. Offices, &c. E.
CHATTELS – property. A term which includes all kinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1.
Of course, Article 6 of the constitution states very clearly that the United States is a debtor nation:
“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”
There was never independence if this country was founded in debt to England and France.
–=–
What Is The United States?
–=–
It is also important to know the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition given in 1856 of the “United States”:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, andwhich have not been given to congress. (q. v.)
–=–
***Remember this part, “which have not been given to congress“. As we saw with the 13th Amendment, this clause is oh so important with regards to the “reconstruction” of the United States and its “constitution” as a new organic (original) debt contract during this period of martial law. It will come as a shock just how much we the people have indeed given to congress…
So, the question becomes: What powers did the individual states retain? And which ones were “given to congress”?
For this, we must consider that a State was nothing more than the government incorporation of certain United States territories. Each territory, for the purposes of becoming a State of the Union, had something very sinister in common. This common element was a contract called the “Enabling Acts”, and were a uniform set of contractual agreements that were pre-determined and agreed to by all territories in order to become States (incorporated Federal Districts) of the United States.
Each Territory agreed to being a Federal District, and to having a Federal Governor and a Federal State District Attorney. These enabling legislation covenants were passed before each territory became a state, as a prerequisite for statehood and before the state constitution could be accepted by the United States.
More importantly, we can read in the following State “Enabling Acts” that all territorial unappropriated and non-deeded land was granted to the United States via these contracts of statehood. Once the people were made to became citizens via the 14th Amendment, they lost their independence and became subject to the UNITED STATES jurisdiction.
Most western states have the following types of verbiage. Read carefully…
Colorado Enabling Acts:
§ 4. Constitutional convention – requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state; first, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, (only) on account of his or her mode of religious worship; secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without(outside of the jurisdiction of) said state shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof, and that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.
Note the distinction between US citizens that are both within (residents of) and “without” of the declared United States jurisdiction of this new State – meaning those with already appropriated land.
And within the Utah enabling acts for the Utah State constitution, in similar uniform legal language (Commercial CODE), it states:
…Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States… Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.
Note that the “debts and liabilities” portion of this is a demand that the citizens of the new “State” become “constitutors” of the constitution, which, as with all constitutions, makes this a debt contract. Also note that Indian lands are absolutely in no way independent of the United States Federal corporation.
To put this into perspective: If a state government goes away, the land that the fictional corporation (state government) sat upon is still a territory of the United States. States are not independent either politically or naturally, for a state is not of God. A “State” is a fictional incorporated creation of the United States corporation. Only men can be naturally and completely independent of the United States.
These “Enabling Acts” can be found for most of the non-original States as prerequisites to their State constitutions.
–=–
The Southern States: A New Organic Constitution Is Created By Conquest
–=–
In August 1866, once the civil war was ended and brothers had killed brothers, president Andrew Johnson moved to restore the former Confederate states back into to the unlawful Union. In March 1867, the First Reconstruction Act placed the South under military occupation within federal military districts. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for instance, became part of the “Third Military District” under the command of General John Pope. Ex-Confederates (the people) were kept from voting or holding public office under military rule, and were replaced with what were referred to as Freedmen, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags – the Whigs who originally opposed the succession.
Suddenly, the confederate landowners of these states had lost their land rights, and were now faced with the fact that freedmen had the right of vote. These “freedmen” began to live freely on these lands and plantations against the wishes of these confederate land-owners.
FREEDMEN – The name formerly given by the Romans to those persons who had been released from a State of servitude. Vide Liberti libertini. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
RIGHT – …3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself... 2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
In Georgia, black voters were forcibly registered to vote and now sudenly outnumbered the white voters, which sparked the forming of the KKK and the eventual violence that led to the expelling of the new black senators from the Georgia legislature despite the state constitution’s forbidding of blacks serving in office. From October 29 through November 2, 1867, elections were held for delegates to a new constitutional convention in Atlanta, not in the nations capital, and again did not allow ex-confederates (white land and plantation owners) to participate. Charles Jenkins was the first post-war elected governor, coming to office in January 1868. But he refused to authorize state funds for the state constitutional convention (which would have created a new organic State constitution for Georgia), and this government was yet again unlawfully dissolved by General George Meade and replaced by a military governor under military rule. Georgia was returned to military rule to quell violence after Ulysses S. Grant was “elected” president, being one of only two ex-Confederate states to vote against Grant.
All of this was “unconstitutional”, but only when using that word as it refers to the original organic 1786 constitution, as we will see. The United States is still under military rule, which is the very reason that martial law can still be declared with the stroke of a presidential pen, just as Abraham Lincoln first penned it in 1861. If a state were to attempt to succeed from the “union” today, martial law would be declared and military rule would ensue until the rebellion could be squashed, no different than it was then. And the “civil” law would be forcibly restored. As long as the elected governments cooperate with the United States and its uniform rules and codes, martial law is not declared and military rule is not so obvious – thus the illusion of being a free country is maintained.
In March 1869, the new United States Congress again barred Georgia’s representatives from their seats, causing military rule to resume in December 1869. By January 1870, General Alfred H. Terry as commander of the Third Military District forcibly removed from the legislature all ex-Confederates, replacing them with the Republican runners-up, and reinstated all expelled black legislators. Once again, there was a Republican majority in the legislature friendly to the United States corporation.
And finally, in July of 1870, Georgia was forcibly readmitted to the Union – a military conquest – and the newly elected but unlawful and (organically) unconstitutional General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. A Republican governor named Rufus Bullock was inaugurated. He was from New York, not Georgia.
Section 1 of Amendment 14 states:
Section 1. All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizensof 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 ofcitizens 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.
And with the unlawful and unconstitutional passing of this amendment, everything changed, and every man became a person and a citizen under presumed consent.
–=–
What Happened To The Original Supreme Court? –=–
Under military rule, the courts must of course be recreated into military courts.
In 1870, with the reconstruction of the United States well under way and a new organic constitution established through amendment, Congress passed the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice (DOJ)“, setting this replacement up as “an executive department of the government of the United States“, officially coming into existence with the signing of the presidential pen on July 1, 1870. The Attorney General of the United States became the appointed Cabinet level political position in charge of this new department.
Just one problem here… this Act to create the Department of Justice had the tiny little side-effect of all but nullifying what was always considered to be the independent third branch of government as a check and balance – the stuff of legend – the “Judicial Branch”. And so the DOJ became for all intents and purposes the new Judicial Branch of government. But this was not the traditional branch of government we all believe it to be… for it was now a branchof theExecutive Department of government (of the president), and in modern times now includes:
This Executive Department is headed by the appointed Attorney General of the United States – whom is required to be a BAR Association member. The “legal” system in this country has been contracted over to this 100% private association called the American Bar Association (ABA), a representative union and advocacy club for attorneys, which all but monopolizes the entirety of the administration of the law and the legal profession with the help of federal and state laws requiring this trust. Jurisprudence, the science and administration of law, has been fundamentally usurped by this private association. In fact, the Supreme Court wont even hear a case unless it is from a BAR accredited attorney or one who has been approved by another BAR member. In short, the BAR decides what cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and the court denies cases that aren’t approved by the ABA.
The under-appreciated significance of the BAR Association in the selection of Supreme Court Justices needs to be mentioned here. Of course, the American Bar Association was formed just after the reconstruction process of the United States, in 1878. Since the 1950’s, the ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from “not qualified” to “well qualified.” In 2005, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush’s nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. In 2006, the ABA gave a unanimous “well-qualified” rating to Judge Samuel Alito, Bush’s appointee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s Associate Justice position.
It is also quite important to note that this private association takes an official, purposefully biased stance on certain issues, making the ABA a politically oriented association of more than significant power. For instance, it has an official stance on abortion – the BAR is pro-abortion. The ABA requires collegial programs to offer “Affirmative Action” in their courses which would lead to an ABA accreditation. And it has an official stance on gun control…
From it’s website called the “Standing (ABA) Committee On Gun Violence”:
Assault Weapons The ABA supports permanent reauthorization of the 1994 enacted ban on assault weapons.
Gun Industry Tort Immunity Legislation The ABA believes that the gun industry should be held accountable under state civil liability laws, like other industries, businesses, and individuals.
Lawyer’s Role in Addressing Gun Violence The ABA believes that lawyers share a special responsibility to help create a just and secure society in which firearms are well-regulated.
Regulation of Firearms as Consumer Products The ABA supports enactment of legislation to provide authority to the Treasury Department to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.
Again, the significance of having such official political views by such an organization is problematic at the least. This means that in a gun control case, where all attorneys and the judge who sits on the case making the final decision, they will all have the pressure of the official stance of the organization they are forced to be members of when making decisions on such national issues, and in taking away basic “constitutional” and/or natural rights.
Can a gun-owner get a “fair trial” if his defending attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and his presiding judge are all three members of the ABA?
Also notice that the executive office of all U.S. Attorneys, including U.S. State Attorney Generals and Legal Councils are within the DOJ, as well as all things related to law enforcement. Also, another top DOJ official is the Solicitor General, who just happens to represent the federal government in cases heard before the US Supreme Court, and would be doing so against another BAR attorney as the prosecutor.
What is the only thing in the entire court/legal system that is seemingly missing from this list? The Supreme Court itself. So let’s examine this body of supposedly independent justices…
The members (justices) of the supreme court are attorneys… BAR’d attorneys, to be exact. This alone is disturbing to anyone who knows the history of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry). But what is more problematic is the very structure of that court and how these “justices” are appointed to their positions of power – the power to declare legislative and Executive public opinion (positive law) as either constitutional or unconstitutional with the self-proclaimed authority of what it claims to be constitutional “judicial review”.
The inherent problem with this structure? The Executive Branch appoints the Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Legislative Branch.
Hmmm… who else is part of the Executive branch of government? Oh yeah… President Obama. In fact he’s the head of the entire Executive Branch, which also makes him the true head of the Department of Justice. For while the president has the privilege of appointing non-elected officials to be the “secretaries” or heads of these individual departments like the DOJ with the delegated authority of the Executive, the president is ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the Executive Branch. After all, he is the only person that was actually “elected” in the whole Executive Branch!
To put this into easily understood terms, the whole Supreme Court is appointed by the office of the president of the United States, who just so happens to also be a BAR attorney this time around. Can you have a separation of powers if the Executive is a member of the judicial BAR? About 56 senators and 36% of congress are also BAR attorneys. The BAR Attorney General was appointed by the BAR president of the United States. The BAR Solicitor General was also appointed by the BAR President of the United States.
You see the problem here?
To call this a conflict of interest is laughable in its underwhelming description of the “judicial” governance as a “check-and-balance” system for this government. And for anyone who is reading this that still entertains the ridiculous notion that there is still any form of “separation of powers” in these “branches” of government – you need your head examined… or you just need to read the following case.
–=–
The Strange But Legal Case Against Eric Holder
–=–
Imagine if an old-time mafia-boss appointed the governor, the chief of police, the mayors, the judges, and the prosecuting attorney of his turf (city/state) where he and his appointed mafia gang members commit daily their organized crime. Well… you don’t have to imagine, because that is exactly what happens every time the president makes his cabinet and judicial appointments. Only instead of turf, they call it his jurisdiction.
As if to help clarify this scenario, a news story just recently broke for your reading pleasure. If nothing else, this article from “The Associated Press” should clear up any misconceptions about the Supreme or any other federal Court (and they’re all federal) with regards to their perceived independence and bias from the legislature and the Executive. My notes are in (Red):
–=–
Justice won’t prosecute Holder for contempt
No grand jury » The department says the A.G.’s decisions don’t constitute a crime.
By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST
| The Associated Press
First Published Jun 29 2012 01:40 pm • Last Updated Jun 29 2012 11:18 pm
Washington • The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (Note that this declaration was not made from inside of a courtroom or made by a jury of his peers, and therefore it will never be heard inside of a court room, nor, more importantly, by the people in a grand jury. Here we see that by the act of denying Congress access to the Judicial (DOJ), the Executive has no check or balance. Congress itself cannot prosecute – it must move the case into “judicial review” utilizing the DOJ!)
The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations. (In case you missed that, the president’s appointment was just following the presidents orders. So really, Obama should be on trial for gunrunning, not his minion. Executive privilege is code for the fact that there are no checks and balances but those consented to by the Executive. Executive privilege is what a dictator has who is above his own laws.)
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department (DOJ) said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday. (Note that this decision leaves no one left to prosecute. The Executive Branch has just side-stepped the entire criminal justice system… Of course, that’s because the executive literally IS the entire criminal justice system (DOJ). Get it? Would you prosecute yourself if you had the choice [executive privilege] not to? Think about it… Would a king punish himself in his own “court“?)
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties. (That’s the deputy attorney, who’s employed by the Attorney General and the DOJ, by the way!)
“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote. (Translation: The Executive Branch will not prosecute the Executive Branch!!! We WILL NOT prosecute an executive branch official because we are not a constitutional government, we are a corporation with a charter that we happen to call a constitution. There is no judicial branch of government any more as a check and balance, since all law and justice functions were transferred to the DOJ. And if there was (is), we would never allow it to reach the Judicial Branch in a criminal case because we have the power and privilege to stop it. I mean… we aren’t going to prosecute ourselves, sillies!)
In its letter, the department (DOJ) relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency. (Did you catch that? The Justice Department relied on a Justice Department legal opinion!!! Double-speak doesn’t just happen in “1984”, and war certainly is peace!)
Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (So Congress is trying to obtain documents about the Justice Department from the accused head of the Justice Department about a Justice Department agency he was in charge of [the ATF]. Ah-ah-ah Congress… Executive Privilege…)
The criminal path is now closed and the civil route through the courts would not be resolved anytime soon.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious.
“This is pure politics,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
(Note that the word politics is defined by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as –
POLITICAL – Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198. –
(In other words, Congress has no political rights when it comes to the DOJ. The DOJ is politically independant of Congress.)
Now let’s think about this for a moment… Eric Holder is the appointed head of the Executive Justice Department. Obama is the man who appointed him to that Executive office (with an honorable mention to the senate [THE CONGRESS] who approved him). The prosecuting attorney would also be from that Executive office. The Federal court in which that case would be heard would also be part of the Executive DOJ. The defending attorney representing the DOJ head Attorney General in that case would also be assigned by the Executive Department of Justice.
So how could the people possibly have justice against the President’s appointment or against the President himself, when the entire Justice System is completely under the President’s Executive control? How indeed… the only way would be to assemble a people’s grand jury so that the people could decide! But the executive branch that committed the crime (through the protection of the privilege and immunity of the president himself), as well as the ABA, has the power to halt a people’s jury from ever assembling in the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place!!!
Yeah… it’s a free country! (Que penchant, disturbing laugh again.)
So, what else would you expect from a Supreme Court that was appointed by the president (whose name is publicly attached and associated to the health care bill) – a bill that congress (the house and senate – mostly BAR attorneys) passed through legislation?
Did you actually think that the presidential appointed “Justices” would decide that this bill was “unconstitutional”?
Do you still actually think that these “Branches” of government are in competition with one another?
Corporately and profitably speaking, the “Affordable Health Care For America Act” (A.K.A Obama-care) is very constitutional!!! After all, it contractually forces Americans to be “constitutors” to the insurance companies without forcing the insurance companies to cover all medical conditions… which in the totality of it all are majorly held companies of government through its pension fund and other investment funds. What more could a corporation want out of its constitution as a corporate charter?
–=–
A Shout Out To The Ladies
–=–
There are some very important legal words that we must define here before we can go on, and trust me when I say they definitely apply to you, the reader…
PEOPLE – A state; as, the people of the state of New York;a nation in its collective and politicalcapacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. 2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against “detainments of all kings, princes and people.” He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. – Vide Body litic; Nation. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
STATE – government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson’s Lect. 120; Dane’s Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state’ expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.
(Author’s note: This means that The “State” of Pennsylvania or any other one of the 50 states in the union is the incorporated body politic governing a territory of (owned by) the United States. The United States is the D.C. corporation that owns the territory for which the individual 50 states (governments) are incorporated within- they are each United States sub-corporations, allowed to exist by the United States corporation. The land is still the claimed constitutional territory of the United States, despite the 50 State corporations residing on it.)
It is important to note that the use in modern day language of this word people is not the legal term that was used for the constitution. Remember, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was cherished for being the definitive legal dictionary in regards to the language at the signing of and within the constitution. The only “people” who actually signed the constitution were the founding fathers, and they signed merely as legal witnesses for the individual “States”. You are only people (of the State, the Nation) if you as an individual man consent to it through contract with the State (United States) as a person.
Also of equal importance… if you are a woman reading this text you have probably noticed that I keep using the word man and never the word woman. As this is in fact a presentation on legal terminology, I wish to let you know that this has been a purposeful effort on my part. Why? Because you, as a woman, are actually a man – at least in the law society – unless you legally claim to be a woman.
Let’s see what it means to claim yourself to be a registered woman citizen.
First, we must define the root of that word, which is “man”, again from Bouvier’s Law, 1856:
MAN – A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: “of offenses against man, some are more immediately against the king, other’s more immediately against the subject.” Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offenses against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man.” Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2. – 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.
MANKIND.Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. Fortesc. 91; Bac. Ab. Sodomy. See Gender.
WOMEN –persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. Mulieris appellatione etiam virgo viri potens continetur. Dig. 50, 16, 13. – 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. Wooddes. Lect. 31; 4 Inst. 5; but see Callis, Sew. 252; 2 Inst 34; 4 Inst. 311, marg. – 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject. Vide Abortion; Contract; Divorce; Feminine; Foetus; Gender; Incapacity; Man; Marriage; Masculine; Mother; Necessaries; Parties to Actions Parties to Contracts; Pregnancy; Wife.
Note that man is a human being, and woman is a person.
So you see, being a female of the species human is not only wonderful but necessary for life itself to continue… But being a wo-man is not. Your rights as a woman (person) are civil, meaning they are prescribed and bestowed upon you as a citizen, or person. Ironically, with the advent of woman’s “rights”, this distinction in legal sexual identification erases a mans natural rights and turns her into a woman – which by default is and always has been beneath a male human man unless the civil legal code states otherwise – which it does. This may be difficult to understand, and even more difficult to utilize, but a woman can only be free from the United States as chattel by publicly shedding herself of her womanhood (her corporate person-hood). You, as a female, do not have the right to vote. But by accepting person-hood, you are granted the privilege to vote as a “civil right“, placing you on equal footing through legislation as a male.
Perhaps this will help in your cognition…
A horse can be male or female, and is still called a horse. It is not called a wo-horse. The same goes for pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, lizards, spiders, and every living sentient being on earth. Only in the corrupt minds of men could such a legal distinction of such binding and degrading class structure be brought to bear upon one half of the species of man! (And by the minds of man/men I mean the ladies too! Just look at that woman in Congress Nancy Pelosi! Yuck!!!)
–=–
The Incivility Of Civil Rights
–=–
While we are on the subject of the legal term “civil”, let’s briefly touch on the horrific hoax of what are called “civil rights”.
Knowing that a “right” is always nothing more than a permitted-by-government legal privilege, such privileges as the right to vote are considered “civil rights“.
The claim of civil rights made without legal standing (outside of government and the civil courts) places civility into the natural realm of man. But in legal language, a civil right is a right that can be taken away. A civil liberty is a liberty that can be taken away. And a civil court is a court that can take civil rights and property away.
Of course, we must specifically define this word in its legal context:
CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty. 2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.
CIVIL LAW. The municipal code of the Romans is so called. It is a rule of action, adopted by mankind in a state of society. It denotes also the municipal law of the land. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 11. See Law, civil.
CIVIL OBLIGATION – Civil law. One which binds in law, vinculum juris, and which may be enforced in a court of justice. Poth. Obl. 173, and 191. See Obligation.
Trust me when I say that the last thing that a man should wish upon him or her self is to have the government decide what is civil. A jury of peers, maybe. Civil rights, as used in the legal context within the jurisdiction of the United States for women, blacks (freedmen) and whites as equal persons, is the vehicle for which your natural or “private” rights as a man are transferred via citizen contract as a person into “public” legal (civil) rights dictated by government.
The perfect example of what civil rights did to natural rights is this beauty in the U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 – entitled: “THE PUBLIC WELFARE”
TITLE 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter 1 > § 1981
(a) Statement of equal rights
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States(FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED) shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
With citizenship and its forced privilege (right) of civil rights comes not the loss of freedom, for freedom is specifically defined as obeying the law… but instead, a civil right as defined under government code (public policy) takes away the choice of civility and creates a statutory mandate that binds one to mandated statutory civility. And the civil “right” to be punished, put in pain, incur penalties, be taxed, be required to obtain and pay for a license as permission to have freedom to do some thing or act, and to be exacted (extorted) from becomes what the government calls an “equal right“.
So congratulations on being a woman (person) or a black freedman citizen (person) of equal privilege to white citizens (persons), for you are equally enslaved as chattel as the rest of us!
Just what did you really think affirmative action was put into place for? To give you natural civil rights!
Ha, ha ha ha ha…
It made us all equally indebted and extorted, man.
–=–
What Are The Duties Of The Attorney General?
–=–
Now, I’d like to share with you what the government website of the Attorney General of Illinois has to say about this very question.
You can click on the following (.gov) link to verify that this information came from that source (emphasis mine):
“History of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General”
—————————————————————————
“The effect of the establishment of the Office of Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, not fully recognized for several decades, was the creation of an office with broad powers to represent and safeguard the interests of the People of this State. The Attorney General has been determined, in decisions of the supreme court, to have not just those duties and powers that might be specifically prescribed in statutory enactments, but to have all those duties that appertain to the Office of Attorney General as it was knownat common law. The phrase “prescribed by law” was rejected as a limitation on the Attorney General’s powers to those specified by statute. The supreme court stated in Fergus v. Russel (1915), 270 Ill. 304, discussed below, that “[t]he common law is as much a part of the law of this State as the statutes and is included in the meaning of this phrase.” (See, 5 ILCS 50/1.)
(Author’s note: Statutes are not law without the people’s consent. There is no law in the United States Inc, only statute, public policy, and CODE. Prescribed by law is not the same as prescribed by statute, and so this phrase needed editing. Law only happens outside of the United States’ jurisdiction.)
History continued…
In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:
* * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.”
(Fergus, at 337.)
The court went on to state:
* * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest.”
(Fergus, at 342.)
The court noted that it is the Attorney General’s duty “to conduct the law business of the State, both in and out of the courts.” (Fergus, at 342.)
With these pronouncements, the court in Fergus clearly established the Office of Attorney General as one with expansive powers which the General Assembly lacked the power to diminish. While it has frequently been argued that much of the language in Fergus broadly describing the Attorney General’s role is obiter dicta, it is clear that Fergus stands for “the principle that the Attorney General is the sole officer who may conduct litigation in which the People of the State are the real party in interest.” People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 495. Under Fergus and its progeny, any attempt to authorize any other officer to conduct litigation in which the State is the real party in interest would be an impermissible interference with the Attorney General’s constitutional powers and an appropriation to another agency to be used directly for such purposes would be unconstitutional and void.
The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:
* * * 1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown.
2d. By information, to bring certain classes of persons accused of crimes and misdemeanors to trial.
[3rd.]By scire facias, to revoke and annul grants made by the crown improperly, or when forfeited by the grantee thereof.
4th.By information, to recover money or other chattels, or damages for wrongs committed on the land, or other possessions of the crown.
5th. By writ of quo warranto, to determine the right of him who claims or usurps any office, franchise or liberty, and to vacate the charter, or annul the existence of a corporation, for violations of its charter, or for omitting to exercise its corporate powers.
6th. By writ of mandamus, to compel the admission of an officer duly chosen to his office, and to compel his restoration when illegally ousted.
7th. By information in chancery, to enforce trusts, and to prevent public nuisances, and the abuse of trust powers.
8th. By proceedings in rem, to recover property to which the crown may be entitled, by forfeiture for treason, and property, for which there is no other legal owner, such as wrecks, treasure trove, &c. (3 Black. Com., 256-7, 260 to 266; id., 427 and 428; 4 id., 308, 312.)
9th. And in certain cases, by information in chancery, for the protection of the rights of lunatics, and others, who are under the protection of the crown. (Mitford’s Pl., 24-30, Adams’ Equity, 301-2.)
* * * “
1919-20 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 618, 629-30, quoting from People v. Miner, 3 Lansing (NY) 396 (1868).
–End Excerpt–
Please go to this link for this government site and copy or digitize it, before this little treasure gets taken down.
–=–
The “Crown” Defined
–=–
For the purposes of understanding what the word “crown” means in the above referenced U.S. court case by the Illinois Attorney, here are a few legal definitions that may help, dated from both modern and 1800’s period dictionary perspectives. See if you can put the puzzle pieces together via these legal definitions…
–=–
COURT – n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESQUIRE – n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
CROWN – n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. — Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. — Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. — Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. –1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
COLONY – n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. –-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
LAWFUL – In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. –A Dictionary of Law 1893.
LEGAL – Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual (law). “Legal” looks more to the letter, and “Lawful” to the spirit, of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positiverules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rulesprescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of “equitable”, and the equivalent of “constructive”.–2 Abbott’s Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).
RULE – n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
RULE – n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.
ATTORN – v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESTATE – n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.
ESTATE – v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. –-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
STATE – n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.]—Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
FREEDOM –Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. 2 Har. Cond. L. R. 208. —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.
FREEMAN – One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights(privilages) enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556 –-Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.
–=–
An Oath To Uphold The Corporate Charter?
–=–
Each applicant to the Supreme Court must take the following oath as a BAR attorney or approved litigator:
Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation:
I, ……………, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Yes… that’s the Constitution of the United States (not the United States “of America”).
Note here that the Constitution of the United States is the Corporate Charter for the United States Corporation. This charter, as is the case with all corporations, is re-read into the public record every 20 years – and most people think the “government” is just being patriotic. Note that the word “public” has a very different meaning than what is commonly used in our everyday communicative language. In legalese, the clandestine language of the law society, Public refers to “public policy”. The government, from congress to the Supreme Court decides not on what the law shall be, but instead it sets “public policy”. This statutory law is 100% based on the presumed consent of the governed, and that presumption is all but granted the second we are born into subjugation of the United States. There is no true natural law left in America with regards to what we mistakenly call “government”. In its place, we have public policy. This is 100% contract law. All interactions with this U.S. corporation by men are in contract form as persons – from the signing of a license to drive or to marry to the filing of taxes to being placed in prison. Every single act by the people (persons) as “residents” of Washington D.C. (the City of Columbia) is done so voluntarily. When the people “resister” to vote, they are turning their backs on natural law and on the organic constitution and are instead contracting to the United States (the corporation 10 miles square) as 14th Amendment persons per the 15th Amendment of the private corporate charter that happens to be called a constitution. And in doing so, the people are accepting the contractual offer of government to be considered “persons”, giving up their God-given natural rights to vote in exchange for the privilege (contract) to vote in Washington D.C (where all people within the jurisdiction of the United States [D.C.] corporation “reside” as “residents” – as contracted corporate “persons”).
In fact, the first question on the voting form is, “Are you a United States citizen?”
RESIDENT – persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
–=–
Who Really Elects The President Of The United States?
–=–
Hilariously, our consent to this 15th Amendment and to voter registration means that 100 million “public voters” all cast their votes solely in the District of Columbia, not in the state they live – which in the electoral college, D.C. only represents 3 electoral votes out of 538.
17th Amendment:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”
The Electoral College consists of these electors,who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States(this is not the original united states of America, but the United States corporation). Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election, as held in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
The Electoral College is an indirect election. This means that all registered Untied States “citizens” do not elect their president! Instead, the people elect congressmen, who along with their chosen political party, delegate the power of “elector” to others and thus the president (Chief Executive Officer ) is elected through the electoral college. This is how all major corporations work – the board of directors (congress) elect the CEO (president) of the corporation (United States).
So what happens to the millions upon millions of registered votes from the citizens (registered U.S. “persons”) of the United States?
It’s simple, really… The peoples votes are at best counted and the results may be similar to the 3 electoral college votes of the District of Columbia that are made by the electors (as public opinion) – the corporation that all voters are contractually “registered” to vote in and claim consensual residence in!
Through the electoral college, the constitutional “electors” of each state then vote for who the president and vice president of the corporation will be, each state having a different number of electoral votes based on population.
And the electoral college overrules the popular vote!!!
In other words, for all of the hoopla, pomp and circumstance, and billions and billions of dollars that surround the public vote for the presidential elections every four years, the whole thing is completely for show to fool the people into thinking they are electing the president! Because the popular (persons) vote doesn’t really count for anything…
The bible says that, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.” –Hosea 4: 6 (KJV).
In the case of legal persons, this could not be a more true statement. Men perish and virtually cease to exist because of their lack of knowledge of legalese and because of their own contractual corporate person-hood.
The voters of each state and the District of Columbia, through the political party system, vote for electors to be their authorized constitutional participants (electors) in a presidential election without most voters even knowing this is happening. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates according to their political party, and political parties (not the people) cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors within the party. Keep in mind that the Democratic and Republican parties, just like the BAR, are 100% private associations that do not represent the people in any way, though that is not what their media ads tell the people (voters) who support them.
What is the legal definition of “elector” from Bouvier’s law dictionary, 1856?
ELECTOR – government. One who has the right to make choice of public officers one, who has a right to vote. – 2. The qualifications of electors are generally the same as those required in the person to be elected; to this, however, there is one exception; a naturalized citizen may be an elector of president of the United States, although he could not constitutionally be elected to that office.
ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT. Persons elected by the people, whose sole duty is to elect a president and vice-president of the U. S. – 2. The Constitution provides, Am. art. 12, that “the electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice-president; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the senate; the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of, votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no, person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as president, the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum, for this purpose, shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the house of representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president. – 3. “The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall be vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed and if no person have a majority, them from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president, shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.” Vide 3 Story, Const. §1448 to 1470.
–End–
–=–
Who In The Hell Are The Actual “Electors” Of The President Of This United States?
–=–
I’ll tell you one thing, it ain’t the people!
What we have here in America is what is called “Legislative Democracy”. Authority is delegated by the people to their congressmen, and in turn they make all decisions for the people, and the people never actually vote on any legislation, and therefore never actually vote on the laws that bind them. If that’s not slavery by legislative democracy, I don’t know what is!
This privilege of the electoral college election of the president of the United States is delegated each year by your congressmen (538 house and senate members of each state, who each have one vote per the constitution) and by the political parties themselves – delegated to other citizens of their perspective states called “electors”.
The Twelfth Amendment provides for each “elector” to cast one vote for President and one separate vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. In practice the pres and vice-pres are always of the same party. But in reality, they are elected separately, and so the United States could technically have a mixed party ticket. But the public would get really confused at this, and so the electors will never vote in that way so as to retain the quite open secret of their elite college.
12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (the vice president).
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…
Nowhere here does it mention you, me, or any of the approximately 100 million “registered” voters in the United States. In short, the people do not in any way elect their president – though apparently most have been led to believe they do judging by the media circus that happens every four years costing billions of taxpayer and private campaign dollars. The presidency is really won by which ever political party lobbies the “electors” best, and by which party those electors represent and are members of. This is why someone like me will never be the president of the United States – unless, perhaps, the people actually wake up from their collective dream-state and finally realize that they do not have a choice, and finally revolt against the system that fools and re-enslaves them every four years. Silly persons…
Even more disturbing is to actually see a list of who these “electors” are:
So let’s take the 2008 election as an example; where the first black person got elected in a flood of false “hope and change”… Remember how proud the people were that they had elected the first black president? They felt like they had collectively done something together to change the system. They felt so wonderful that they had utilized their “civil rights” and created hope for America. (LOL!!!)
My personal favorite of these 538 “electors” of 2008 is my own Attorney General of Utah, Mr. Mark Shurtleff.
If you are unfamiliar with my own dealings with our corrupt Attorney General, please take a couple of moments to enjoy my previous confrontation with him at the March, 2010 Tea Party rally at the Utah State Capital in Salt Lake City:
Good times, and I didn’t even know he was an elector back then! Perhaps it’s time to find him again.
Oh, and sorry about the “music”…
When one looks at just a partial list of who gets appointed as electors by political parties, and when one considers the dates of when these people either attain office or get promoted (voted) into higher offices, one cannot help to start digging out the word conspiracy, dusting it off, and ditching the word theory altogether.
CONSPIRACY – criminal, law, torts. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others.
CONSPIRATORS. Persons guilty of a conspiracy. See 3 Bl. Com. 126-71 Wils. Rep. 210-11. See Conspiracy.
Remember, with no law, all acts are unlawful in America. And with the DOJ in place, no plans between two or more people will ever be brought to the light of “justice”.
Other “electors” from 2008, who were solely and directly responsible for the election of President Obama include:
Harriet Smith Windsor – Delaware Secretary of State (2001-2009; a Democrat currently serving as the Vice Chair of the Delaware Democratic Party. In 2008 Windsor was an elector for Barack Obama.
Edward E. “Ted” Kaufman Delaware United States Senator from 2009 to 2010. Since 2010, he has chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel. He is a member of the Democratic Party who was appointed to the Senate to fill the term of long-time Senator Joe Biden, who resigned to become Vice President of the United States in January 2009. Prior to becoming a U.S. Senator,Kaufman had been an adviser to Biden for much of his political career.
(Author’s note: as stated above, the guy who gets APPOINTED to the U.S. Senate was one of 538 persons that was an elector and he voted for Biden. Anyone smell a plan between two or more people here? No? I sure smell something…)
Wellington E. Webb was the first African American Mayor of Denver (1991-2003), after his stints as Denver City Auditor (1987-1991), and as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (1981-1987).
Muriel Bowser – Washington D.C. Democrat politician and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia representing Ward 4.
Vincent C. Gray – Mayor of the District of Columbia as of January, 2011, and was Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, as Council member for Ward 7. In the 1990s he also served as director of the DC Department of Human Services.
Anthony C. Hill Florida State Senator in the Democratic party (2002-2011). He currently serves as a legislative liaison for Jacksonville mayor, Alvin Brown.
Rick Minor – Florida policy adviser who is now running for the Florida House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party. Previously, he was the Chairman of the Leon County Democratic Party from 2005 to 2009.
Jared E. Moskowitz (born December 18, 1980) Elected to the City Commission of Parkland, Florida in March 2006 at age 25 while a second-year law student.
Francisco (Frank) J. Sánchez – A Florida BAR attorney currently serving as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Department of Commerce. From 1999 to 2000, he served as a Special Assistant to the President. From 2000 to 2001, he served as Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In 2001, he founded Cambridge Negotiation Strategies.
Karen L. Thurman Former Democratic U.S. Representative from Florida (1999-2003). In 2005 Thurman was elected Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, resigning after the election in November 2010.
Carmen Tores – played a character named Margarita Cordova in an American soap opera called “Sunset Beach”. (Author’s note: WTF?)
Frederica Wilson – U.S. Representative for Florida’s 17th congressional district (2011-current). Previously, she was in the Florida State Senate (2003-2010).
James Randolph “Randy” Evans – BAR lawyer and Republican from Georgia, who ironically specializes in government ethics. Evans is a law partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge. He has served as a longtime advisor to the Republican Party of Georgia.
Deborah L. “Debbie” Halvorson – Former U.S. Representative for Illinois’ 11th congressional district (2009-2011). She is a member of the Democratic Party, and formally a state senator.
James Phillip Hoffa – James is the only son of the infamous Jimmy Hoffa. James is a BAR attorney and labor leader and the General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Hoffa was first elected during December 1998 and took office on March 19, 1999. He was subsequently re-elected in 2001, 2006 and 2011 to five-year terms. (Author’s note: Again, the irony here is thick enough to cut with a butter-knife.)
Ronald A. Gettelfinger – President of the United Auto Workers union from 2002 to 2010. (Author’s note: Big surprise!)
Andrew Mark Cuomo – 56th and current Governor of New York, having assumed office on January 1, 2011. A member of the Democratic Party , he was also the 64th New York State Attorney General (2007-2010), and was the 11th United States Federal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001). Andrew is the son of Mario Cuomo, the 52nd Governor of New York (1983–1994).
Thomas P. DiNapoli – 54th Comptroller of the state of New York (also in charge of the state pension system). He is a former state assemblyman in New York, who was appointed as New York State Comptroller on February 7, 2007. Previous State Assemblyman (1987-2007).
Sheldon “Shelly” Silver – BAR lawyer and Democratic politician from New York. He has held the office of Speaker of the New York State Assembly since 1994.
Helen Dianne Foster Currently represents District 16 in the New York City Council. Elected in 2001, she is the current co-chair of the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus. She currently serves as chairwoman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, and serves as a member of the Aging, Education, Health, Lower Manhattan Redevelopment, and Public Safety Committees. Prior to this she was a BAR Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, subsequent to which she became an Assistant Vice-President for legal affairs at St. Barnabas Hospital.
William Colridge Thompson, Jr. – Known as Bill or Billy, he was the 42nd Comptroller of New York City (2002-2009). He is the son of William C. Thompson, Sr., formerly a prominent Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, City Councilman, State Senator and BAR’d judge on New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
David Alexander Paterson – default 55th Governor of New York (2008 to 2010) as lieutenant governor (2007-2008) – heralded in after Eliot Spitzer resigned in the wake of a prostitution scandal. Paterson was sworn in as governor of New York on March 17, 2008. During his tenure he was the first governor of New York of non-European American heritage and also the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state.
Janice McKenzie Cole – BAR attorney who served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina (1994–2001) under President Bill Clinton.
Theodore “Ted” Strickland – 68th Democratic Governor of Ohio (2007-2011). Ted previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio’s 6th congressional district (1993-1995). Strickland currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Bunny Chambers – Has Served As Oklahoma’s Republican National Committeewoman Since 1996. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Republican State Committee of Oklahoma. She has also held numerous positions on the grassroots level in her precinct and House District. Chambers has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2004.
Lynne Abraham – BAR attorney who served as the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia from May 1991 to January 2010.
Thomas M. McMahon – Mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania from January 5, 2004 to January 2, 2012.
Michael Anthony Nutter – Current Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (since 2007). He is the third African-American mayor of Philadelphia, the largest city in the United States with an African-American mayor. He was re-elected on November 8, 2011. Nutter is a former councilman of the city’s 4th Council District, and has served as the 52nd Ward Democratic Leader since 1990.
Franco Harris – Former Professional football player. He played his NFL career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks. Harris’ made comments in support of Joe Paterno, his coach while at Penn State, during the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Franco is a paid representative for the Harrah’s/Forest City Enterprises casino plan for downtown Pittsburgh. This association has earned him the nickname, “Franco Harrah’s”. (Author’s note: Again… WTF???)
Jack E. Wagner – Current auditor general of Pennsylvania (since 2005), and former state senator (1994-2005). He is a member of the Democratic Party.
Dennis M. Daugaard – 32nd Governor of South Dakota (since January 2011). BAR attorney. As a lieutenant governor under the South Dakota Constitution, Daugaard served as the President of the South Dakota Senate.
Marion Michael “Mike” Rounds– 31st Governor of South Dakota (2003-2011). Rounds currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Rounds served as the 2008 Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association (a private association). In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rounds one of 11 “worst governors” in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Rounds’ term as governor. Rounds is a partner in Fischer Rounds & Associates, an insurance and real estate firm. He placed his ownership interest into a blind trust upon being elected governor.
Bryant Winfield Culberson Dunn – was the Republican Party 43rd Governor of Tennessee (1971-1975).
James Edward “Jim” Doyle – 44th Democrat Governor of Wisconsin (2003-2011). He is currently a BAR attorney ‘of counsel’ at the law firm of Foley & Lardner. 41st Attorney General of Wisconsin (1991-2003), as well as the Dane County District Attorney (1977-1982). In September 2010, Doyle was one of seven governors to receive a grade of F in the fiscal-policy report card of the Cato Institute.
The 23rd Amendment specifies how many “electors” the District of Columbia is entitled to have.
23rd Amendment:
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Government has just told you that Washington D.C. is definitely not a State. In actuality, it is “THE STATE” when using that word as the ultimate power of the corporate government via contract with persons and according to legal definitions. Section 2 is also very important, as this addition or “clause” about congress having “power to enforce and legislate” is a built in loophole that gives Congress the power to create any legislation – in other words, to do anything it wants. This clause is also found in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment Amendments, as well as in the wording of the 16th amendment with regards to income tax. Interestingly, the Congress has delegated that authority created by the 16th Amendment over to the Executive Department via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which means that Congress isn’t really the branch collecting income tax as is stated in Amendment 16. But then, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE INCOME TAX BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION!!! It is very convenient to write the rules that bind you, and then write the rule that lets you write the over-ruling rule to bypass the first rule, effectively rewriting what you have already written. Sound confusing? It’s supposed to!
–=–
Now, remember that I asked you to remember something… what was it…? Oh, yes!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)
Now we can see how important this section is in each of these Amendments.
Because the wording of the original (organic) constitution of the united states of America was not changed with the implementation of the corporate charter that amended the original constitution away, Congress left these little clauses in the reconstruction Amendments and future amendments so as to nullify and make void the power of the individual State’s rights. By stating here that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, this and the other amendments with this type of clause are not organic, as these amendment’s intent and meaning can at any time be altered or changed; not by another amendment, but by the day to day legislation within the halls of Congress. In other words, amendments to the constitution with this clause are not organic, as they can and are over-ruled by bills of congress, any time it is convenient.
This clause also does something very, very important… It nullifies the protections of the 10th Amendment!
The 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.
Oops! The 14th Amendment, states that:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
For all of you Tenth Amendment advocates out there, you should really pay attention here. By voluntarily consenting to the 14th Amendment and registering as a 14th Amendment person (citizen), you have given up your 10th Amendment protection. You have taken your residence out of the State you live in and contractually become a resident of Washington D.C. And that means that you also contractually agree to the rules and legal codes of the United States! Whereas before the 10th Amendment gave the individual States rights, Section 5 of the 14th Amendments left no one with 10th Amendment State’s rights – because you no longer have primary residence in the your state!
Let’s go back to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (accepted by Congress as the official law dictionary for the Constitution and the Supreme Court) to get the definition of resident again:
RESIDENT –persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish hisdomicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
RESIDENCE. The place of one’s domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man’s residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. – 2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character. – 3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions. (This is the case with Congress). Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of residence.
DOMICIL – 5. – §2. There are two classes of persons who acquire domicil by operation of law. 1st. Those who are under the control of another, and to whom the law gives the domicil of another. Among these are, 1. The wife. 2. The minor. 3. The lunatic, &c. 2d.Those on whom the state affixes a domicil… A party may have two domicils, the one actual, the other legal…
–=–
To Vote Or Not To Vote? That Really Is The Question.
–=–
Now, I used to tell people not to vote – that voting gave legitimacy to the very corporate charter of the United States, and therefore you get exactly what you consent to. But now, as I ponder the consequences of both voting and not voting, I realize that in the end it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you or I vote or don’t vote for the office of president this year. Even if 100% of the eligible people voted legally (via registration) in the presidential primary, the people would only have at best a less than 1% minority say in who will be president with their 3 electoral votes. (I’m literally laughing out loud right now as I’m pulling my hair out in large strands, but I didn’t want to just say LOL because it’s such a sinister and crazy kind of laugh…)
In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m thinking of how much time and effort was put into the election process for the private association election for the Republican Party representative (not a representative of the people, but of the party). The well-intentioned folks who are so desperately trying to prop up Ron Paul as the Republican candidate must not understand how presidential elections work! And for that matter, Ron Paul isn’t telling people about this either as his campaign collects 10’s of millions from people that will have absolutely no say in whether or not he will become president. Hmmm…
Don’t we know that Ron Paul must win the vote of the 538 electors, not the people? Don’t we understand that the people do not elect the president? Don’t we know that the whole presidential media campaign is a hoax, and that they are wasting all of our time and energy on a very profitable practical joke? And every four years we go through this complete act of futility with the “patriot candidate” only to be defeated by our own ignorance of the electoral college. Do we not understand that the Republican and Democratic “parties” are 100% private associations that have nothing to do with the people or our interests? Do we think that our delegate votes will make any difference in whom that private association props up as the representative of their private association?
What gives, America? Are we really such fools that we can be manipulated into believing that our votes make any difference whatsoever in the election of our CEO/president every four years? (Uh-oh… more nutty LOL coming on…)
Do you get it yet? This means that when the election of 2000 between private association members Bush and Gore was decided by the electoral college against the popular vote, the 538 elected house and senate members who make up what we call Congress (the board of directors of U.S. Inc.) and the votes they delegate to the private association political parties who elect the “electors” actually overruled the millions of people in the election of the President of the United States. 100 million “registered” citizen voters were outvoted by 538 voting “representatives” through “electors”. I mean, Hoffa… really?
And the people call this the right to vote?
In the end, there is only one solution to our collective problem: DO NOT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONSENT, AND DEFINITELY DO NOT REGISTER TO VOTE!!!
The tie that binds us all is in fact our contractual citizenship with this foreign corporation in the City of Columbia. The severing of that contract via the severing of our citizenship is literally the only solution. Their rules and laws (statutory public opinion) only apply to 14th Amendment citizens of the United States.
Why?
Because that contract and only that contract is what gives the United States authority and jurisdiction over you as a person. It cannot control you as a living, breathing man, only as a corporate-person-chattel-thing. Citizenship, once again, changes you from an incorporeal free man to an incorporated corporeal body (chattel) – a thing that can be bought and sold and killed; that can be incarcerated with “due process”; and that can be absolutely controlled through contractual obligation (public law). The only way for the United States corporation, whose legal boundaries are those within the ten miles square of Washington D.C – outside of the 50 states united (the union) – the only way that IT can control, imprison, and buy and sell you and your property as a comodity (chattel) to back its Federal Reserve notes is if you never sever the ties that contractually bind you voluntarily to these privileges of servitude that it calls “rights”.
Remember, a right (freedom) is defined as: the privilege to do whatever you want, as long as you follow their laws. This is why 1,000’s of new laws are created every year within the jurisdiction of the United States – to ensure that you will always be breaking one of their civil laws so that they can exercise control over your person. The only way that the United States (federal government) can touch you is if you take residence within that fictional 10 miles square boundary as a U.S. citizen, and subject yourself to the public opinion it creates, that it calls “law”. Like any other corporation, you are only subject to the rules and punishments of that corporation if you are a contractual employee (citizen) of that corporation. It’s time to quit your job as an indentured servant/employee to the United States, and to take back the personal responsibility for ALL of your own actions – the only thing that will ever make you a free man.
Can you live without the privileges of corporate State benefits?
Perhaps a better question is: Will the corporation allow you to live when those benefits require you to die from the benefit and privilege of those new Obama-care death panels and old-age public opinions? After all… it will be your right to die at the hands of the public opinion!
–=–
A Final Note To Self-Proclaimed “Patriots”
–=–
If you label yourself as a “conservative”, that means that legally you want to conserve the current system. Please stop calling yourself that. This word was foisted upon you by the media as a practical joke. They even have you badmouthing the word “liberal” – which just happens to be what the “Founding Fathers” were labeled as back when men were still men and actually used their guns instead of just crying over their regulation and confiscation. You are being laughed at every time you use the word “liberal” to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. And as for the word “Patriot”, those were the men of old who actually fought for life, liberty, and property… you know, those things that you don’t have or own anymore by law of contract.
And as for your “patriotic” incantation of “The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States”…
For your information, this pledge did not exist during our Founding Father’s lifetimes. This becomes obvious when simply reading the Pledge out loud. It states:
“…one nation, indivisible…”
But according to the original constitution, the states are absolutely not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, States like Virginia specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that this State-right was clearly understood. The “Pledge” was written over a century after America’s founding in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellamy, whose original text was:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Just imagining my years as a youth in a group of 30 other youths making this pledge every day in public (government) school sends chills down my spine.
Now, I mean no disrespect here… My process of awakening has seen me tread through these same misnomers as everybody else. Only when one has experience in being a useful idiot like I have, can one then criticize others for same and show them a different path. And my path will no doubt diverge with the more knowledge that gets thrown in my way by somebody else who will criticize me.
I know that people who have reached the end here are looking for solutions. And I’m here to tell you that it is my personal opinion that persons, while they may have remedies, they will never have natural rights. Killing the STRAWMAN person and becoming a man again is the way and the light. But I must at the end here tell you that this essay should in no way be misconstrued as legal advice. I’d be quite personally offended if one of you accused me of practicing law. Only BAR attorneys do that, and I will never take on that sleazy foreign TITLE against the original 13th amendment.
I do not promote excommunication, as this is a legal venture. But the U.S. CODE does enumerate this process if you care to find it. I’d be happy to give personal references of people that might be able to help you, free men that are not citizens or persons, who’ve walked the walk and are now talking the talk. Contact me personally for this.
Mine is only to deconstruct and inform…
Happy July 4th to you. While you are out celebrating your non-independence, remember that July 4th was the day that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and military rule on the States that became, for a short time, independent from the United States Corporation, by convening the first illegal unconstitutional Congress of the new military law United States.
Thank you for reading. Now go get a sandwich and repeat!
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com) –Tuesday, July 3, 2012
This post, which is now over 6 years old, signifies my first flirtation with the STRAWMAN concept of personhood. I invite you instead to read a free copy (.pdf) of my new book, released June 17th, 2016, by going to this link –> StrawmanStory.info
I leave this post up for posterity, a glimpse into my own former ignorance, and wish readers to know that my knowledge has increased two-fold since this was written, and I do not, I repeat, do not in any way support the SPC or other commercial routes. Please read my book, for what is missing in this post.
Its title is: “STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person.”
When printed, the cover will look something like this:
≈
— This is an audio blog. Press play for my reading of this article —
≈
I’d like to tell you about a man named Joe…
I met Joe serendipitously via a forwarded email not too long ago, and contacted him shortly thereafter. It seemed as though Joe was having a few problems and complications while trying to be a free and sovereign man, as well as a “Secured Party Creditor“.
I met up with Joe for coffee just a few days later and found that we had much of the same information and shared many of the same values, including an urgent desire to be truly free human beings on this earth and within this once great country. Joe lives here in Salt Lake County, Utah part-time, part-time in Mobile, Alabama, and in China the rest of the time. Being fortunate enough to have traveled the world myself for a number of years, I have a good idea of what unique and wonderful cultures the Asian continent holds. And so as Joe argued that he likes to live in China most of the time simply because that so-called “Communist” country is 100 times more free than America, I wholeheartedly and sincerely had a difficult time disagreeing with him.
Now, this might seem to be the most ridiculous notion in the world to you, you who possibly have never traveled anywhere outside of these United prison States, and so have only the media as a reference to the illogical fallacies of America’s superior government and freedoms. But then, how could you possibly know that only about 200 of the well over 1 billion people we call collectively the Chinese are actually communists?
The wealthy government? Communist.
The people? Just regular people like you and me.
Do you think that because the Democratic Party (a private corporation) is in control of the United States government today and for the next couple of years, that all citizens of the United States are Democrats?
No. That would be a ridiculous and illogical fallacy based on no fact or scientific observation at all.
So then, do you think that because the Communist Party is in control of China’s government, that all Chinese people are Communists as well?
No. That would be a ridiculous and illogical fallacy based on no fact or scientific observation at all.
And come to think of it, how could you know that your U.S. constitution was suspended by the Act of April 9, 1933 by congressional approval and the declaration of emergency powers, and that all authority was handed over to the President of the United States, then one Franklin Delano Roosevelt? And how could you know that we are still living under that same declared state of emergency today? How indeed… The public school system certainly doesn’t teach us that now does it…
“Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer. But governments always end up enslaving humanity. That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us. The U.S. government by and for the people… now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crashes future generations with massive debts. That which we create to serve us ends up ruling us. The problem with the “state as servant” thesis is that it is historically, completely false, both empirically and logically. The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue… The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave-hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in, and owning… When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room; not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs. The next stop after free-range is not freedom. The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of free-range serfdom. Additional “liberties” were granted to the (human) livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity… When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms. You are allowed certain liberties: limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation; not because your government approves of these rights in principle – since it constantly violates them – but rather because free-range livestock is so much cheaper to own, and so much more productive… State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy… these are all livestock management approaches. Some work well for long periods… and some work very badly. They all fail eventually because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock… Rulers have recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert, and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively. Thus you are allowed to leave, but never to real freedom, only to another farm. Because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work… but you are “free” to leave. Due to these difficulties very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1000 cows’ escape, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity for the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer. You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the (so-called educated) “professionals”. So the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a license, which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm. To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers (politicians) that the investors present. At best they are given minor choices (votes) in how they are managed. (But) they are never given the choice to shut down the farm and be truly free. Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to “love the farm” and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on. The idea that democracy and some sort of social contract justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous. If you say to a slave that his ancestors “chose” slavery and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say ‘If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave.‘ This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it. Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices. Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a “Stockholm Syndrome” in the livestock… You do not have to be livestock. Take the red pill. Wake up…” —Stefan Molyneux
≈
Anyway, as we sipped our coffee, Joe and I began a long discussion about many things, and he thankfully filled in many pieces of the puzzle that I had been missing about the “Secure Party Creditor” issue and the many facets of being a creditor instead of a debtor.
And so, with the disclaimer that this is not legal or lawful advise (just covering my A$$) I am now going to share what I have learned. I recommend to everyone reading this to do your own research and verify everything I say here today. I would also highly recommend that you take my advice offered below, and go to your local “Justice Center” and sit in court as an observer. You will be amazed at what you see once you comprehend the following information…
≈
What Is My STRAWMAN?
≈
≈
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “strawman” as:
1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted.
2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction.
≈
The Strawman can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The Strawman is a “shadow,” a go-between.
≈
So let’s start off with a bit of background…
First, understand that the government is a collection of private corporations. Chances are you live in an incorporated municipality, nicknamed the “City” or the “Town” or the “Borough“, located within the “County”, which in turn is located within the “State”. This is the corporation acting as the “Government” of that “City“. For instance, I live in the Draper City Corporation, and around me are the Provo City Corporation and the Salt Lake City Corporation. These are the actual names of the “city” governments, called “incorporated municipalities”.
See a complete evidential examination of this corporate structure and its Comprehensive Annual Financial Reporting (CAFR) system in my documentary “The Corporation Nation” here: http://thecorporationnation.com/
The corporate municipality then creates De-Facto statutory code, for which they nickname “The Law“… though most of these codes are not actually congressionally approved law (approved by our so-called representative congressmen), but are instead what is called Prima Facie (presumed) law (legality), for which all citizens are required by the corporation they contract with to follow with their due consent. But legal corporate CODE is only statutory law if it receives the acquiescence (consent) of the governed. We, the People are the governed. Without our consent, the Prima Facie presumption of law (CODE) has no legal standing. It has no authority backing it up accept our agreement that it is law, since the consensual agreement by the governed makes the contractual aspect of the legality null and void if it is not consented to. While a legality/CODE may not always be lawful, law always trumps legality if consent is not given to the legality (presumed law).
Common Law, or Case Law, should be studied and understood. It is up to you to know this case-law, or at least the ones that apply to your specific case, so that it can be considered as common law. Why? Because U.S. CODE is 157 feet long in dozens of volumes, so no human being could possibly know the law (CODE)! So if you want common law to be considered in a court of law, you will have to research and present that case-law to the court yourself. The so-called judge (an attorney in a black moo-moo) has no legal requirement to introduce case-law (common law) into his own court regardless of whether or not it would prove your innocence, nor does the prosecuting attorney, and believe it or not, neither does your defending attorney (an agent of the court, not you)! This is why defending yourself with the knowledge of jurisdiction and common law is paramount. In other words, if you want the court and/or the jury (always request/demand a jury trial, lest the privately incorporated judge seal your fate) to consider actual law, you must be the one to introduce and ensure that this law is read in the court and duly registered as evidence of common (case) law.
The “municipality” then hires police officers to enforce all of these legal codes. These are called code-enforcement officers – a police man veiled in municipal corporate authority becomes a police officer – an officer of the municipal corporation. These “officers” work for the municipal corporation (city or town) you live in; a private corporate police force, enforcing the codes created by this private corporation, but not necessarily the common law. They have no requirement to protect and serve you or your neighbor’s constitutional rights (since you really have none in a corporate structure under a declared “state of emergency”), but they are required only to protect the continuity and CODE of the municipal corporation they serve. They are only there to help you to obey CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and U.S. CODE by fining and arresting you if you do not obey that CODE. These codes that I am referring to are all corporate codes, as all of these cities, counties, states, and the United States (Federal municipality, Washington D.C.) are also incorporated entities.
Though you may live in what is referred to as an unincorporated area, you are still within a county or state corporation, and part of THE UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, the corporate veil of artificial person-hood that is laying on top of and killing slowly the united states of America.
In an unincorporated area (a city or town that is not a municipal corporation) your law enforcement agency is the County Sheriff. This is why the County Sheriff is of such vital importance to any of the freedoms we still do enjoy, the only truly lawful representative (elected and approved by the people) of common law. Many elected sheriffs across the country though have sold out their people by assigning away that lawful right in lieu of Federal grants and United Nations treaties. Salt Lake County’s Sheriff Jim Winder is no exception. After being elected to a second term in office, he and the poisonous County Council dissolved the Sheriff’s department and created a private corporation called the “Unified Police District”, of which the elected Sheriff became the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of that now private incorporated police force. Counties across America are falling prey to this act of treason, loosing the last vestige of protection of their common law rights, and Salt Lake County is now literally a “police state”.
≈
Into The World We Are Berthed
≈
But for some real perspective, let’s go back even further, to the day you were born.
The collective corporation wastes no time in grabbing up its slaves and forcing them into indentured servitude as citizens. The seemingly harmless act of filling out a certificate of live birth ensures that you, a living breathing human being with a soul, are ushered into this corporate structure without any chance to challenge this action. Your parents have just signed their new born baby, birthed into the United States under Maritime Law and Universal Commercial Code (The Law Of The Sea) like a ship docking into the port of New York, over to the Federal Government by way of a Certificate of Live Birth. This contract places its listed contents (you) as property of the United States Government. You are born into servitude, and you are immediately considered to be collateral for the good faith and credit of the United States Government, U.S. INC. You are now part of the herd, a herd of human chattel, enslaved from inception. And you have just been veiled in an artificial person-hood; you have been incorporated and given a STRAWMAN corporate name similar to your human name.
Unfortunately, all you can do in response at that tender age is to burp and maybe wet yourself after a good cry!
Now, it is important to comprehend that all of this happened at an age before you, as a living free human being with a soul, had any way to read, comprehend (under-stand), acquiesce (consent), or sign (agree to in writing) this contractual incorporation of your legal person.
Consent cannot be lawfully given for any contract without full disclosure and acquiescence of said contract. This is basic, standard contract law. The state contracts with you anyway by way of its legal Prima Facie prerogative to do so, at the tender age of Zero. And so your parents signed ownership of you as a commodity over to the government without even realizing the fate they had just sealed for you as their parents had unwittingly done to them. They just signed away, without comprehension or acquiescence, their most prized possession to the state. And this is why the so-called government agency called “Child Protective Services” has the legal jurisdiction of acquiring your children at any time it sees fit. Your parents gave them that right at your birth, as you likely did or will do with your own children at their birth.
Of course, you can never retrieve your original Birth Certificate from the Federal Government. You can only request to acquire a certified copy of that document. The original is kept in the corporation called Washington D.C. (a private corporate “district” outside of the 50 states united) and used as collateral. You are that collateral, as the “attorney-in-fact” (representative) of that STRAWMAN trust, which is created under your “STRAWMAN” corporate name. This trust is accessed in times of corporate commerce, like when a loan, credit card, or contract is written in our STRAWMAN name.
My free name is Clint P Richardson.
My STRAWMAN name is CLINT P RICHARDSON.
All legal contracts will be in the all capital letter name, representing my corporate person, not me as a living breathing human being. Take a look at your driver’s license and any contracts you have and notice this all capital letter you.
I can talk about “Target” as the name of the physical building that houses the store that I am going to visit, but it’s true corporate name is TARGET CORPORATION.
More on this later…
≈
Ownership?
≈
Just like the Birth Certificate, anytime you “register” anything with the state, you are assigning ownership of that thing over to the state. This is why the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), through the private municipal code-enforcement police force, can take your vehicle at any time they see fit. Your consent was given for this as soon as you signed the authorized signature line of your registration forms. But even before that, you learned these codes set up by the state, and you acquired a license to drive, signing away your God-given common law right to travel in lieu of permission from the state to drive on the authorized signature line. That license gave your consent to the state, county, and municipal corporations to enforce those traffic codes upon you, as you are the carrier of your artificial person (STRAWMAN) – your corporate “person” – that you carry with you like a veil of invisible clothing. The word incorporate indeed stems from the Latin word corpus, meaning to veil something in artificial person-hood. This is what a corporation is: an artificial person, with 1st amendment rights of free speech due to precedent set by private corporate courts (the laughably titled Justice System) over the years.
So that I am making myself clear, the “Authorized Signature” line is on most contracts and even on your own personal or business checkbook. When they say, “sign on the dotted line”, they are referring to this “dotted” authorized signature line. But if we look closer, this is not a line at all. If you take a magnifying glass out and look at the line where you place your signature on your personal checks, you will discover a frightening surprise… That dotted line actually says:
By signing that line as a free and natural human being with a soul, you are authorizing your STRAWMAN corporate “person” to engage in commerce within the corporation, using Federal Reserve Notes out of your checking account.
What do Federal Reserve Notes have to do with this transaction?
Remember, when you were born, and then more importantly when you received a Social Security Number (SSN), you became collateral for the good faith and credit of the United States Government; for the corporation acting as the De Facto government.
De Facto means “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” -or– “in practice or actuality, but without being officially established.” – For example: the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law (only presumed law by consent of the two parties in the contract). This is our government… a corporation not allowed or not being operated under the jurisdiction of law, but only by its own legal CODE, of which requires the consent of the governed (the contracted citizens). These CODES are like the codes at your job: if you don’t like the rules, you quit.
De Jure means “what the law says” -or- “concerning the law”. It is the common, natural law and it is the basis of a constitutional republic. The original constitution for the united states of America was indeed a De Jure common law consensu al contract. But as we discussed earlier, that piece of paper was suspended and a fictional corporate constitution was enacted in its place by a dictatorial De Facto Executive government.
If you look at the back of your Social Security card (a unit of the International Monetary Fund – IMF) you will find a set of digits. These digits are different from the ones that make up your SS#. This one starts with a letter and is followed by 8 numbers instead of 9.
Now look at any $1 dollar bill…
Notice that the serial number that is on the front lower left side of that Federal Reserve Note has one letter and 8 numbers, followed by another letter. Drop the last letter, and you have a dollar bill whose serial number matches a Social Security (CUSIP) number for some STRAWMAN in the United States.
Your STRAWMAN trust is used as this collateral. This serial number represents the corporate trust account of your STRAWMAN that was set up when you were birthed into artificial person-hood, as accessed by your Social Security Number.
Since all contracts you sign on the authorized (STRAWMAN) signature line represent Federal Reserve Notes, and since all commerce you enter into is also using this debt money system, your are contracted with the state and its taxes by consent when using these “U.S. Dollars”.
When you go to a bank and sign a loan application, that application and the promissory note that you sign gets turned into money via the fractional reserve system. This is how new money is created. It is not money, in reality, but rather what is called “evidence of debt”. This simply means that each Federal Reserve Note, digital or paper, is the debt of the country. It must be paid back to the FED as this money was created or borrowed by the people (chattel). So instead of money, we carry around debt papers; I.O.U’s if you will, all representing one STRAWMAN or another…
Thus, since the (property) home or automobile you have purchased is with that newly created money out of your STRAWMAN trust account through the fractional reserve banking system, it is the property of the state!
It is important to understand here what the government has defined as “property”, and why it grants itself the authority to seize the property of any citizen who contracts with it:
“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 mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”—Senate Document No. 43,73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933
This is a very revealing senatorial document. It sheds light on the concept of government and its requirement of permission and licenses. It also explains why all property must be registered with the state.
Who owns all property? Who owns the home and the land it sits on that you call your own? Who has the authority or permission to mortgage property?
“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”–Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.
≈
Do You Need A License Or Permit To Drive, Hunt, And Fish?
≈
According to the state, which holds your “STRAWMAN” in contract, you do, as you are the legal representative of that fictional “STRAWMAN” signing on the authorized signature line of all contracts.
Your contract (license and registration) with DMV is the very reason why you must obey the codes set up by the DMV.
And your hunting and fishing license is a contract in which you give up your natural and common law right to hunt and fish and instead accept not only the permission (permit), but all the legalities, limits, and seasons imposed by the state though that contract.
But what about my new friend Joe? Remember Joe?
Since Joe is a free man not driving but living and traveling on the land without intentionally being contracted with the private corporation we know as the De Facto government, he does not need a permit or license to do what free men like himself have the right to do.
This is the difference between a God-given right and a state-granted privilege.
Rights are foolishly and contractually given up for this state permission.
Traveling is a lawful term. Driving is a legal term.
Traveling is a right. Driving is a privilege.
But of course, the corporate De Facto police still harass and write citations for Joe, despite the fact that he has no license plate number or driver’s license number to reference on the ticket or citation, nor a permit number to reference for anything he does, like hunting and fishing. And so this is a real conundrum. For Joe is one of many thousands of brave individuals acting as free men (and women) across this once free country. And sadly, Joe has no support from the rest of the indentured slaves, who have come to value their particular brand of servitude under contract to the state. People – corporate persons – actually self-police their code-enforced society and turn in people like Joe to the code-enforcement officers as if he is breaking the law! This is only due to the fact that most corporate persons (citizens of UNITED STATES INC.) do not know what law is, because corporate government legality and CODES have been laid over the law; a thinly veiled yet heavily enforced set of rules that go against everything a free and constitutional society in a republic form of government should stand for.
They have been spun by the mainstream media, and even by much of the alternative media, that democracy is freedom. The word republic has long disappeared from public media discourse. Of course, since a republic ensures that all people are represented in government and in common law as free men, no matter how small the minority is – even a minority of one – a democracy ensures that a certain percent of the population up to 49.99% must submit to the will of the “vote” of the other 50.01%. So in a democracy, 1 – 50% of the people can have their rights taken away by the other half.
And this is called freedom?
Of course, these people who are on the legal majority side are the people who turn in other people for not obeying the legal CODES that they blindly follow, mistaking these legalities as laws. They vote what their media tells them. The minority, in this case Joe, is harassed, cursed, condemned, and cast out as insane. Thus, the democratic process is complete.
The republic for which Joe still stands will always be there though, despite the veil of corporate governance that has usurped the beauty of that free republic. And Joe will never give his consent to this democracy… the duped voting and consenting public who are strangled and blinded by their STRAWMAN.
≈
Joe Goes To Court!
≈
Now that we have a grasp on what the “STRAWMAN” is and that as contracted corporate persons we are conducting all business within this De Facto presumed law government, let’s talk about what a court is.
In California and some other states, through the freedom of information act, this is a proven reality. In fact, the judge is the owner of that court, rents that court out in an official capacity to the city, county, or state for a multi-million dollar lease, and even write checks on dummy accounts that are not registered with the IRS.
The private corporate court earns a percentage of the amount of money it collects in fines, and also receives kickbacks by placing citizens in prison or on probation. All prisoners are assigned a CUSIP number based on that prisoner’s STRAWMAN trust. This CUSIP # is then bundled up with other CUSIP numbers and sold as bundled securities on the securities markets. These are bundled persons. Prisoners are commodities for which the fruit of their labor is traded. This is why jails are overflowing, and why so many people get unsupervised probation for so many months. Probationary status is still a form of incarceration, and community service is often assigned. People on probation receive the CUSIP number as well, and are bundled just like the in-house prisoners.
Obviously, this is a racket! But as slaves of the corporation, used as chattel and collateral, we are subject to this tyranny by consent.
By simple definition, what is a Secured Party Creditor (SPC)?
Joe placed all of his valuables, including his home, land, automobiles, and other property of value (only property without liens) into SPC status. This simply means that Joe, at the signing of this UCC1 form, rescinded his contracts with the state and became the true owner of his own property. He went from being a debtor to the state (where the state owns his property and allows him to use his home and vehicle with permission and license after being registered to the state), to being a creditor for himself (where Joe legally and lawfully owns his property himself without the requirement to register it with the state or to get permission or license from the state to use and operate his own property).
So now, by owning the property listed in his Secured Party Creditor document, no contract is needed with the state in the form of a license to drive (Joe is traveling freely by law, not driving).
Joe has no driver’s license, no license plates, no registration, and no insurance.
Most of the enslaved debtor chattel would hear this and gasp, thinking that Joe is “getting away with something” here. That’s only because the enslaved masses have never truly met anyone that is actually responsible for his own actions, a truly free man on the land. Joe is not getting away with anything. Joe is taking the law into his own hands and squashing corporate legality under his big toe!
And since Joe has no driver’s license number, nor a license plate number, the police have a very tough time writing Joe an infraction (ticket). Since he is not operating within the vehicle code and is not able to be tracked by the DMV and legal system, cops get really confused. You see, cops do not know much about law. They only know CODE. And so when Joe comes traveling through their municipality with his homemade plates that say “Private Property, Not For Hire”, they have no reference point to justify a ticket. They get really confused and even angry without really knowing why. How can they write a ticket for breaking a legal code if a man is not bound or contracted to follow those codes? In escence, Joe is challenging their authority, and they don’t like that.
I accompanied Joe on one of his court dates in front of one of the most corrupt “Justice Courts” in the County of Salt Lake. This was the West Valley Justice Center, presided over by one Judge Keith Stoney, accused wife-beater. This guy looked and acted like an evil Dick Cheney, which is saying a lot. And, after watching several other cases before Joe where this fake judge stole hoards of cash in the 10’s of thousands from the people attending their court dates, and after actually hearing this crook say to one of the defendants as he slammed down his gavel in a fit of unholy rage and undue authority, “You owe me $900 dollars!”, the slick public prosecutor called for Joe.
Now, before the official court session was started, the bailiff announced to the courtroom to “all rise” for the honorable Judge Stoney, to which everyone in the courtroom acquiesced. That is, except for Joe and I. We remained seated, as we did not wish for the court to construe that we consent to or acknowledge the court’s or the judge’s jurisdiction or authority. This “judge” was neither honorable nor in a position of power over us, and our insolent act of remaining seated was the first step in acknowledgment of that fact. Every effort was made to never enter into any type of contract or admission of guilt or loss of authority. Joe is the authority over the judge, not the other way around. Only a jury of Joe’s peers in a common law court accepted by Joe can have that kind of authority. This was one of the purest acts of non-consent.
Joe, who has Multiple Sclerosis and uses two canes, was sitting in the front row of seats just outside of the “Bar”. The Bar is the wall (generally a wooden fence which may have a gate) between the seats in the courtroom and the actual court. Once you cross over the Bar from the seating section and into the court, you have just entered into a foreign land. This is the jurisdiction of Universal Commercial Code and Maritime Law, as represented by the war flag with gold fringe hanging in every courtroom. Crossing the Bar is the first step to loosing your common law rights; by leaving the constitutionally defined state‘s free land and lawful jurisdiction and entering into the court’s legal UCC jurisdiction.
Joe never crossed the Bar…
He told the judge that he could conduct himself in the seat that he was sitting in, and that getting up and entering into the court was too much of a hardship for his handicap. This was his angle; it was true, and it worked.
Judge Stoney, having previously received written Statements Of Notice from Joe that he would sue the judge for his bond if he proceeded in any unlawful and non-common law way with his case, considering that Joe was not contracted with the state, did not argue with Joe. Joe gave the judge an out, and the judge decided to take that out. All of this happened without even a spoken word, and without even the slightest clue of anyone else in that courtroom, attorney’s included. Because attorney’s don’t know law either, only corporate legality and CODE.
So Joe never really entered into the courts’ or the judges’ jurisdiction, either physically or verbally!
Note: Joe was making a “special appearance“, and definitely not a “general appearance“. Please research on your own what these terms mean. They may save your liberties some day:
“When a plaintiff sues a defendant, the plaintiff chooses the court in which to bring the suit. However, that court may not be able to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. A special appearance provides a method for a defendant to contest a court’s jurisdiction over his person and property.” (Very important!!!)
“When a defendant makes a special appearance in court, he does not appear in the court, but stipulates that his appearance is strictly for the purpose of contesting the court’s personal jurisdiction over him. The defendant will be able to engage with the court in a debate over the validity of his contacts with the state, but he may not open any other subject or the court may consider him to be making a general appearance, and therefore subject to jurisdiction.”
“Courts have ruled that a general appearance by the defendant constitutes purposeful availment and thus justifies exercise of jurisdiction. A defendant makes a general appearance when he shows up in that forum state’s court for the purposes of answering the plaintiff’s claim. Because a general appearance indicates the defendant’s willingness to have the court adjudicate the dispute (and thus the defendant’s use of the benefits and protections of the state), making a general appearance in a state court will subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in that state.”
Note: This is where most people slip up, by accidentally entering into contract and jurisdiction with the court by agreeing with the judge about something. It could be the simple act of sitting down or taking off their hat when the judge asks them to, or answering to the STRAWMAN name without stating that you are not that corporate person, all of which can be legally construed as an acknowledgment of understanding (standing under) the judges authority and jurisdiction. Thus, the judge rules that their appearance is now a “general” one, and they are stuck in the courts jurisdiction. Be careful!!!
When asked for a plea, Joe said that he didn’t want to plea, and added for fun that he didn’t understand why he needed to.
Entering a plea is an admission of guilt… or it is an automatic ticket to a future trial with anot guilty plea. Either way, you would be in the courts jurisdiction through verbal or signed contract (plea). Some would choose to verbally state on the record that they are “innocent” in lieu of an official plea, referring to the common law constitutional coda that all men are innocent until proven guilty. But Joe simply did not enter a plea, which really makes it hard for the court to continue with its sham of justice.
Next, and this threw me for a loop until I figured out what he was doing, Joe became what I thought was a bumbling idiot… he kept saying that he didn’t understand anything that the judge was telling him. Over and over he stated this. And, after a few obviously half-assed attempts to have a normal court proceeding, the judge set a date for moderation, not trial.
Joe’s continuous response of “I don’t understand” was a well-played defense, and only two people in that courtroom knew what it meant – Joe and the judge!
By stating that he didn’t lawfully understand, Joe never entered into a verbal contract with the judge. He never accepted or acquiesced to anything that was said in that courtroom, making no verbal agreements.
You see… the word understand needs to be taken apart and examined before its true legal meaning can be comprehended.
To under-stand is really to stand under.
By stating that he understood anything that the judge said in that courtroom, Joe would have been stating that he stands under the courts authority and jurisdiction. This obviously means something totally different than it does in everyday conversational situations, and there is good reason for that…
For when a corporate code-enforcement officer arrests you and reads you your “Miranda” rights, the last statement he makes is, “Do you under stand these rights as I have read them to you?”
If you say yes, you have just verbally consented to stand under the authority of the corporation and its code for which this enforcement officer represents, and you have agreed to these so-called “rights” like, “Anything you say can and will be used against you”.
Why would you agree to that?
By saying that you don’t under stand, these rights can not be applied to you.
Some free men even go so far as to say that they “over stand” what the judge or police officer is saying, leaving no doubt for the record that their acquiescence and consent to the authority of the corporation is not forthcoming.
And so Joe never bowed to or acknowledged the authority of the court, and never stood under that authority.
When presented with paperwork to sign (an order to appear later), he signed his Secured Party Creditor name. But over the top of his signature he wrote the following statement:
“All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice.”
This simple phrase does exactly what it says: it reserves all of your rights when you sign any agreement, traffic violation, or any other type of contract, private or public, and essentially makes the contract null and void at any time you so choose in the future. In other words, by signing “All Rights Reserved” you are retaining all of your common law rights that might otherwise be given away in that contract. And one of those rights is to not be bound by an unlawfully presented or later misrepresented contract that is unconstitutional or against your right of refusal. Adding “Without Prejudice” brings home the statement, reinforcing the fact that ALL rights are reserved, without exception.
Joe went to court the next day too, and he used the same language.
He got that case postponed for moderation, not trial as well!
Sadly, all of the other people in these courts admitted guilt 9 times out of 10. The court clerk even handed out papers that stated, “If you sign this, you are giving up your constitutional rights”. So before they even saw the judge, they had already marked the guilty or no contestbox and signed their name on the Authorized Signature Line, meaning that they acknowledge that their STRAWMAN was guilty of breaking the CODES of the municipal corporation and that they would have to pay the fines, go to jail, or endure probation at the judge’s whim on behalf of their STRAWMAN. It was a sad thing to see, with so many uneducated people signing their rights away as if it was somehow lawful, or for that matter, normal.
It should be noted here as well that all of these people who showed up that day for traffic court were by default of their ignorance of the law making a “general appearance” and sealed this fate the second they signed that form.
≈
The Manufacturers Statement of Origin
≈
Now you may be wondering why Joe was able to just walk right out of that court without contract, without making a plea, and without being arrested.
Since most of these “violations” of CODE revolved around traffic rules and regulations of the VEHICLE CODE, let’s talk about what happens when an brand new automobile is purchased.
For new “vehicles” that are manufactured at the huge conglomerate auto-makers, a special title is created that will never be seen by the consumer who purchases that vehicle through STRAWMAN contract from the dealer. When a car, truck, or SUV is delivered to each dealer this title, called the Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO), is delivered along with it. This MSO is very much like a birth certificate, in the fact that it is never actually in the possession of the actual STRAWMAN who believes he or she is the owner of the property. When the vehicle is sold, the dealer is required by law (legal code) to send this MSO to the state, where it is digitally cataloged and destroyed. A few weeks later, a certified copy of the Certificate Of Title, never the original copy of the MSO, is sent to the human representing the STRAWMAN, listing him or her as the operator of that vehicle. But the MSO is always held by the state, making it the true property owner. It then grants permission to drive that vehicle to the corporate person, as stated above through licensing.
Sadly, since car dealers are corporations registered with the state themselves, and bound by state regulations and legalities in order to stay in business, they are required to send this MSO to the state government. If they do not, they will simply loose their license to do business in that state.
Now you might finally understand why all of the DMV and state paperwork is insistently done at the dealership, and why you must pay the filing fees on the spot, as a “tax”. This is, after all, very well organized crime we are talking about!
To bring this point home again, you are not the owner of your property, your home or vehicle. You are a tenant. You have permission to operate the state’s vehicle and live in the state’s home and on the state’s land. And the state may take its property at any time.
Ah, but that brings us back to our friend Joe and many more like him around the country and the world…
Since Joe is a Secured Party Creditor, Joe has taken ownership away from the state and placed it into his own trust through his UCC1 filing, and then notified the government of this fact multiple times. And because Joe has rescinded his driver’s license and removed the states license plates from his lawful property, he is now a traveler – free to lawfully travel on all public roads without the burdens and tyranny of legal CODE. With no license and no other contracts, the court and the evil Cheny-esque judge simply have no authority over Joe. He is not contracted with them. He is not bound by their CODES anymore. He is free from corporate legalities. And there is no jurisdiction over a free man without his consent.
But they still pull Joe over and harass him, of course. This can really be attributed back to the slave issue we spoke of above. The code-enforcement officers are the worst kind of slaves, because they steal the freedoms of and bash the heads in of other slaves without questioning why, sometimes enjoying the false power. They are what was once called the house-negro or the house-slave. Give even a conscious slave just a little bit of authority, and he will use that authority over the rest of the slaves just as harshly as his masters. This is the story of the largest and most violent street-gang in America… the collective Municipal Police Departments.
As an example of what this gang is capable of, Joe told me a story that quite frankly really got my goat. Because he didn’t like any of the local corporate churches masquerading as 501(c)3 non-profits – branches of the for-profit incorporated main church, very much like bank branches – Joe decided to build his own church on the vacant lot beside his house, on his own property.
After building and completing this church, he named it appropriately enough, “the unincorporated church of our Lord and savior“. Notice that the name of this church was not capitalized, because this church was not incorporated! But Joe didn’t request any permits or for that matter even notify the municipality (city) of his plans to build this unincorporated church on his own property. Since his home was now in his own Secured Party Creditor-ship, these codes that required a permit were lawfully and legally not applicable.
But when the city found out about this non-taxable, non-corporately controlled house of worship, they sent out the code-enforcement team which, without Joe’s consent, entered his private property and bulldozed his church down into a pile of unrecognizable refuse. They didn’t even remove the wreckage, just leaving it there as a reminder of Joe’s enslavement.
Joe was pretty sure that one or more of his neighbors had actually tattled on him, probably worried about their property values going down, which is the most ironic part of this story. The slaves that live in government-owned homes, who falsely believe in such a thing as property values more than personal liberty and freedom (and that their homes are even their own property), were the ones who self-policed themselves and instigated the tearing down of a house of worship.
This is a real eye-opener… I mean, how well do you know and trust your neighbors. If they watch shows like “Law and Order”, which has nothing to do with law or order, you may be their future victim!
I’d say that God’s Law was broken in a big way on this day.
≈
Some Dare Call It Anarchy!
≈
Now some might say that this freedom thing is akin to anarchy...
But again, this is an illogical fallacy, brought on by way too much TV. The unreasonable and illogical thought that freedom can only equate to anarchy is proof of the government’s propaganda machine in action.
When you as an American, who are used to the customs and traffic rules and regulations of this country, then travel to Europe, do you insist on driving on the right side of the road even though everyone else there drives on the left side of the road? No. You practice the customs of that society, being a responsible human. Do you murder, rape, and pillage while on safari in Africa in a small uncharted village just because there is no law or authority that says you can’t? The government and its police and armies might, but again, no you don’t. You enjoy the cultural beauty and freedom of an untarnished people free from the legal constraints of corporate CODE. And if you lived amongst these people, you would adapt to their ways in order to live together peaceably and for the benefit of the community.
We slaves are so afraid of freedom that we think it is the end of the world. We think that without legal CODE, we cannot have law.
But in truth, there is only one basic law. That law is commonly referred to as “God’s Law”.
God’s Law simply states that you should do no harm to other people or to the property they own. It’s that simple. That covers just about everything: rape, pillage, theft, murder, violence, persecution, slavery…
Everything else is CODE. And everything else is what is unfortunately not so commonly referred to as a “victimless crime”.
A victimless crime simply means that the particular CODE that was violated had nothing to do with God’s Law. So, no individual person was injured or killed, and/or no individual’s property was harmed or stolen. That covers most of the legalities, statutes, codes, signs, and other rules and regulations that are set in place by our legislators; our slave-masters. These include running a stop sign, smoking a joint, speeding, holding a sign up in a non-free-speech zone, assembling without a permit, walking your dog without a leash, selling flowers out of your home without a business license, walking across the street (jaywalking), panhandling, not paying unjust and un-apportioned taxes, driving without a license, etc. et infinite’…
Fines and fees for these “crimes” have become what the constitution defines as “unreasonable”, and more than most slaves can afford.
Our prison system is full of people who have committed victimless crimes. And as we have discussed above, this is by design. America houses 1 out of every 100 persons in this country in prison. And many more than that are on probation (jail at home). This is profitable beyond measure. There is a very good reason after all, that Dick Cheney and Halliburton got into the profitable private-prison business!
The worst part about this type of victimless crime is that you cannot face your accuser. There is no plaintiff! No one was injured, and no property was damaged, not even the state’s. The only person harmed is the corporation called government. Making an illegal u-turn is not part of God’s Law. There is no victim!
Note: When referring to “God” we are referring to the abstract concept that we as human beings with a soul answer to a higher authority than government. This is the basis for the freedom of religion. Your belief in God, whichever one of the 1000’s of God’s out there, is not necessary for religious freedom. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of Christianity. Remember, all minorities, even religious ones, must have representation (protection) under a republic form of government. This is one of the most important constitutional (God-given) rights there is. And unfortunately, it is one of the most corporately abused, as a collective religious, non-profit crime syndicate.
Law is always a part of any society, be it through custom or common acquiescence. But only law – not the for-profit tyrannical codification of every facet of life.
And Joe would certainly agree!
≈
Accepted For Value (A4V)
≈
One last thing… Because we have been used as collateral for the credit and printing of Federal Reserve Notes in America without a real choice, you have the right of seeking a remedy for that use of your STRAWMAN’s trust fund.
Accepted For Value (A4V) is a term that describes the offsetting of a STRAWMAN’s debt. Your corporate person-hood, your STRAWMAN, is where all of your contracts and debts are assigned. They are attached to your Social Security Number; your slave number. They are not attached to you as a living breathing human being with a soul. It is very important to distinguish between the two.
Our friend Joe has been successfully using A4V to pay such things as property taxes, loans payments, and other debts for many, many years. Others have used it for student loans, home payments, credit card payments, and many other types of loans and monetary contracts.
Here’s a simple explanation of how it works:
Step 1) You receive a bill from a corporation. (This is not to be used for purchases!) All businesses are incorporated in some form, and are conducting contractual commerce with your STRAWMAN. Otherwise, YOU would not be receiving a bill.
Step 2) You turn that bill (debit) into a check (credit) by stamping accepted for value in red, and signing in blue. (Seek experienced instruction, as this has to be done exactly right.) If you look at a bill that you have received from a corporation and then set it side by side with a paycheck that you receive from the corporation that you work at, you will see that they are set up in very much the same way. The top 2/3 of the bill is an explanation of what is being charged, and the bottom 1/3 is a debit in the form of a “payment stub”. But the paycheck is exactly the same, accept that the top part is an itemization of gross payment, taxes, and net income, and the bottom portion is a credit in the form of a check payable to you from the corporation. By following exacting instruction, you are simply changing that bill (the debit payment stub) into a check (a credit from your STRAWMAN trust account)… Accepted For Value is stamped across the bill, your SS# without dashes, your SS# with dashes, Your STRAWMAN name, your human name, and finally your signature in blue ink (not necessarily in that order).
Step 3) You send that bill, now an accepted for value check, into the IRS. The IRS is backed up with A4V claims, as many folks are now comprehending what I am telling you here.
Step 4) After this A4V is finally processed, the debit is taken from your STRAWMAN “trust account” as human collateral (chattel) and sent as a credit (a check from the IRS) to the corporation that sent you the bill in the first place.
Step 5) That corporation cashes the check (credit) to pay off your STRAWMAN’s original debt, your debt to that creditor has now been offset.
Now, understand that the IRS is actually happy to do this because it just created credit money into the economy instead of debt money. It accessed the money in your trust without having to rely on a bank to create a note. And as I understand it, it cannot access this trust account any other way.
This works for anything as far as I can tell, but it cannot be used to purchase items. This is to offset already assigned and existing debt. So going out and purchasing a $100,000 car and then trying to pay the car off in a month or two could be considered a misuse of this remedy. This is not for stupid or greedy people. This is for people who wish to save their homes from greedy banks. This is for people that are honestly seeking a remedy for the ridiculous costs of higher education. This is for people who fell for the bank and credit industry’s usurious predatory methods to trap them in high interest credit cards and collateralized loans with no other way out. This is not so that you can buy a new BMW and pay it off in a month. Those idiots who can’t comprehend justice and remedy, let alone responsibility, are doomed to become a victim of their own greed, and will joyfully be able to visit the rest of the victimless criminals in prison.
If this doesn’t make sense to you, then think of it this way…
What do you think happens when you declare bankruptcy? Only incorporated entities can declare bankruptcy. What do you think is happening when you make this declaration? You are declaring that your STRAWMAN corporation is so far in debt that you as the caretaker of that corporation cannot any longer pay that debt. So you are offsetting all of that debt attached to your corporation and starting over with a clean slate. Do you think these companies are loosing money because you declare bankruptcy? Of course not. They don’t care one way or the other. Whether they write off the debt or collect the debt, they will still make their money. And by the time they add fees, late fees, transfer fees, 3 month collection fees, interest fees, and any other type of fee they can imagine, they end up making more off of a charged-off account than they do in a successful collection.
This is the unethical UCC form of business that has engulfed our world. It is not pretty. It is not nice. In fact it is pure evil. But as long as it is in place, you may as well know what your defenses and remedies are for being forced to live in it.
For a more detailed look at A4V and STRAWMAN issues, go to the following sites:
After many encounters with different folks who are walking the walk in the Secure Party Creditor/Free Man/Sovereignty movement, I am sorry to say that this is not a figment of my imagination. I hope that somehow a support group can be started so that all of these people from across the country, who are each using only parts of the whole puzzle, can come together and create a definitive collection of legal remedies for this seemingly endless maze of a legal mess. And I hope that whoever does this isn’t just trying to make a buck. There is nothing worse in my eyes than a patriot for profit. I hope that this writing helps all who wish to understand the veil of fiction that has been pinned to us all since birth. May your journey be filled with brighter days…
Once again, please do not attempt any of this on just my writing here. This is something that should be studied and perfected before taking the plunge. This is only an attempt to put into basic comprehension what is otherwise a bailiwick of legalese and international enslavement.
And oh, if I have any of this wrong, please don’t hesitate to comment below, so that all can learn from the more astute among us. Mine is only to conceptualize the system, not to spear at the heart.
Somehow, we have all been conditioned to believe that what once was shall always be. We believe that we are a free people, guaranteed our God-given rights declared in the constitution. We believe that when we vote, we are electing representatives of we the people, whom once elected become public servants. We believe that the house in which we live and the land on which we settle is our land, free and clear of our government’s tentacles. And we believe that the laws for which we allow ourselves to be governed by come from a legitimate law making body, with checks and balances and constitutional oversights.
But what if the above perceptions are in fact false?
And what if the reality is that the United States doesn’t even exist at all?
What indeed…
According to Executive Order 12803, signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992, The District Of Columbia – Washington D.C. (neither a state nor a part of the United States) was given the authority to privatize most or all of the infrastructure within the United States. This means that the federal government, or the corporation that acts in lieu of a federal government, can sell any city’s “assets” which were built with tax-payer monies including:
· Roads
· Tunnels
· Bridges
· Electricity supply facilities
· Mass transit
· Rail transportation
· Airports
· Ports
· Waterways
· Recycling/wastewater treatment facilities
· Solid waste disposal facilities
· Hospitals
· Prisons
· Schools
· Housing
E.O. 12803 lists the above as examples of America’s salable and/or lease-able infrastructure. But this is not to be taken as a complete list, as these are just some examples.
E.O. 12803 names this authority in its destructive pages as “Infrastructure Privatization” and states that this power allows for the “…disposition or transfer of an infrastructure “asset” such as by sale or by long-term lease from a State or local government to a private party.“
In a previous blog article, I compared the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto with various Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, Acts of Congress, and other legislation which, under a declared state of emergency (martial law) would put the very items listed above under immediate government control, ensuring the continuity of government (corporate rule). Read here: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-united-states-communist-manifesto/
If we then understand that America’s infrastructure has now been available for sale to foreign nations for 18 years, when E.O. 12803 was signed into law by the treasonous Bush family cartel, we might then get a picture of why everything seems to be getting so expensive and corrupt.
No longer should we be asking why our phone, electric, gas, water, sewage, waste management, tollways, parking meters, public transit, hospital bills, and general operating budgets keep going up-up-up in price… What we should be asking is who owns these once public utilities?
Is it possible that China owns the sewers? Can Mexico actually own our tollways and roads. Is Russia the proud new owner of Nevada?
These are the questions we should be asking…
And when one considers that “Housing” is one of the listed “assets” in the government’s list of examples, one must then ask whether the continued accounts of foreign troops practicing martial law drills across the country might be construed as foreign troops practicing takeover of the land for which they now own. After all, the real estate industry has recently been privatized into government hands. Is it not reasonable to assume that our “housing” includes the land for which those houses call home? And, knowing that your title or deed (you should read yours, especially the small print) states that you do not own the land or home you live in, that you are the tenant, and that it can be taken at any time by the corporate government through eminent domain for any reason, one must ask what will happen when China wants to claim the land for which it has purchased or been given in payment of the national debt.
Are Mexicans illegal immigrants if they are living on Mexico’s land purchased from under our noses through government deed? Could the push in recent years for a multi-cultural mindset and global population in the United States simply be to acclimatize us for the reality of America’s sale and eventual take-over from these foreign entities?
We know that many of our interstates and roadways are already sold. We know that they are part of the N.A.F.T.A. system of inter-continental transport controlled through United Nations sanctions. And we know that Mexico gets tolls that are paid in the United States. So, if these roads are no longer in the public trust, instead being held by private corporations or foreign countries, where do our taxes go that have historically paid for the building and maintenance of this infrastructure? Are we paying taxes for not? Or are we giving our money to non-governmental and foreign corporations?
Why doesn’t the government actually fix the health-care system and start enforcing the safety regulations that supposedly apply to the health-care industry? Perhaps these hospitals aren’t on American soil anymore. Or perhaps the whole codified system of rules and legalities don’t mean a hill of beans. And isn’t it amazing and suspicious that most of our hospitals are packed full of foreign doctors?
Private prisons are plentiful, many owned by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR). Old Dick Cheney must be so proud of his legacy of the privatized prison labor business. And with more than 1% of our population in prison, business is booming. But how does one know if one is still in an American prison, with all of the rights and protections accorded thereof? Is rendition simply taking an American citizen to a foreign-owned prison on foreign land inside of America? So many questions can be answered by applying this Executive Order to the equation…
And finally, are our public schools being sold off to the highest bidder? This should frighten anyone with any sense of behavioral modification and the early childhood educational programing that takes place in our schools today. Considering the multi-cultural bias in most and the allowance of Spanish as a first language in some schools, we good little citizens must pause and wonder if our natural-born children aren’t indeed attending a foreign school in the middle of America!
These are scary thoughts indeed. But we should be asking these questions, and demanding answers for them. For at this point, if it is true that the United States of America ceased to exist long ago, then we have no legitimate government. We are in actuallity living in a fictitious corporate state opperating under the illusion of freedom and democracy, with no constitution in sight. Our independence is gone, as is our sovereignty. We are a people with no homeland. We have been sold out by our “trusted leaders”.
In reality, the international banks and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is our government.
Here are a few other facts about the United States, referenced and stated simply. Check them yourself. And for more intense reading on these subjects, go here: http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/index.html
1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)
2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)
3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)
4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)
5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of operating under bankruptcy its finally over. (Executive Order 12803) Do not personate one of the creditors or share holders or you will go to Prison.18 U.S.C. 914
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United States government. Even though the “US Government” held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)
7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites above)
8. There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
9. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178) 10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)
11. We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World Monetary System. (Get the Disks)
12. The UN is a One World Super Government. (Get the Disks)
13. No one on this planet has ever been free. This planet is a Slave Colony. There has always been a One World Government. It is just that now it is much better organized and has changed its name as of 1945 to the United Nations. (Get the Disks)
14. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that “New York City was the capital of the World” and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)
15. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.)
16. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)
17. You own no property, slaves can’t own property. Read the Deed to the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
18. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502)
19. The Revolutionary War was a fraud. See (22, 23 and 24) 20. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
21. You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of The City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. V. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.)
23. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)
24. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)
25. A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209)
26. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)
27. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)
28. The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)
29. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children.(Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
30. Military Dictator George Washington divided the States (Estates) into Districts. (Messages and papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg. 99. Webster’s 1828 dictionary for definition of Estate.)
31.” The People” does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
32. The United States Government was not founded upon Christianity. (Treaty of Tripoli 8 Stat 154.)
33. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.
34. Everything in the “United States” is For Sale: roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water, prisons airports etc. I wonder who bought Klamath lake. Did anyone take the time to check? (Executive Order 12803)
35. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037)
36. The UN has financed the operations of the United States government for over 50 years and now owns every man, women and child in America. The UN also holds all of the Land in America in Fee Simple. (Get the Disks for the Essay and Documents.)
37. The good news is we don’t have to fulfill “our” fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another’s fictitious obligation. (Get the Disks)
38. The depression and World War II were a total farce. The United States and various other companies were making loans to others all over the World during the Depression. The building of Germanys infrastructure in the 1930’s including the Railroads was financed by the United States. That way those who call themselves “Kings,” “Prime Ministers,” and “Furor.”etc could sit back and play a game of chess using real people. Think of all of the Americans, Germans etc. who gave their lives thinking they were defending their Countries which didn’t even exist. The millions of innocent people who died for nothing. Isn’t it obvious why Switzerland is never involved in these fiascoes? That is where the “Bank of International Settlements” is located.Wars are manufactured to keep your eye off the ball. You have to have an enemy to keep the illusion of “Government” in place. (Get the Disks and see the Documents for yourself.)
39. The “United States” did not declare Independence from Great Britain or King George. (Get the Disks for Documents and Essay.)
40. Guess who owns the UN? The disks have many more cites including Hundreds of Documents to verify the 40 statements above and numerous other facts. The Disks also include numerous Essays written by Stephen Ames and several other people that fully explain the 40 above mentioned facts. The Disks will clear up any confusion and answer any questions that you may have. The cites listed above are only the tip of the iceberg. Also included on the Disks are several hundred legal definitions because without them it is next to impossible for the non-lawyer to understand many of the Documents. Simple words such as “person” “citizen” “people” “or” “nation” “crime” “charge” “right” “statute” “preferred” “prefer” “constitutor” “creditor” “debtor” “debit” “discharge” “payment” ‘law” “United States” etc, do not mean what most of us think because we were never taught the legal definitions of the proceeding words. The illusion is much larger than what is cited above.
There is no use in asking an Attorney about any of the above because: “His first duty is to the courts…not to the client.” U.S.v Franks D.C.N.J. 53F.2d 128. “Clients are also called “wards of the court” in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.”Spilker v. Hansin, 158 F.2d 35, 58U.S.App.D.C. 206. Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind. Davis Committee v. Lonny, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190. Did you get that? An Attorneys first duty is not to you and when you have an Attorney you are either considered insane or an infant.
This post, which is now over 6 years old, signifies my first flirtation with the STRAWMAN concept of personhood. I invite you instead to read a free copy (.pdf) of my new book, released June 17th, 2016, by going to this link –> StrawmanStory.info
I leave this post up for posterity, a glimpse into my own former ignorance, and wish readers to know that my knowledge has increased two-fold since this was written, and I do not, I repeat, do not in any way support the SPC or other commercial routes. Please read my book, for what is missing in this post.
Its title is: “STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person.”
When printed, the cover will look something like this:
Be sure and check out Part 2 of “Killing Your STRAWMAN 2: A Free Man’s Chronicle”
I would also highly recommend these two sites for further evidence that indeed, the United States is in bankruptcy, via The Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent, and H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933.
*** Note: This is an audio blog as well – that I am testing out. You may click above to listen. Also, it takes a minute or so to load the file. Please leave a comment if you like this option…
I must admit as I write this today that I was wrong. This doesn’t happen often (me admitting I’m wrong I mean…) and so historical notation might be suggested.
You see, I’ve been studying the law: constitutional, maritime, Universal Commercial Code (UCC), common law, etc, and I am absolutely astounded at what I have uncovered.
I’ve learned there is a huge difference between what is lawful and what is legal.
I’ve learned that the courts must always follow the law above what is legal.
And I’ve learned that the courts, judges, attorneys, and even police officers usually follow legal procedure, but not necessarily the law.
What does this all mean? Well, to put it simply, it means the difference between what is a right and what is a privilege. It means the difference between living as a free man with God-given rights and living as an indentured, indebted corporate slave with privileges granted by the state. And it means that any one of us at any time can use the law to release ourselves from legal requirements and legal (but not lawful) debt.
And this is the very thing I was wrong about. For in my previous post I did not understand the full extent of the law, nor of the corporate structure of not only the U.S. government, but of our very lives and how they relate to this corporate government. And so, I am going to rectify that now.
By understanding the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reporting system (CAFR), and how all corporations including our government must report their monetary holdings and investments, you will then be able to understand what I’m about to tell you now. And my apologies to anyone who thought that I had belittled this information with my previous post, but with the disclaimer that I still believe that this freeman status still depends on the current system of government to be in place for the protection of these basic God given rights, until such system be replaced or removed with a viable replacement – that simply being the true Republic of America kicking out the corporation that has us all in a stranglehold thru taxation, collateral, and debt.
On that note, I’d like to share what I’ve learned about what freedom actually is, and what the constitutional liberties and the pursuit of that freedom (that most of us take for granted) really means.
Let’s start with a little history lesson that came as quite a shock to me…
This country is in its fourth (4th) bankruptcy since its humble beginnings. Huh?
1. The first (1st) bankruptcy was officially declared in 1791. This was a time of many changes in America. Perhaps most notable of these, was the signing of the Bill Of Rights representing the first ten amendments to and the final passing of the Constitution for the United States, which happened December 15th of that year, shortly after our first bankruptcy. This is of course significant as our God given rights are solely dependent on this document, though they were generally accepted common law rights throughout the world long before America existed.
During each bankruptcy, a war is fought (the revolutionary war in this case) and a new form of currency is always established, since the old one becomes essentially worthless in the new corporate re-structure of each bankruptcy. With the new country, came new money. Several monetary systems were proposed for the early Republic of America. Congress approved the first dollar on August 8, 1786. Once passage of the U.S. Constitution was secured, and the 1st bankruptcy and restructuring was in motion, the secretary of the treasury Alexander Hamilton turned the government’s attention to monetary issues once again in the early 1790’s. On Hamilton’s recommendations, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which established the dollar as the basic unit of accounting for the United States. At this point, the dollar was still backed by gold.
2. The second (2nd) bankruptcy took place exactly 70 years later, in 1861. The main reason for this is that the restructuring that takes place in a bankruptcy can by law only last or 70 years without being settled. And so in 1861, the country was declared bankrupt once again. Of course there was much more to this planned event in history. As carpetbaggers claimed and stole the land of southern property owners, and the banks and governments bought up land and farmland for pennies on the dollar, the civil war broke out in this year when the southern states began to say no to the northern government and these carpetbaggers. This is often referred to (by southern states especially) as the War Of Northern Aggression. And most southerners will also say that there was certainly nothing civil about the Civil War! And this was quite true when considering that the government is housed in the north (British Columbia and Washington D.C.) and that their aggression was the takeover and corporate restructuring of America. This was not a war over slavery to be sure… and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln happened only after his attempt to depose the central banking structure and establish greenbacks: congressionally printed and controlled money. But in 1863 during the American Civil War, the National Banking Act was passed. This act and its later amended versions essentially taxed states’ bonds and currency out of existence. And so through corporate government legislation in the newly reorganized country, the dollar became the sole currency of the United States (which was still backed by metals then) and remains so in an altered (and worthless) form today.
3. And now we come to the third (3rd) bankruptcy in our countries history, which was 70 years later in 1931. This was the big one. This was the time after the industrial revolution, when population, lawful immigration, jobs, and opportunity were in abundance. The money system was still in real money; meaning trade was done in precious metals like gold and silver coins. Even the paper money was backed by and redeemable for gold and silver at its face value. But, as the anticipated bankruptcy loomed closer and closer, steps were taken by the government to ensure that a new restructuring of the country could take place, ensuring the same bankers and corporate crooks would remain in power. The stock market was deliberately crashed, and the great depression ensued. The population was broke, and their land and property was once again bought for pennies on the dollar by the banks and newly reorganized government. Transfer of wealth is the name of the game, and a new game is played every 70 years.
But during 1933 and 1938, as the reorganization of our government and finance laws took place after most small banks were deliberately collapsed and fell into the holdings of the larger banks, a very important thing happened that changed the landscape of our nation: the gold standard was removed and replaced by the Federal Reserve Note (dollar). The House of Representatives accomplished this when they passed House Joint Resolution 192. This new legislature actually outlawed the use of real money (gold and silver) to pay a debt, actually making it illegal to require real money to pay for a debt. The dollar (now called the Federal Reserve Note) became “legal tender” and was backed by the supposed full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. However, this paper money – or fiat currency – was in fact worthless due to the absence of real money backing its value.
The dollar is nothing more than an IOU, and only has value if both parties in an exchange verbally or contractually accept it as payment for goods and services while remaining under the illusion (or blind faith) that the government or institution which issues this paper has the power, wealth, and credit to back up this currency. In fact, a few years after this third restructure of the U.S, the government mandated the confiscation of all gold from its citizens – and the transfer of land, property and real wealth was accomplished yet again. Many people say that World War II is what seemingly brought the U.S out of the great depression. In fact, many people recognize that in the past America usually prospers in times of war and shortly thereafter.
4. Flash forward another 70 years… it’s now 2001. People are prospering. Goods and services are in abundance. The world was at peace (excepting the military black ops and economic hit man type of destabilization of many countries for strategic and natural resource confiscation). Now any good conspiracy buff might note the interesting and overwhelming coincidence in this being the year of the 4th restructuring of our corporate government. Indeed, one might be even more aghast when one realizes that the anniversary of the last bankruptcy from 70 years ago was in fact September 10, 1931, or the day before the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings 1,2, and 7 along with the supposed “attack” on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. War is both a great distraction and a profitable venture for the corporate world governments, and this obviously isn’t the first time war or false flag events have been used in this manner, as a tool for the restructuring of the U.S. government. And we have watched over the last nine years as the dollar crashed, as the real estate and property bubbles burst and are once again being taken over by our government and banks (in a typical transfer of wealth), a complete corporate takeover of the country – which started about 70 years ago with the introduction of the CAFR system – which is now culminating into the nation being completely owned through collective investment by the government owned corporations… we are about to see the dollar become completely worthless right before our eyes (if it isn’t already) and a new form of U.S. currency or world bank currency will likely take its place – right on schedule!
This is the real U.S. history that isn’t in your textbooks.
Ok. So let’s talk about this corporate structure of government. If you haven’t learned about the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and how it is used in corporation and corporate government reporting, see my article about it here:
Also, to learn from the man himself – Mr. Walter Burien – go to: http://CAFR1.COM.
These resources explain and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. government is indeed a corporation which owns most major and fortune 500 corporations, most of the countries land, utilities, municipalities, parks, golf courses, malls, movie theatres, and so on and so forth.
But let’s talk about who or what the U.S. government really is, besides the most powerful corporation in the world…
So, what is the United States of America?
This is the name of the country in which we all live. It is a collection of 50 unified yet sovereign states which make up the union of the Republic of United States of America.
What is the UNITED STATES?
Ah… now here is where it gets tricky. You see, when a corporation is created, it is always and without exception created using an ALL CAPITAL LETTER name. Thus, while we all live in the United States of America, we are bound by the government of this country, which is the corporation of the UNITED STATES.
For reference and so that there is no doubt of this being true as we continue down the rabbit hole, the definition of the UNITED STATES in Black’s Law dictionary is “…a corporation”. Also, you can look at the UNITED STATES CODE (this being in all capital letters due to its corporate structure representing the codes of the UNITED STATES corporation). The code is: U.S. CODE/TITLE /28/3002/15 (A) (B) (C). These codes state that the UNITED STATES is unequivocally a corporation.
We live in the United States of America, but we do commerce and follow the regulations, statutes, and legalities (which are not actually laws) of the corporate UNITED STATES, for which we are born, or birthed into as debtors and are used as the collateral of this corporation. We are all used as collateral for the government (the corporation) of the UNITED STATES as stated by our Birth Certificate. Because you are a corporate entity of this trust and not a sovereign individual of the Republic, you are susceptible to things like selective service, the draft, income tax, property tax, many other unlawful taxes which only go to fund the corporation and do not in any way fund public interests or services, and other unlawful statutes and rules (which again are not actual laws) like CPS (child protective services) which is in the business of kidnapping children – and even get bonuses for blond haired blue eyed kids, which is why there is such a high turnover rate in that particular job…
Wait a minute! Why am I a corporate entity of the UNITED STATES?
Basically, when my mother and father were married, they signed a marriage contract and received a marriage certificate or license (as did yours and everyone else’s parents, and as did you when and if you were married). If you still have yours, you should get it out and read it.
It states clearly that: The product of this union belongs to the UNITED STATES…
What does this mean, “a product of the UNITED STATES”?
It means that your children are the property of the UNITED STATES. It means that your parents, their parents, your children and your children’s children are or will be a vessel of commerce that is owned by the UNITED STATES corporation. You are an indentured corporate debt slave, who is assigned as collateral for the good faith and credit of the UNTITED STATES as soon as you are born.
And when you are born, you are assigned a corporate number. Actually, because the UNITED STATES commerce laws are in Maritime Law and UCC code, you are really birthed, very much like a ship at sea is birthed into a U.S. port and assigned a number of import. Your birth certificate is that contract. It is a contract that is assigned to you as the product of the union of your mother and father, and it indoctrinates you into the UNITED STATES as collateral and assigns you a trust account in which all of your credit and debt is assigned and allotted.
If you’d like to verify this as accurate, I would invite you to try and retrieve your original birth certificate from the UNITED STATES government. You’ll notice that no matter how many times you try and no matter how much you insist, you will never be able to attain the original document that is your birth certificate. You are, however, imbued the privilege of receiving a certified copy of said certificate. Your original certificate is housed in the District of Columbia, Washington D.C, in the ten mile stretch of land which is the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Understand too, that Washington D.C. is not part of the United States of America, and is a corporate structure completely separate from the rest of the country. In short, it is not one of the 50 United States of America.
The average citizen of the UNITED STATES is assigned a value when he/she is born for collateral and credit purposes. After years of inflation, that trust value is up to about 7 million dollars or so at birth. If you would like to verify how much you are worth as a corporate entity of the UNITED STATES, simply take your birth certificate number into your local stock broker and ask him to look up your number.
We also receive a social security number (a corporate number) for which we conduct trade and commerce and are allowed the privilege to start businesses with… and with which we are legally but not necessarily lawfully taxed.
Whew! Let’s slow down a minute. What is the difference between lawful and legal?
This is very important to understand.
Law – God’s law (whether you believe in God or not) is to do no harm to others or their property. This is the basic definition of law. It is also the definition of freedom, for all men are free under God’s law in the United States of America until the point where we break that law. You cannot break the law unless there is a living victim for which you do harm, or do harm to their property.
Legal – The word legal or illegal is a corporate term used to represent a state of being when related to statutes, rules, codes, mandates, and posted limits that are assigned to you by the UNITED STATES. While something can be unlawful, it can be legal. But remember, law always trumps legality. In the case of something being illegal, no living victim is required under corporate legality, and so the STATE assumes the role of the victim. More on this in a minute…
The Constitution For The United States – is the original document and declaration of independence that was written by our founders.
The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTITED STATES is the legal corporate document that was created by a treasonous Congress in the “Act Of 1871” and which the UNITED STATES continues to fool us all into believing is the same document that our forefathers wrote for our God-given independence. I assure you, it is not. It is a corporate document for a corporation that operates outside of actual constitutional law.
Now, if all of this is alien or too hard to comprehend… believe me I understand. But an easy way to show you how in “the matrix” you really are is this: Go get your wallet, any contracts you’ve signed – like cell phone or rental – any bills you have (which originated with a signed contract or with your social security number), and take out any credit cards or other forms of ID. Now look at your name. Notice it is in all capital letters…
This is your STRAW MAN (unnatural, commerce, corporate) name. Remember, all corporate entities have this capital letter naming structure. This represents the trust account that was assigned to you at birth, and when you were assigned a social security number. This is why the UNITED STATES on your marriage and birth certificate, as well as your name, is printed in all CAPITAL LETTERS. To prove this is true, you can simply take your birth certificate to a stockbroker and have him look up the value of your STRAW-MAN corporate number (the number on your birth certificate). You’ll find that you, or at least your corporate trust, is worth millions or billions of dollars. And if you learn how, you can access that trust account and eliminate all of your debt lawfully, since that debt was a trick of contract by the lending institutions that have already sold that contract. But only if you declare your sovereignty!
You must take the steps to declare yourself a sovereign individual, and declare yourself a “secured party creditor”. But you have a lot of studying to do first. And I’ll update this site as I progress…
What does this declaration of sovereignty do… what benefits does it have?
Whew! Too many to list here…. But here’s one I can’t wait to practice:
Say I run a red light or make an “illegal” u-turn, and a police officer pulls me over. I simply hand him my UCC paperwork, and give him no more than 10 minutes to verify the authenticity of the paperwork and let me go. Because I have declared myself sovereign and immune from the corporation of the UNITED STATES and its rules and regulations, I am not bound by these rules and regulations, nor the fees (taxes) assigned to the violation of them. Lawful and legal are two completely different concepts. I am only bound by God’s law, which is defined as doing anything you what as long as you don’t do any damage to another individual or his/her property – a victim. In the case of making an illegal u-turn, I have not broken God’s law, and there is no living soul as a victim, therefore a police officer that works for the corporate state (UNITED STATES) has no power or jurisdiction over me as a sovereign individual. The victim must be a living, breathing human being. But in the case of traffic rules, the victim is the corporate state, and therefore no individual human being was involved. In other words, no one was harmed by my actions, and so I cannot be detained or fined (taxed) according to the law – which trumps corporate legality. There are no victimless crimes, remember? The kicker is, the reason this is so is because I am on this day not a legal driver but a lawful traveler.
Semantics are everything…
My driver’s license is a permit (not a right, but a privilege) to “drive” for corporate reasons, as in a company car with you being the sub-corporation under the main corporation (UNITED STATES). But as a sovereign individual with God-given rights as afforded by the Constitution For The Untied States, not the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES – as a sovereign individual I am a traveler who is lawfully traveling in the United States Of America, and not a driver who is driving under the corporate auspices and legal permission of the UNITED STATES.
And so if the cop detains me unlawfully, meaning more than 10 minutes, or harasses me in any way by unlawful (but legal under STRAW-MAN names) search, seizure, or slander, I can as a sovereign (not straw-man) individual take the cop to court in what is called a negative averment and sue him for his bond, which is millions of dollars, at which point he will never be able to be bonded again, meaning he can never be an unlawful yet legal cop again. The same holds true with judges and attorney’s, who are legal entities that are bonded by the courts and have no jurisdiction over you in said court unless you are still representing and using only your all-capital name. If your case is not immediately dismissed, you can sue them for their bonds and they will not be attorneys or judges ever again.
By the way… judges are nothing more than glorified attorneys, and therefore have the same bond issuance.
What I’m telling you is that the police, the courts and their judges have no power or jurisdiction over you, and actually you have a higher power than them and can control them, but only if you declare your sovereignty. Everyone else is under their power and jurisdiction simply because they acknowledge that they are in fact the corporate representative of the all capital letter STRAW-MAN name that is on their contracts, licenses, and Id’s.
Let’s talk about attorneys…
Attorneys are cockroaches. They are what you might refer to as corporate yes-men. And you know what? About 70% of our politicians and legislators are BAR attorneys.
So what is an attorney that is a member of the BAR association?
They are employees of the court system (the corporation) of the UNITED STATES and have loyalty only to the courts. They are sworn by oath to uphold the “procedure” (not the constitutional law) of the court system first, always above your needs. They are there to assure that the court doesn’t make a mistake in its legal procedure, where you might win your case, and they are there to ensure continued taxation by fees and decisions.
Never hire a “BAR” attorney. By accepting a BAR attorney to represent you in court, you are literally assigning all of your rights away and admitting incompetence to represent yourself, making you a ward of the court due to mental incapacity. The only exception is an attorney who is not a member of the BAR association.
But what will really blow your mind, and the most devastating element of a BAR attorney is this: The BAR association is located in London, England!
Even more scary is that the small part of London that houses Parliament, the House of Commons, The Crown, and the Bar association is not a part of England or London, but a completely separate state (or country – a corporation), as is Washington D.C. (District of Columbia), and the Vatican in Rome… all independent corporate states.
This ultimately means that an attorney takes an oath to the Queen/Crown of England, meaning the queen and all that she represents. And since judges aren’t really judges, and are actually attorneys, you know where their loyalty lies as well.
And remember, 70% of our higher government officials are attorneys who have sworn allegiance to the Crown, who owns the UNITED STATES, and runs the BAR.
The original 13th amendment to the Constitution for the Untied States says:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
Originally written in 1810, much debate has ensued on whether this amendment was ratified or not. Most constitutional scholars say yes, and point to the senate’s journal for proof of its ratification. Of course, after reading this amendment, who would say no? The answer is… the corporation that is running the show, whose loyalties and oaths lay with the Crown and Queen of England, and not with the people under the United States Constitution. The 13th amendment of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is the “abolition of slavery” amendment. But remember, this is not the real Constitution for the United States, which serves the Republic of America and by which all sovereign individuals who live in God-given freedom adhere to.
I guess its up to you to decide which one of these to follow. And in making the choice to be free, there is only one choice!
For more opinion and fact on the 13th amendment, including a list of politicians and other prominent figures who have taken titles of nobility to the Queen and other countries (including: George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Generals Colin Powel and Norman Schwarzkopf, Alan Greenspan, Rudi Giuliani, and many, many more…) see my rant here:
On a different note, I’d like to give you another reason to declare your sovereignty. But to really understand, we must go back to the subject of money again…
How is money created?
Movies like Zeitgeist are great tools for waking up people to the realities of the monetary system and it’s ownership by the private central banks that make up the Federal Reserve. The Fractional Reserve System indeed allows the banks to create money out of thin air. But this is only part of reality. For the way money is really created is quite astounding, and guaranteed to piss off a lot of honest taxpaying people!
Here we go…
Do you own a home? A car? Do you have a credit card or a student loan?
Well, all of these different types of debt began with you filling out a promissory note (a contract). When this is submitted to the bank, and after an “approval process”, you receive that money by signing this contract. And the bank tells you quite dishonestly that you owe them a debt for that amount of money, and gives you permission to amortize the payment of that loan over a set amount of time, usually 30 years for a mortgage. But, they also charge you interest for this convenient “service”. That means that by the end of those 30 years you’ll probably have paid double if not triple what the actual loan amount was at the signing of the original contract (promissory note).
But there is one thing that the bank is not telling you. One very, very big piece of the puzzle…
Are you ready?
According to the Federal Reserve banks, and printed in their banking rulebooks, money is created when a person (you) signs a contract (promissory note) with a bank.
Huh…?
Let me explain…
Last year I remember hearing about a campaign to protect people from foreclosure by these banks and mortgage companies called “Show Me The Note!” At the time, I did not understand the significance of this simple but effective and protective statement. Now I do…
“Show Me The Note” is quite a valid request. It simply means that you are requesting the original contract (promissory note) that was signed by yourself and the foreclosing bank when the money was created and given to you to buy your home.
But you see… the bank cannot ever produce this note. And here’s why…
The bank sells your note (promissory note or deed) to the Federal Reserve the minute you sign it, and the Fed then gives that bank the amount that it then “loans” to you. Therefore, the bank is at a balance of $0.00 dollars at the point of inception and payment for your loan. Remember, this is how money is “created” according to the Federal Reserve banking rules and regulations.
The problem that these banks have is that they no longer hold the note (title) to your home, because they have already sold it at face value to the Federal Reserve. And in order for a creditor (the bank) to make a claim against the debtor (you), they must in a court of “law” show proof of their claim to collect your supposed debt to them. However, the only proof of their claim for the foreclosure of your home is in fact that original note (promise to pay, promissory note) that you signed, which created the money that enabled the bank to give you that loan in the first place – money out of thin air!
Remember, money is created only when you or I sign a contract to get “credit”. It is the very fact that all of this information is not disclosed to us that makes this contract null and void. Full disclosure must accompany any contract lest it be invalid and unlawful.
Your loan contract was sold to the Federal Reserve (a private corporate central bank) by the bank or mortgage company with whom you signed your contract. It’s gone… vanished… paid off! The Federal Reserve then bundles those deeds (contracts) and sells them as securities and bonds, to countries like China, Russia, and whoever else will buy them. So in essence, China may already own the title to your home, or at least it thinks it does…
And this is why the bank has no lawful grounds to foreclose on you. They do not hold a lawful lean on your home. You owe nothing to anybody! You created that money legally through the bank and Federal Reserve by accessing your trust account assigned to you by the UNITED STATES when they took your freedom and liberty and put your wealth and property at risk starting on the day you were born (birthed).
The principle and interest you pay to the bank is pure profit for the next 30 years, because you signed a contract saying that you would pay that amount with your home and land as collateral. But for a contract to be lawful, there must be full disclosure of these little facts. Since this was obviously not disclosed to you, all of these mortgage and other contracts are null and void. The bank has no contract, no proof of claim against your debt, and no rights to force you to pay them anything.
If this sounds like a copout from paying your bills, remember that the bank never risked anything, and they never gave you a penny of their own money. You did a favor to the banking system by creating new money. You created commerce. Nothing more…
And you are entitled to this money (worthless paper used for commerce) as an indentured citizen of the UNITED STATES who is used as collateral and assigned this value at birth.
And remember… due to the Fractional Reserve Banking System created by the Federal Reserve, the Fed creates 40 times the amount of your “loan” for its use, again making money out of thin air.
I hope that you are beginning to understand that this is another of the biggest scams in the history of scams, and that all bank loans, from credit cards to student loans to mortgages work in this same exact way, secured or unsecured. Again, this is how money is created into the economy, per the rules of the Federal Reserve Bank, the private corporation unaffiliated with our government or our nation, who control our monetary policy and can destroy the value of the dollar at any time the choose.
Do you really feel guilty about reclaiming your piece of the pie?
The only way to truly benefit from this freedom is by declaring your individual God-given rights of sovereignty through a UCC (Universal Commercial Code) filing. You must offset your debt lawfully as afforded you. You must become a Secured Party Creditor.
I cringe when I hear people say they aren’t going to fight the system and instead are going to give up their house. They feel hopeless. They feel like they can’t win…
But the truth is that there was never anything to lose! The bank has no claim!
But, I understand. Most will not buck the system simply because they do not understand the system and how the Constitution for the United States was set up to ensure this type of unlawful action like bank foreclosure can never be done to us. I took me a very long time to come to this comprehension. This is how freedom works, and it only works if you claim it.
This is the forbidden knowledge…
I guess it all boils down to this… What is an education?
If an education is defined as simply four years of partying and getting drunk in a frat house while barely passing the exams of one of the most sub-standard collegial educational systems in the first world (I believe we are 39th on the list) of which most of the information taught is to train us on how to follow these rules instead knowing and learning the actual laws… and if your level of education is defined by the amount of money paid in order to receive a less than prestigious diploma stating grade level and accomplishment… then I am happy to say that I am a college dropout! I am self-educated to the point that normal conversations with doctorate level graduates equate to a conversation with a child who still believes in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny… simply because that is what they are taught in the corporate indoctrination centers that we call schools. Rational thought, self-awareness, and sovereignty is not taught in school. And Law is not the prevailing wisdom in law school.
Then, when you realize that everything you see in the movies, television, and on the news is specifically designed to uphold the illusionary state of unconsciousness that most of us live in regarding our debt slavery, that’s the point where normal conversation as defined by the media driven society becomes unbearable. And fitting in at parties becomes impossible. I’m now the crazy guy… the one talking out of my butt. I’m the one who, despite the beauty, glory, and not to mention the fact of the information I try and relay, I am labeled as the negative one… the downer.
And so now I’m the antisocial one… the one who doesn’t go to parties. The one who cannot do small talk. And I’m the one that cannot keep normal friends simply because normal means brainwashed! And normalcy is not freedom in any way.
The friends I have made are necessarily informed or at least curious, somewhat awake, and want to learn what I have already learned or want to teach what I am seeking to learn. When you do meet these people, you develop a friendship and a trust that is unknown to most; kinship through shared plight.
And to anyone reading this, I have only this to say. I may not know you. You may think that no one really knows you. But I hope that you haven’t reached the point in your life where you’ve given up, where you’ve lost all hope, where learning was something you did as a teenager, and where happiness equates to blissful ignorance. I hope that you wont let these corporate monsters force you to be a victim of this. I hope this reaches you with the spirit it was intended, and I wish for you the best in whatever you do.
A sheep you are not… for you have read this far!
If you would like to learn more about the information I have shared with you here, I would suggest that you seek out this man: Tim Turner. His seminar can be found in the following links, and I would highly recommend that you listen to these and take notes, as if you were in school again. Mr. Turner is a righteous man who practices everything he preaches. This seminar is both enlightening and empowering in its revelations. It’s long, and will take you time to comprehend the power of his message. But it is well worth your time. No amount of money can pay for the knowledge that this man presents here. If you can go to one of his seminars, he will provide all the necessary forms and walk you through the paperwork to claim your sovereignty…
Mr. Turner brings his seminar to a different city every weekend. He has things to say that everyone should hear. His website with the dates and locations of these seminars is here:
*** I am in no way affiliated with Tim Turner. I give you this as a gift that was given to me. This man and many like him want you to know this information, and asks that you pass on this gift to someone else.