Category: Sovereignity

A Guide to Civil Rights

A GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

AN OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT

IAN D. FORSYTHE

Hilyard, Bogan, Palmer & Lockeby, P.A.

105 East Robinson Street, Suite 201

Orlando, Florida 32801

Tel. (407) 425-4251

forsythe@forsythelaw.com

I.           INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY

42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as “section 1983” provides:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added).

Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act” because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so.[1] The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.[2]

The number of cases that have been brought under section 1983 has dramatically increased since 1961 when the Supreme Court decided Monroe v. Pape.[3] In Monroe, the Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting “under color of state law” even though his actions violated state law.[4] This was the first case in which the Supreme Court allowed liability to attach where a government official acted outside the scope of the authority granted to him by state law. Since Monroe v. Pape was decided, an extensive body of law has developed to govern section 1983 claims. This article is intended to provide an overview of that extensive body of law, and will include seminal precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals–a comprehensive study of all law related to section 1983 is beyond the scope of this article.

II.            ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM

(i)            “Every person . . .”

Only “persons” under the statute are subject to liability.[5] A state is not a person subject to suit under section 1983,[6] but a state officer can be sued in his official capacity for prospective or injunctive relief[7] despite the fact that an suit against a government official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government entity itself![8] Despite this logical inconsistency, the current state of the law is that a state may not be sued for damages, but may be sued for declaratory or injunctive relief. Municipalities and local governments are persons subject to suit for damages and prospective relief,[9] but the United States Government is not.[10] Individual employees of federal,[11] state[12] and local[13] government may be sued in their individual capacities[14] for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief.

While the determination of who is a “person” is a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the matter of who has the capacity to be sued is determined by the law of the forum state.[15] Likewise, the law of the forum is to be applied in actions under section 1983 where the law of section 1983 provides no guidance.[16]

(ii)            “. . . who under color of [state law][17] . . .”

The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,”[18] and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state.[19] A private actor may also act under color of state law under certain circumstances.[20] For example, it has been held that a physician who contracts with the state to provide medical care to inmates acts under the color of state law.[21] For all practical purposes, the “color of state law” requirement is identical to the “state action” prerequisite to constitutional liability.[22]

(iii)            “. . . subjects or causes to be subjected . . .”

Section 1983 does not impose a state of mind requirement independent of the underlying basis for liability,[23] but there must be a causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the harm that results.[24] In order to hold a local government liable under section 1983, the Supreme Court has interpreted this causation element to require that the harm be the result of action on the part of the government entity that implemented or executed a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers, or the result of the entity’s custom.[25] Further, the entity’s policy or custom must have been the “moving force” behind the alleged deprivation.[26] This “custom or policy” requirement is a dramatic departure from the rule of respondeat superior that prevails in many common law actions.[27]

A local government is said to have an unconstitutional policy when it fails to train its employees, and the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to an obvious need for such training, and the failure train will likely result in the employee making a wrong decision.[28] An unconstitutional policy may also exist if an isolated action of a government employee is dictated by a “final policymaker,”[29] or if the authorized policymaker approves a subordinate’s decision and the basis for it.[30] However, a supervisor can only be liable in his individual capacity if he directly participates in causing the harm–relying upon respondeat superior is insufficient.[31] The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a plaintiff must meet a heightened pleading standard to state a claim against a municipality for an unconstitutional custom or policy.[32]

(iv) “. . . [any person to] the deprivation of rights . . .”

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, it merely provides a method for the vindication of rights elsewhere conferred in the United States Constitution and Laws.[33] Therefore, a plaintiff may prevail only if he can demonstrate that he was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all of the rights available under the United States Constitution, nevertheless, this article will provide an overview of perhaps the most utilized of all constitutional provisions–the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause [hereinafter “the Due Process Clause”].[34]

The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause was not intended to supplant tort law, or to become “a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the states.”[35] Against this backdrop, to state a claim for a deprivation of Due Process, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he possessed a constitutionally protected property interest; and (2) that he was deprived of that interest without due process of law.[36] Due process property interests are created by “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law–rules or understanding that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”[37] To have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, “a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”[38] While the existence of a protected property interest is decided by reference to state law, the determination of whether due process was accorded is decided by reference to the Constitution.[39] Due process requires that “a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,’”[40] but the state does not have to provide the same remedies available under section 1983 in order to satisfy due process.[41]

In construing the Due Process Clause, the United States Supreme Court has held that negligent acts by state actors do not effect a “deprivation” for the purposes of the Due Process Clause,[42] and the random and unauthorized conduct of a government actor, even if intentional, does not implicate the Due Process Clause if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, such as, for example, a tort remedy in its own courts.[43] However, where the state can feasibly provide a pre-deprivation hearing, it must do so regardless of the post-deprivation remedies available,[44] and in the absence of a special relationship created or assumed by the state, a state’s failure to protect an individual from violence or injury caused by private actors cannot state a violation of the Due Process Clause.[45]

In addition to protection against deprivations of procedural due process, the Due Process Clause has two substantive components–the substantive due process simpliciter, and incorporated substantive due process. In order to state a claim for a violation of the substantive due process simpliciter, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in conduct that was “arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.”[46] This form of due process has very limited application,[47] but, in contrast to certain procedural due process claims,[48] the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies does not bar a substantive due process claim.[49] With respect to incorporated substantive due process, the plaintiff may state a claim by proving a violation of one of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has held that one of the substantive elements of the Due Process Clause protects those rights that are fundamental–rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and has, over time, held that virtually all of the Bill of Rights protect such fundamental rights and has likewise held that they apply to the states through the “liberty” interest of the Due Process Clause.[50] However, the Court has held that when a specific provision within the Bill of Rights already provides protection, the more generalized notion of due process should not be used to define constitutional rights.[51]

In addition to providing a remedy for deprivations of constitutional rights, section 1983 also makes actionable violations of federal “Laws.”[52] A violation of a federal statute is cognizable only when the violation trammels a right secured by federal law.[53] However, a statute is said to create a federal right only when “the provision in question is intended to benefit the putative plaintiff,”[54] unless it reflects merely a congressional preference for a certain kind of conduct rather than a binding obligation on the government unit,[55] or unless the putative plaintiff’s interest is too vague and amorphous such that it is beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.[56]

(v) ” . . . shall be liable . . . in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . “

There is no requirement that the plaintiff sue in federal court because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction,[57] and the usual rule is exhaustion of administrative and judicial state remedies is not a prerequisite to a section 1983 action.[58] Also, the existence of concurrent state remedies is not a bar to a section 1983 action.[59] With respect to the extent of damages available, the Supreme Court has noted that the basic purpose of a section 1983 damages award is to compensate the victims of official misconduct, and therefore held that there is no limit on actual damages if they can be proven.[60] But where they are not proved, only nominal damages of $1.00 may be awarded.[61] Punitive damages may also be awarded, but not against a municipality.[62] Injunctive relief is also permitted.[63]

III.            DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES

States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[64] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[65] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[66] and state laws requiring pre-suit notification prior to initiating an action against the state or its subdivisions similarly do not apply.[67] Therefore, local governments are left in the unique and unhappy situation of being subject to suit without the benefit of any form of immunity.

In contrast to the distinct lack of immunity available to local governments, individual capacity defendants are protected by qualified immunity.[68] Qualified immunity is a powerful tool that shields individual officials who are performing discretionary activities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”[69] A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “act is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing.”[70] The qualified immunity inquiry is purely objective–the subjective intentions of the actor is irrelevant.[71] Qualified immunity is not only immunity from liability, but it is immunity from suit as well,[72] and shields individual capacity defendants even where a constitutional violation may have occurred. Likewise, a court should scrutinize a plaintiff’s claim to determine if the plaintiff states a constitutional claim at all, prior to analyzing whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.[73] The burden of proving that the law was clearly established cannot be carried by stating constitutional rights in general terms–a plaintiff within the eleventh circuit must cite to specific decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, or the highest state court in which the case arose.[74]

Qualified immunity must be plead as an affirmative defense by the defendant official,[75] and becomes a matter for the court to decide, even if it requires a factual determination as to whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances,[76] and the court should rule on the issue of qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage of litigation.[77] An individual defendant in federal court[78] may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity,[79] even if a prior appeal of the denial of qualified immunity was unsuccessful, and even if other claims remain for trial.[80] Until the issue of qualified immunity is decided, the defendant official may resist discovery,[81] and there is authority to the effect that he may stay the entire proceedings during an appeal of the denial of qualified immunity.[82] While the Supreme Court has rejected a heightened pleading standard for claims against local governments, a plaintiff must nevertheless plead facts with specificity to overcome an individual capacity defendant’s qualified immunity.[83]

Private individuals who perform state functions,[84] and private corporations who contract with the government[85] may not be entitled to qualified immunity. State and local legislators[86] and judges[87] are protected by absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacity for damages or injunctive relief, while prosecutors[88] are entitled to absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacities for damages only. In any event, as discussed above, all individual capacity defendants are, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity.

The Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts did not contain a statute of limitations for section 1983 actions, and it is appropriate to adopt a local time limitation so long as it is not inconsistent with federal law.[89] The Supreme Court has held that section 1983 is best characterized as a tort action for the recovery of damages, and therefore held that the appropriate statute of limitations to be adopted is the state statute applicable to personal injury actions.[90]

IV.            ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976[91] provides that one who prevails[92] in a section 1983 action is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. There is little doubt that the addition of this attorney’s fee provision fueled the growth in the number of section 1983 cases that have been filed because it has been held that prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, while a prevailing defendant may be awarded attorneys’ fees only “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.” The different standards derive from 42 U.S.C. § 1988’s generally pro-plaintiff and pro-civil rights orientation and protects the defendant only from groundless litigation.

[1]. The catalyst for the enactment of the Act was the “campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights.” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). The following quote from Representative Lowe of the 42nd Congress is illustrative:

While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynchings and banishing have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrators have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. Combinations, darker than the night that hides them, conspiracies, wicked as the worst of felons could devise, have gone unwhipped of justice. Immunity is given to crime and the records of public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.

Cong. Globe, 42d Cong. 1st Sess., 374 (1871)(remarks of Rep. Lowe)(quoted in Wilson, 471 U.S. at 276)).

[2]. Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305 (1986).

[3]. 365 U.S. 167 (1961).

[4]. See section II(ii), infra, for a discussion of the “under color of state law” requirement.

[5]. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

[6]. Id.

[7]. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

[8]. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25, 31 (1991); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985).

[9]. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 701 (1978).

[10]. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

[11]. Id.

[12]. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25 (1991).

[13]. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).

[14]. Government officials may be sued in their individual capacity. Such a suit does not represent a suit against the government entity for which he is associated. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). The failure to identify in which capacity a defendant is being sued is a critical pleading defect. Colvin v. McDougall, 62 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1995).

[15]. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 210 (11th Cir. 1992); Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). For example, Florida law provides that divisions of local governments, such as police departments, do not have the capacity to be sued. Florida City Police Department v. Corcoran, 661 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

[16]. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980).

[17]. Section 1983’s requirement that a person act “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State or Territory or District of Columbia” is commonly abbreviated as “under color of state law.”

[18]. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988)(quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). However, in the only case in which the Supreme Court held that a government employee did not act under color of sate law, the Court held that a public defender does not act under color of state law while performing a lawyer’s traditional function of representing criminal defendants. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

[19]. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172 (1961).

[20]. Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 162 (1992); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982).

[21]. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Ort v. Pinchback, 786 F.2d 1105 (11th Cir. 1986).

[22]. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 929 (1982).

[23]. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).

[24]. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87 (1977).

[25]. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, (1978). This “custom or policy” requirement has also been applied to private corporations who contract with the state to provide medical care to prisoners. Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 723-24 (11th Cir.), order vacating appeal, 931 F.2d 711, 712 (11th Cir. 1991), partially reinstated and appealed sub nom, Howell v. Burden, 12 F.3d 190 (11th Cir. 1994).

[26]. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.

[27]. Monell, at 691-695; Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, 777 F.2d 1436, 1443 (11th Cir. 1985). Isolated unconstitutional incidents, without more, cannot bind a municipality. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).

[28]. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Gold v. City of Miami, 1998 WL 54803 (11th Cir. 1998); Sewell v. Town of Lake Hamilton, 117 F.3d 488 (11th. Cir. 1997). However, where the employee’s proper course of action “is obvious to all without training or supervision, then the failure to train or supervise is generally not ‘so likely’ to produce a wrong decision as to support an inference of deliberate indifference by city policymakers to the need to train or supervise.” Sewell, 117 F.3d at 490.

[29]. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986); Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997). Who is a “final policymaker” is decided by reference to state law. Pembaur, at 483; McMillan v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997).

[30]. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988). However, merely going along with the discretionary decisions made by subordinates is not a delegation to them of the authority to make policy. Id.

[31]. Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 836 (11th Cir. 1990); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990); Zatler v. Wainewright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986).

[32]. Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 507 U.S. 163 (1993). There is, however, a heightened pleading standard for individual capacity claims. See note 83 infra, and accompanying text.

[33]. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979). Section 1983 does not provide for the vindication of rights secured by state law. Id. at 145-146; Almand v. DeKalb County, 103 F.3d 1510, 1513 (11th Cir. 1997).

[34]. U.S.CONST. amend. XIV, §1. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause is a limitation on state power, while the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause limits federal power. Halinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314, 319 (1892).

[35]. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976).

[36]. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979).

[37]. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972); See also, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976).

[38]. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. at 576.

[39]. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985).

[40]. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542.

[41]. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-544 (1981).

[42]. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).

[43]. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)(“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the due process clause of the 14th amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available. For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the state’s action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation remedy.”). The Court later held that negligence does not constitute a “deprivation.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). See also, Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132 (1990).

[44]. Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 132.

[45]. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Santamorena v. Georgia Military College, 147 F.3d 1337, 1339-1340 (11th Cir. 1998). As with all actions predicated upon a violation of the United States Constitution, in order to state a claim for a deprivation of due process, “state action” must be present. The eleventh circuit has recognized three primary tests to determine whether the actions of a private entity constitute state action: (1) the public function test; (2) the state compulsion test; and (3) the nexus/joint action test. National Broad Co. v. Communications Workers of Am., 860 F.2d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 1988).

[46]. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992); Rymer v. Douglas County, 764 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1985).

[47]. Collins, 503 U.S. at 125(“As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because the guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.”). See also, County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)(high speed police chases with no intent to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability for violation of substantive due process); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271-272 (plaintiff could not make out substantive due process claim for alleged prosecution without probable cause because Fourth Amendment is more appropriately considered); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989)(claims of force arrest by police officer during arrest or detention cannot state a substantive due process claim–it is more appropriately analyzed under Fourth Amendment); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994)(in non-legislative cases, only procedural due process claims are available to pretextually terminated employees).

[48]. See note 46, supra, and accompanying text.

[49]. McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994).

[50]. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937). For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy public trial, Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), apply to the states.

[51]. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).

[52]. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980).

[53]. Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 101, 106 (1989) (“Section 1983 speaks in terms of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities,’ not violations of federal law.”).

[54]. Id.

[55]. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 19 (1981).

[56]. Golden State, 493 U.S. at 106 (quoting Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 431-32 (1987)). See also, Maynard v. Williams, 72 F.3d 848, 851 (11th Cir. 1996).

[57]. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990). Of course, a defendant in state court may remove to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

[58]. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961)(exhaustion of judicial remedies is not a prerequisite); Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 501 (1982)(exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite). But see, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)(a federal plaintiff is barred from seeking declaratory or injunctive relief relating to ongoing state criminal judicial proceedings); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)(plaintiff must prove that a conviction or sentence has been reversed prior to recovering damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit may be delayed up to 180 days to require the prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies).

[59]. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 124 (1990).

[60]. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978).

[61]. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112 (1992); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-267 (1978).

[62]. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981). A municipality may, however, be jointly and severally liable. Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1989).

[63]. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[64]. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). But as discussed above, because states are not “persons” under the statute, they cannot be sued in either state or federal court. See note 6, supra, and accompanying text.

[65]. Owen v. City of Independence, MO, 445 U.S. 621 (1980); Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 699-700 (1978).

[66]. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990); Hamm v. Powell, 874 F.2d 766, 770 (11th Cir. 1989).

[67]. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988).

[68]. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). See also, Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987); Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University Board of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

[69]. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817; Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149.

[70]. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149; Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402, 1406 (11th Cir. 1998)(the plaintiff must point to case law which predates the official’s alleged improper conduct, involves materially similar facts, and truly compels the conclusion that the plaintiff had a right under federal law).

[71]. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

[72]. “One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). See also, Ansley v. Heinrich, 925 F.2d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 1991).

[73]. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991); GJR Investments Inc. v. Escambia County, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). Courts should not assume that the plaintiff states a constitutional claim simply to get to the qualified immunity issue. Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232.

[74]. Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826-27 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997)(en banc). “Public officials are not obligated to be creative or imaginative in drawing analogies from previously decided cases.” Id. at 827.

[75]. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815.

[76]. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996); Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991); Stone v. Peacock, 968 F.2d 1163, 1166 (11th Cir. 1992)(if there are disputed factual issues regarding qualified immunity that a jury should resolve, special interrogatories would be appropriate).

[77]. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991). A defendant official may assert the qualified immunity defense in 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, as an affirmative defense in a 12(c) request for judgment on the pleadings, and on a Rule 56(e) summary judgment motion. Ansley v. Heinrich, 925 F.2d 1339, 1347 (11th Cir. 1991).

[78]. A defendant in state court does not necessarily have the right to an interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). But see, Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii).

[79]. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985). However, a defendant may not appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion on the issue of qualified immunity if the denial was based solely upon the existence of disputed factual issues, as opposed to a finding that the law was not clearly established, or that the defendant did not act objectively reasonably. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).

[80]. Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997)(“[I]f [qualified immunity] is found applicable at any stage of the proceedings, it determines the outcome of the litigation by shielding the official from damages liability); Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305-11 (1996). The other claims that remain for trial may consist of a claim against the official in his official capacity. Id.

[81]. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)(“If the defendant does plead the immunity defense, the district court should resolve that threshold question before permitting discovery”); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)(“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”).

[82]. Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James, 1998 WL 125776 (M.D.Ala. 1998)(citing Goshtasby v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 123 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1997))(relating to appeal of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

[83]. GJR Investments, Inc. v. Escambia County, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998).

[84]. See, Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997)(private prison guards are not entitled to qualified immunity); Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992)(private individuals who invoked state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statutes were not entitled to qualified immunity). However, the Supreme Court did not “foreclose the possibility that private defendants . . . could be entitled to an affirmative defense based upon good faith and/or probable cause or that § 1983 suits against private, rather than governmental, parties could require plaintiffs to carry additional burdens.” Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 169.

[85]. See, McDuffie v. Hooper, 982 F.Supp. 817 (M.D. Ala. 1997)(private corporate health care providers who contract with government agencies are not entitled to qualified immunity); Hartman v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 960 F.Supp 1577, 1582 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Smith v. United States, 850 F.Supp 984, 986 (M.D. Fla. 1994). But see, Blumel v. Mylander, 954 F.Supp 1547, 1560 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

[86]. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719 (1980); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). However, individual legislative immunity does not apply where the decision is an application of policy to a specific party. In that instance, the act is said to be administrative as opposed to legislative. Crymes v. DeKalb County, 923 F.2d 1482, 1486 (11th Cir. 1991).

[87]. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was amended in 1996 to provide judicial officers with immunity from injunctive relief. This amendment partially overruled Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), which provided that judges were immune from suits for damages, but not injunctive relief.

[88]. Prosecutors are entitled to immunity for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” but a prosecutor engaged in investigative or administrative activities is only entitled to a good faith defense. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). See also, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).

[89]. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483 (1980).

[90]. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). But accrual of the statute of limitations is governed by federal law, while tolling of the statute of limitations is governed by state law. Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 n.2 (11th Cir. 1987). See also, Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989).

[91]. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

[92]. One who recovers nominal damages is not a prevailing party. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). The Court reasoned that the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained. Id. at 114 (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983)). Also, see Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985), for a discussion of the interplay between 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the offer of judgment provision contained in Fed.R.Civ.P 68.

[93]. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978).

26 June، 2014
On State Citizenship

Introduction

I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts that, without my knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am working on the legal process of restoring my first class citizenship status.

I was surprised to find that the United States government recognized two distinct classes of citizens, let alone that my citizenship status had changed. At first I did not believe it. It was not until I learned how to use the law library in the county court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not an attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice. It may be used for the basis of your own research. This paper does not have a copyright, so you can copy all or part of it. This paper borrows research from other papers without copyrights written by people across the nation. I will describe the big picture first, then I will substantiate the claims made and give a more detailed picture later.

You may find the ideas presented here conflict with the model of government that you have been taught. You may also find these ideas impossible to believe. This is understandable. The further you read, the more you may change the way you filter information about what the government is doing. If you cannot believe any of this, please set this paper aside. Sometime in the future, you may come back to this paper and it may make more sense. I believe that the concepts described here are true. But, you should not! If you accepted the ideas in this paper without confirming them from other sources, then you are a fool! If I can change your model of reality in one paper then someone else might be able to fill your head with nonsense. Please be skeptical. Even if you do not agree with the central premise, you may agree with some of the research. If so, you will still get something out of this paper. There are many Citizens doing research on the topics described in this paper. Some will sell the results of their research while others will practically give it away. This paper does not discuss some of the more advanced topics (Citizen militia, commercial liens, common law liens, common law trusts). At the end of this paper, I will supply you with the names of books, magazines, newspapers, computer bulletin boards that fill in some of the details that I have excluded.

The big picture

The United States of America is a unique nation. It was the first constitutional republic in the world. Before the American Revolution, the King of England owned all the land in his colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies were his subjects. When the war was over, the King signed the Treaty of Peace. In that treaty he said that all the land in the former colonies was owned by the people and all of his sovereign powers that he held in the colonies were transferred, not to the government of the colonies but, to the People of the colonies. This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns. This has never happened before or since in any other country. In other countries, the government is sovereign. It makes laws for its subject-citizens and it gives them their rights. In the United States, the People were sovereigns. The People were endowed, by their creator, with certain rights and the government was instituted to secure those rights. We the People, gave a portion of our sovereignty to the state government, and the states gave a small portion of the sovereignty we gave to them, to the federal government so that it would be strong enough to defend the People. The Constitution for the United States of America describes the powers that the states gave to the federal government.

If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject? I own my house. If I don’t pay my property tax the government will go to a court and remove me from it just as the courts would remove me from an apartment if I did not pay the rent. Do I really own the land if someone can take it away from me simply because I don’t pay them for the use of it? Could the King of England have the land taken away from him if he did not pay a tax? So long as I don’t cause injury to someones person or property or defraud them shouldn’t I, as a sovereign, have the right to do anything I want? Today there are so many rules and regulations that the government has that I think nearly everything I do is against some law. What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn’t the government sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of America?

There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in “allodium.” That is, the government does not have a financial interest in the their land. Because of this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small subset of the laws most of us have to follow. Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not need to register their cars or get a driver’s license unless they drive commercially. They will not have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court system that normal people do. I am sure that most people reading this are saying to themselves that this can not be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.

The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen.

A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a “resident” of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as “allodial” (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporation, and is subject to pay an excise tax for the privileges that Congress has granted him/her.

The rights that most people believe they have are not natural rights but civil rights which are actually privileges granted by Congress. Some of these civil rights parallel the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution), but by researching the civil rights act along with case law decisions involving those rights, it can be shown that these so-called civil rights do not include the Ninth or Tenth Amendments and have only limited application with regard to Amendments One through Eight.

If you accept any benefit from the federal government or you claim any civil right, you are making an “adhesion contract” with the federal government. You may not be aware of any adhesion contracts but the courts are. The other aspect of such a contract is that you will obey every statute that Congress passes.

State Citizens cannot be subjected to any jurisdiction of law outside the Common Law without their knowing and willing consent after full disclosure of the terms and conditions, and such consent must be under agreement/contract sealed by signature. This is because the Constitution is a compact/contract created and existing in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, therefore, any rights secured thereunder or disabilities limiting the powers of government also exist in the Common Law, and in no other jurisdiction provided for in that compact!

Federal citizens are presumed to be operating in the jurisdiction of commercial law because that is the jurisdiction of their creator — Congress. This is evidenced by the existence of various contracts and the use of negotiable instruments. All are products of international law or commercial law[Uniform Commercial Code]. Under Common Law your intent is important; in a court of contract (commercial law) the only thing that matters is that you live up to the letter of the contract. Because you have adhesion contracts with Congress, you can not use the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a defense because it is irrelevant to the contract. As stated previously, the contract says you will obey every statute passed by Congress. A federal citizen does not have access to Common Law.

To restate: state Citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution, like the founding fathers intended and like we are taught in school what citizenship means. Federal citizens have made further agreements with the federal government and are bound by these contracts.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to;

Operate on behalf of the several States in dealing with foreign relations and matters of treaties, trade agreements, etc., under the purview of International Law.

Exercise limited constitutional jurisdiction to interact with the several States in regulating trade, commerce, etc., between the States to insure equitable continuance of the compact.

Exercise exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, in the same manner that a state exercises jurisdiction within its boundaries.

Rights are considered gifts from the Creator, and not to be disturbed by acts of man. Some of these rights were considered important enough to be specifically stated to be secured from Federal encroachment in the Bill of Rights, upon the theory that these rights existed long antecedent to the creation of the nation, and the theory that a government, left to its own devices without restriction, could and would use man made law to defeat the liberty that this Republic was intended to represent.

I was born in one of the several states, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, so why am I not a state Citizen? The answer is that I was born a state Citizen but, I unknowingly gave it up to become a federal citizen so that I could receive benefits from the federal government. Some of the benefits that I received were: a Social Security Number, receiving mail sent to the state of PA, receiving mail with ZIP Codes, having FDIC insurance on the money left in a bank, and using Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) without protest. This sounds crazy. Would you give away sovereign powers for benefits like these?

If you have a Social Security Number (SSN), you are not a state Citizen. In the near future, I will send papers into the District of Columbia stating that I am recinding my application for a SSN. If I had known that applying for a SSN would affect my citizenship status, I would not have applied. I found out that Social Security is voluntary and that I can work without a SSN.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the “several states” described in the Constitution. The “several states” were severed from each other. The law treats the several states as independent countries. The Buck Act in 1940 created federal areas inside the states. If you live in a federal area, you are subject to federal territorial laws and the municipal laws of the District of Columbia. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is internal to the District of Columbia. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is not part of the District of Columbia, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. PA is the name that the post office recognizes for mail sent into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a federal area. Pa., Penna., and Pennsylvania are the names that the post office uses for mail sent into the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, which is not a federal area. If I accept mail sent to PA, I am saying that I live in part of the District of Columbia. The same situation exists in the other states.

Your ZIP Code determines which ZIP Code region you live in. ZIP Code regions are federal areas. The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code regions as IRS regions. If you accept mail that has a ZIP Code on it, you are in a federal territory and thus subject to the IRS and all other municipal laws of the District of Columbia.

I find the most offensive trick to get me to lose my sovereignty was that if I do not protest using the only legal tender in America, the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), also know as U.S. Dollars, I am receiving a benefit. This is a complicated trick that I will explain in detail later.

Of course there are many other benefits that many people use that the sovereigns cannot. Among these are Social Security checks, welfare checks, food stamps, federally insured bank accounts, Medicaid, Medicare, and sending children to publicly funded schools.

I am not trying to get everybody to give up government benefits. If you wish to support and be supported by the federal government, much like people in other countries do, then by all means, go ahead and do so. But, if you wish to be a sovereign protected by the Bill of Rights and not pay many of the taxes that you are paying now but also not receive benefits, then there is an alternative. It is not an easy alternative. The law makers want control over you. They have made the legal system complex. It takes years for attorneys to learn the language and procedures of our legal system. Fortunately you do not need to know everything an attorney needs to know. You do need to have a basic understanding of how our legal system works. You may be surprised that it bears little resemblance to television courtroom dramas.

I also must warn you that reclaiming your state Citizenship status may have negative effects on your life. Besides the lack of benefits, such as unemployment checks, you are treated more harshly if you get convicted of a common law crime if you are a state Citizen. If you get convicted of rape and you are a federal citizen, you may get five years in an air conditioned prison with cable TV and three meals a day. If a state Citizen gets convicted, by a common law jury, of rape, he could be put to death.

All of the information describing how the United States really works and how it is supposed to work was so spread out that few people could see the big picture. The communication revolution has changed this. Computer bulletin boards across the country provided a means to share research. Tax protesters, ranchers, religious people, historians, gun owners, and others have all found pieces of the puzzle. Perhaps there are more pieces to find.

These researchers started on different legal threads. They followed and untangled the threads until they reached the source; The Constitution for the United States of America. The surprising thing is that the researchers did not know about each other but they each came to similar conclusions. Some of the minor details are being debated by researchers. The overall conclusions are described in this paper. Some of their research is not described here. The longer this paper is, the more unlikely it is that people unfamiliar with this subject will even attempt to read it.

If every Citizen in the colonies became a sovereign, how could any Citizen lose their sovereignty? The Citizens of each of the several states in the Union were sovereigns. But the people in a territory or in the District of Columbia were not because the territories and the District of Columbia were not in the Union. Congress had/has exclusive legislative control over these areas. The states were governed by a “constitutional republic” while the territories were ruled by a “legislative democracy”. In a legislative democracy the citizens have no rights except what Congress gives them. In the constitutional republics, the Citizens have rights given to them by their Creator and Congress is the Citizens servant. This is why Citizens, having left a state to buy or conquer land from the native Americans, would apply for statehood as soon as possible.

How is it that someone who was born in and has lived in a state all his/her life can be treated like a citizen of the District of Columbia? There has been a series of steps that Congress has made to convert the state Citizens into federal citizens. Over the years, our laws have been made unreadable by the average intelligent person. The 14th Amendment was illegally passed creating a federal citizen who can not question the federal debt. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 turned over our money to a private banking cartel. Social Security created Social Security Districts (or territories) in which people with SSN lived. The Buck Act created federal areas inside the states. Let’s describe each of these steps in detail.

Reasons I believe this

To show that Congress has made the laws unreadable by the average person, an objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed. English scholars use a scale known as the “Flesch Index” that measures the level of understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English language. Newspapers are written at an average comprehension level of 7. The average high school graduate reads and understands at a level of 10. The average law school graduate reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue Code ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific provisions as high as 55. And the words that are used in the law have specific legal definitions that are different from the common English definitions. If the laws that we are supposed to obey are written at a level that an individual of reasonable intelligence cannot understand then perhaps we should be highly suspect of the law writer’s motives. My word processor’s grammar checker tells me that this paper is written at level 11.5. People in this country cannot understand at this level. How many people have the time, energy, and ability to go into a law library and piece this together? By making the law so difficult to read, Congress has effectively removed our access to it.

To show how the government uses common English words in such a way that they have meanings that are different from what you might think, I will show how the word ‘state’ is redefined. In the IRS code, it says you are subject to the income tax if you live in: one of the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Quam, or the northern Marranara Islands. From this definition it sounds as if I need to pay income tax. But, if you look at how the IRS defines the word state you probably will be confused. In the definition of the word state, it uses the word state. If you check this definition in years back you will see it has been modified several times. Before Alaska was admitted into the Union, it was in this list of states. After it became one of the states of the Union, it was not listed in the IRS definition of a state. The same thing happened to Hawaii. What does this mean? The definition that is used in the IRS code for the word state, is not a state like Texas but a state like Quam, that is a federal territory. The Federal Zone is a book listed in the other source’s section of this paper describes this and other words that have specific legal definitions that are, sometimes, the opposite of the common definition.

So far I have stated some unconventional ideas. To substantiate them I will cite standing decisions made by the courts and statutes passed by Congress. Unless the decision or statute is in quotation marks, it has been paraphrased. Please look up the decision or statutes to verify my paraphrase. At the end of this paper, I will give the names of books and publications that give more information on the subject. One of the books will teach you how to find and understand the law.

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89.

“At the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves: the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm Exp v. Georgia (US) 2 Dale 419, 454; I L Ed 440, 445 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.

“as general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1925), 71 C.A. 386, 235 P. 664.

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). Did you know that the individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other?

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that “In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.” U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).

When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass’n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others).

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

The Constitution provides limited powers to federal government over the state Citizens. The federal government has unlimited powers over federal citizens because it is acting outside of the Constitution. Administrative laws are private acts and are not applicable to state Citizens. The Internal Revenue Code is administrative law.

“We are a republic. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.” – Alexander Hamilton.

The origin of the federal citizen

So far I have not given any proof that the government actually recognizes two distinct classes of citizens. I will give that evidence now by describing the 13th and 14th Amendments.

In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment operated to free former slaves and prohibit slavery, but it in no way conferred citizenship to the former slaves, or to those of races other than white, because the founders of the Constitution were all of the white race.

The federal government did not have the authority to determine if former slaves could become a Citizen of one of the several states because the 9th and 10th Amendments said that powers not granted specifically to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the People. History shows that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and New York State were nationalizing blacks as State Citizens. In other states blacks were not Citizens and therefore did not have standing in any court. The answer to this problem was the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment used the term “citizen of the United States.” The courts have ruled that this means federal citizenship which is similar to a citizen of the District of Columbia. Since the federal government didn’t step in and tell Pennsylvania or New York that it couldn’t make State Citizens out of former black slaves, an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment was written primarily to afford [voluntary] citizenship to those of the black race that were recently freed by the 13th Amendment (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71), and did not include Indians and others NOT born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (McKay v. Cambell, 2 Sawy. 129), Thus, the Amendment recognized that “an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State.” (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

To restate: In the Slaughter-House Cases, supra the Court said: “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual. . . . Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.”

The court has also ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”. Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that “The term ‘United States’ may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73.

Did the Courts really say that someone could be a Citizen of a State without being a citizen of the United States? Yes, they did. It’s true that the cases cited above are old, some over 100 years old. None of these cases have ever been overturned by a more recent decision, so they are valid. A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

In 1866, Congress passed the first civil rights act which only applied to the District of Columbia and other federal territories. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed to be passed. At this point the number of subjects that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over increased to all of the former slaves that had not become state Citizens.

There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment. The first is that is was never ratified!

“I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)

Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE, June 13, 1967, pg. 15641. The nine pages of argument that are recorded here detail the infirmities that prove that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and thus is no law!

The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part, “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.”

There is a wealth of deception in the above wording, because of sheer number of words that have specific or multiple meanings in law depending upon how they are used.

Go to the part “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The word the is used in a singular form, not the plural, as is the word jurisdiction. If Congress meant the several States, rather that the District of Columbia, it would have been more correct to say “and subject to their jurisdictions.”

In addition, a new pecking order is established with the phrase. “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you research the terms “resident” and “legal residence”, you find that it is the nexus that binds us all to the State and federal enforcement of commercial law statutes today. “Resident” is the short form of “Resident Alien” and is used in State statutes to mean someone who exhibits actual presence in an area belonging to one nation while retaining a domicile/citizenship status within another foreign nation [The United States/District of Columbia]. The term “legal residence” further indicates that these two terms may be applied either to a geographical jurisdiction, or, a political jurisdiction. An individual may reside in one or the other, or in both at the same time. In California, Government Code, section 126, sets forth the essential elements of a compact between this State and the federal government allowing reciprocal taxation of certain entities, and provide for concurrent jurisdiction within geographical boundaries.

Both state Citizens and federal citizens are Americans. US citizens are “domiciled” in the District of Columbia and are privileged alien to the state wherein the reside and state Citizens are domiciled in their state and not aliens in their state. They also do not reside in their state; they are Citizens of the state. The distinction may seem insignificant to you but it is not to the court. A state Citizen has the right to travel in each of the 50 states. He/she can file papers at any county courthouse in any state and become a Citizen of that state.

Most of the federal statute laws do not apply to Citizens of a state. If the authority for the statute can be found in the organic Constitution, then the statute is of a National character, as it applies to both state Citizens and aliens.

“Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protected all ‘persons’… He noted that the bill ‘simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws’.” United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp. 1369, 1373 (1979). What could this mean? Well, it implies that Citizens of a state already had the protections introduced by this statute, but it extended to foreigners this protection also. What is a “foreigner” if they are not also an “alien”?

Privileges granted by the sovereign (governments) in their capacity to license (condone) what might otherwise be illegal are always taxable and regulatable. Rights such as those envisioned by the founding fathers are not taxable or regulatable because they are exercises of the common right that could be completely destroyed by government through taxation and/or regulation. These are maxims of law so well established that they are irrefutable. For example, look to Frost & Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).

Now, in 1868, we have a class of citizenship created [14th Amendment] which is “subject” by grant of privilege from a sovereign power [federal Congress] exercising exclusive authority to govern its territory under Article I, sect. 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution. Federal citizens are created by Congress. It is self-evident that all state Citizens are created equal; that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

It is also a self-evident truth that the sovereign creator can never create an entity (government) and assign it more power than what the creator possesses to begin with. Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended “to make a more perfect union.” Therefore, it logically follows that the creator did not purposely intend to alter their status as MASTER to accept a role as SERVANT to its own creation. This is plainly shown throughout the Constitution, but especially set forth in the Tenth Amendment. (cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958))

“The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent right under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law of the United States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.” The Luisitania, 251 F.715, 732. And, “This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States, wherever resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and protections of [federal] citizenship.” Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct 447, 11 Virginia Law Review, 607.”

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment.” West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258.

The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from….the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to be grants from our creator are clearly different from the “civil rights” that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised citizen in the 14th Amendment.

“A ‘civil right’ is a right given and protected by law [man’s law], and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.” Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.

Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says “Rights under 42 USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941.”

In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant relationship. Prior to the 14th Amendment, there were state Citizens and non-citizens. State Citizens were the masters in the relationship to government. After the 14th Amendment was declared to be passed, a new class of citizenship was created, which is both privileged and servant [subject] to the creator [the federal government].

How state Citizens were converted into federal citizens

In order for the federal government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, it had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the Social Security Number (SSN).

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security “Districts.” The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal Area”, a fictional jurisdiction, which covered all of the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939, the federal government instituted the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal Area.” Now the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 in the Constitution for the United States of America; also known as the ten square miles of the District of Columbia and territories and enclaves. So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act” now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal Area” overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:

Sec. 110(d): The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the United States.

Sec. 110(e): The term “Federal Area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a federal area located within such State.

Under the Provisions of Title 4, Section 105, the federal “State” (also known as, “The State of…”) is imposing an excise tax. That section states, in pertinent part:

Sec. 105: State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax.

(a) No person shall be relieved from the liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sales or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any Federal area within such a State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

NOTE: Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C. Secs. 105-110]. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

For purposes of further explanation, a Federal area can include the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration; any public housing that has federal funding; a home that has a federal (or Federal reserve) loan; a road that has federal funding; schools and colleges (public or private) that receive (direct or indirectly) federal funding, and virtually everything that the federal government touches through any type of direct or indirect aid. See Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d. 65 (1951 app.) This “Federal area” is attached to anyone who has a Social Security number or any personal contact with the federal or State government. (That is, of course, with the exception of those who have been defrauded through the tenets of an Unrevealed Contract to “accept” compelled benefits. Which includes me and perhaps you.) Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states by creating “Federal areas” within the authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 in the Constitution for the United States of America which states:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United states, or of any particular State.”

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property and franchisees of the federal government, and as an “individual entity.” See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this “Federal area.” Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch’s Admiralty flag (a federal flag with a gold or yellow fringe on it) flying in schools, offices and courtrooms.

To enjoy the freedoms secured by the federal and state constitutions, you must live on the land in one of the states of the Union of several states, not in any “Federal area.” Nor can you be involved in any activity that makes you subject to “federal laws.” You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a “resident” State driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a bank account in a federally insured bank, or any other known “contract implied in fact” that would place you in this “Federal area” and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress. Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and can only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. See American Banana Co. v. United fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 402 (1925).

This is not easy to do! Most banks are federally insured. It may be inconvenient to bank at an institution that is not federally insured. There are many things that become a little more difficult to do without a SSN, driver’s licenses, or a ZIP Code.

There has been created a fictional federal “State (of) within a state.” See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O’Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440. Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state. This fictional “State” is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like “PA”, “NJ”, “AZ”, and “DE”, etc., as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations for the sovereign States: “Pa.”, “N.J.”, “Ariz.”, and “Del.” The fictional States also use ZIP Codes that are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the several States. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, also known as PA, is a subdivision of the District of Columbia. If you accept postal matter sent to PA, and/or with a ZIP Code, the Courts say that this is evidence that you are a federal citizen or a resident. Use of the Zip Code is voluntary. See Domestic Mail Service Regulations, Section 122.32. The Postal service cannot discriminate against the non-use of the ZIP Code. See Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403, (Public Law 91-375). The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53, Wednesday March 19, 1986. The acceptance of mail with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. ]

When you apply for a Social Security Number, you are telling the federal government that you are repudiating your state Citizenship in order to apply for the benefits of citizenship in the federal Nation. Granting a Social Security number is prima facie evidence that no matter what you were before, you have voluntarily entered into a voyage for profit or gain in negotiable instruments and maritime enterprise. This is the system that has been set up over the years to restrict, control, and destroy our personal and economic liberties. Our legal system is very complicated and you may not understand how it works. I believe that this is intentional.

Common law versus commercial law

Besides the municipal laws for federal territory like the District of Columbia, the Constitution specifies three other types of law: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty Law.

Common Law is criminal law. Equity Law deals with written contracts and is civil law. Admiralty Law deals with international contracts and has both criminal and civil penalties.

A cursory review of the Uniform Commercial Code proves that it was codified to replace the Negotiable Instrument Laws. Further research reveals that the Negotiable Instrument Laws have their foundation in the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law (Maritime Law — law of the sea), and, the U.C.C. has come to be known in law as the substantive common law. (Bank v. Moore, 201 Ala. 411, 78 So. 789) This substantive common law has also been directly tied to the jurisdiction of the Law Merchant [International Law]. (Miller v. Miller, 296 SW.2d 648).

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. Common Law contracts must also be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc.” That was a valid contract…the dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract that said “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations…” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine but is not. If it looks like a dollar, and spends like a dollar but is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction which is not a genuine Admiralty Jurisdiction. It is colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable money.

This government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable instruments because it dealt with paper that was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state.

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, “agreements” can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an “agreement,” it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The trick has been to get everybody exercising benefits that they don’t believe they can live without.

One “benefit” that I accepted was the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When I pay a debt, I give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar — substance for substance. But if I used a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers this benefit. Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States; it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that I cannot be sued for not paying my debts. It’s as if they have said, “We’re going to help you out, and you can discharge your debts instead of paying your debts.” When I use this colorable money to discharge my debts, I cannot use a Common Law court. I can only use a colorable court. It would appear that I am stuck. If the only legal tender is colorable money, then if I use any legal tender, then the only court that is available to me is a colorable court. But there is a way out.

Volume 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code states “The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7) It also says “When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” (UCC 1-207.4) It also says “The Sufficiency of the Reservation–Any expression indicating an intention to reserve such rights, is sufficient, such as “without prejudice.” (UCC 1-207.4)

Whenever I sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes–in any way, shape or manner–under my signature I write, or stamp: “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.” When I use “without prejudice UCC 1-207” in connection with my signature, I am saying: “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.” Some people use a rubber stamp that says “DISCHARGED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207” on every Federal Reserve Note that pass through their hands. I do not think this is necessary.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When I use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so I have to use Federal Reserve Notes–I have to accept the benefit. The government has given me the benefit to discharge my debts with limited liability. Therefore discharging my debts instead of paying my debts is a compelled benefit.

The Uniform Commercial Code says in Volume 1, Section 103.6: “The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.” It also says: “The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.”

Most court proceedings today are under a colorable Admiralty jurisdiction also known as Statutory jurisdiction. In Admiralty jurisdiction, “The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded…”, 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. “A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit…the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court.” 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. “[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court.” 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. “A court of admiralty … acts upon equitable principles.” 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. Have you ever heard a court case where the judge overrules the decision of the jury? This can only happen in a trial in admiralty jurisdiction. The jury is only the conscience of the court. The judge is not an impartial referee who understands Public Law but a commissioner that supports Public Policy which is private law. And your attorney may not be working for you. In CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (complete restatement of the entire American law) Volume 7, section 4 states: “an attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations. His first duty is to the courts and the public not to the client and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter….Clients are also called ‘wards of the court’.” The fifth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary states that a Ward of court is: “person of unsound mind”.

What does this mean? If you don’t know how the legal system works you will be treated like a person of unsound mind that hires an expensive attorney, who is an officer of the court, to defend you, and that if the judge does not want to hear your arguments, he can command the attorney, without your knowledge, not to use the defense, and the judge does not let the jury read the law, he only gives his interpretation of the law, and that the laws are usually part of very large bills that are not even read by members of Congress who voted on it, and that if, in the unlikely event that the jury comes to conclusions that the judge does not agree with, the judge can overturn the decision of the jury. As bad as this is, it is not the worst case scenario. If you are accused of breaking certain administrative laws, such as driving infractions, you do not have the right to even this type of jury trial. In Tax Court, you are actually suing the IRS which is presumed innocent until you prove that they are guilty. Because of this you do not have the right to have council of your choice. Only the defendant has the right to council. The judges are the most successful former prosecutors in Tax Court. Is this the way our legal system was supposed to work? No! In Common Law the jury determines both the facts and the law, the judge is an impartial referee, and the council for both the Plaintiff and defendant are working for their clients. If you know how the legal system works and you are a state Citizen, you will challenge the jurisdiction of the court and never go into anything but a Common Law court. If the flag in the courtroom has a gold fringe on it, you are in an admiralty court.

The jury can nullify a law. The two most notable times in the history of the United States were the end of slavery and the end of prohibition. Hiding escaped slaves was against the federal law (stolen property transferred across state lines). People arrested for hiding runaway slaves would be tried. In many cases the jury would find the defendant not guilty because the law was not valid. The same thing happened to bootleggers during prohibition. If a prosecutor can not get a jury to convict people of crimes then the law has been effectively nullified. This was a way Citizens defended their sovereignty from the government. If the government passed a law that the Citizens disagreed with, they would nullify it when someone was tried for breaking the law. This is the way the country was supposed to be. By trying cases in admiralty jurisdiction the jury can still try to nullify a law but the judge can overrule the decision made by the jury. In many cases, the judge incorrectly tells the jury they must follow the instructions to the jury. If Citizens can not nullify laws, the federal government has more power.

From the last few paragraphs, you may think that I do not have a high opinion of the integrity of our judges. This is not correct. The courts are there to resolve disputes without violence. Since the vast majority of the people in this country are either US citizens or residents, judges are correct to assume that everyone that comes before them are under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. It is up to the Citizen to challenge the jurisdiction of an admiralty court.

So if you are a state Citizen and you take precautions of not making it easy for the federal government to make the presumption that you are involved in an international contract, such as Federal Reserve Notes, then you will not be able to be charged with any statutory offenses. You will be able to do anything you wish, so long as you do not use force or fraud and you live with the consequences of your actions.

More federal glue

You may also find it disturbing to know how an administrative procedure can remove your children from you. In 1921 Congress passed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act that created the United States birth “registration” area (see Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 135, 1921.) That act allows you to register your children when they are born. If you do so, you will get a copy of the birth certificate. By registering your children, which is voluntary, they become Federal Children. This does several things: Your children become subjects of Congress (they lose their state citizenship). A copy of the birth certificate is sent to the Department of Vital Statistics in the state in which they were born. The original birth certificate is sent to the Department of Commerce in the District of Columbia. It then gets forwarded to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) building in Europe. Your child’s future labor and properties are put up as collateral for the public debt.

Once a child is registered, a constructive trust is formed. The parent(s) usually become the trustee (the person managing the assets of the trust), the child becomes an asset of the trust, and the state becomes the principal beneficiary of the trust. See The Uniform Trustees’ Powers Act (ORS 128.005(1)). If the beneficiary does not believe the trustee is managing the assets of the trust optimally, the beneficiary can go through an administrative procedure to change trustees. This is the way that bureaucrats can take children away from their parents if the bureaucrat does not like the way the child is cared for. You may say that there is nothing wrong with this. If a parent is neglecting a child, then the state should remove the child from the parents custody. Under common law a child can still be removed from the parent but it takes twelve jurors from that county to do so. Theoretically, a bureaucrat could remove your children from you, if you disagree with some unrelated administrative procedure, such as home schooling the child. This is another way the government can intimidate citizens who question its authority. With all this in mind, the statement that the President says every few months: “Our children are our most valuable asset.” takes on a different meaning. That is – your children are their assets.

Part of the process of restoring my state Citizenship status is revoking my Birth Certificate through a process called REVOCATION OF SIGNATURE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY. If my Birth Certificate is not revoked, then the courts consider me to be a 14th Amendment federal citizen and my labor and all of my assets are put up as collateral for the public debt.

When the government communicates with corporations it spells the name of the corporation in all capital letters. If the government refers to you with your name in all capital letters, it is actually means to treat you like a corporation. A corporation is created by government. It has no rights. The government gives it privileges and the corporation must follow the rules of its creator. I am not a corporation! A state Citizen should challenge the government’s assertion that he/she is a corporation. This applies to both postal matter and court documents.

We gave the federal government the right to regulate commerce. Since the government has started usurping our sovereignty, our language has been subtly modified to include commercial terms. Most people do not realize or care that they are using commercial terms but the courts do. If you describe your actions in commercial terms in a court, the judge will take silent notice of your status as being regulatable by the federal government. In the following examples, the commercial terms are all in upper case letters: instead of a birthing room, you are now born in a DELIVERY room. Instead of traveling in your car, you are DRIVING or OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE in TRAFFIC and you don’t have guests in your car, you have PASSENGERS. Instead of a nativity you have a DATE OF BIRTH. You are not a worker but an EMPLOYEE. You don’t own a house but a piece of REAL ESTATE.

Lost rights

A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes without being registered. A federal citizen does not. In the District of Columbia, it is a felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer or a security guard or the hand gun was registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of Columbia are not protected by the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Dispite the lack of legal guns in DC, crime is rampant. It is called Murder Capital of the World. This should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws do not work in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If you are a federal citizen and you are using Second Amendment arguments to protect your rights to keep your guns, I believe you are in for a surprise. First by registering gun owners then renaming guns ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Handguns’, those in power will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they won’t tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right for a US citizens. The Supreme court has ruled that you as an individual have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is to protect “society”. The real protection for state Citizens to keep their guns is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth Amendment. Note in Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. The crime rate is very low there.

A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public roads) without being registered. A federal citizen does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states. If you are a US citizen, you are a foreigner in the state. The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you don’t cause an injury to anybody then you can not be tried.

If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car. The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that it says “OFFICIAL USE ONLY”.(Note: In some states, they do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have signs on them saying “OFFICIAL USE ONLY” on them but why does yours? You do not own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state’s vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to the judge.

Unanswered questions

A reasonable person may ask – How did the government get so far removed from the model of government defined by the Constitution? I’m not sure. Perhaps it was a small group of bankers who realized that they could control a central government much easier than many independent sovereigns. Perhaps it is the natural outcome of specialization; that is, it might be said that a brain surgeon should not be expected to be an expert on farming, manufacturing, mining, retailing, politics, as well as medicine, therefore it is possible that the people wanted to be governed by experts – allowing them to focus on their pleasures and careers. Perhaps the elite thought they would help the poor masses by making decisions for them because they believed that the common people could not make good decisions for themselves. Perhaps it is the result of people believing that they can get something for nothing; that is, the people believed that the government was stealing more from other citizens that it was stealing from them, so overall, they were helped by such policies more than they were hurt. There is some evidence to support each of these propositions but, one thing is important: The government is acting this way because the people allow it to. If the people were very dissatisfied with the government, they would change it. For all the complaining Americans do, they still elect the same people again and again.

Another good question is: If all this is true, why haven’t I heard these ideas before? Again, I am not sure. It is very difficult to keep a conspiracy secret for very long. If there has been a plan to steal the sovereignty of the people, then many people would be affected and more than a few people had to know about the plan in order to execute it. Unless all of the politicians, bankers, media people were in on the conspiracy or were intimidated so that they would not expose the plan, the People would, sooner or later, find out. It is difficult for me to believe that every politician, banker, and media person are corrupt. I think it is more likely that people thought that the experts could run the country better than they could. Today, many people can not conceive the government being run any other way. It is my belief that turning over the government to experts was a mistake.

Who are these people?

The people who do research on state citizenship call themselves patriots. This may sound strange to people who equate patriotism with support for whatever the government does as long as the flags are waving and the politicians say have the best interest of the nation at heart, but patriots like Thomas Jefferson saw patriotism as supporting the value of liberty. The founders of the nation thought it was unpatriotic to accept being ruled by a sovereign. In the Constitutional Republic that they founded, each Citizen was a sovereign without subjects. That is, we were all equal. This did not mean that we each had an equal amount of money or an equal standard of living. Each Citizen had equal opportunity to use the gifts we were given at birth. If you did not use your gifts wisely or you did not have many gifts to start with, then you had to accept a lower standard of living. People who received charity were not treated with the same respect as a person who did not.

How does one reclaim their state Citizenship?

This paper cannot give you everything you need to know on how to restore your first class citizenship status. It is only a starting point. With that being said, here is a list of the papers that a state Citizen should to do to be free of federal adhesion contracts. Some of these things are to be done at the county recorder’s office, others must be sent to the District of Columbia.

A notice of intent

A declaration of sovereignty.

An oath to your state.

A notice that you are using Federal Reserve Notes under protest.

A revocation of signature and power of attorney driver’s license (you don’t need one unless you drive commercially)

motor vehicle registration (if your car is not registered, it is not a motor vehicle)

marriage license (but not your marriage contract)

birth certificate (the hospital still has a record of birth)

application for a Social Security Number

union membership

status as an employee (the word employee has a specific legal definition)

voter registration (you become an elector not a voter)

private or public pension benefits

You should also close credit cards, saving accounts, checking accounts, IRA accounts, money market accounts, CD’s, mutual funds, and 401k. You should pay off all mortgages, car loans, and any other loan that you have. You may continue to receive postal matter with ZIP codes but you should not accept them. You should also remove your children from the schools that receive public money.

This is not easy! But, you can do it. If only a few people were doing this it would be very difficult. But hundreds of thousands have done this just in the past few years. This makes it much easier since alternative organizations are being formed that are servicing the non federal citizens. Note: there are some banks that have been around for more than 100 years that are safe and not federally insured. Also common law trusts can be created to circumvent some of the restrictions that the list above implies. There are many intelligent and creative people working on these problems. As the years go by, it will be more and more difficult to remain federal citizens. As the number of state Citizens increases, the amount of revenue that the federal government receives will decrease. The amount of money that the federal government spends will probably not decrease because most of the people reclaiming their state Citizenship don’t use the services provided by the federal government. This will cause taxes to increase which will cause even more people to drop out of the federal system. I also expect to see the continuation of the trend to add more regulations that the federal citizens have to follow.

Other sources of information

The best source of information is a law library. you can find a law library that is open to the public in you county courthouse. You may find better law libraries at a local college. The problem with the law library is that there are so many books in it. Some of the court cases cited here are old. For one reason or another, some of the books that had information on this subject seemed to have been removed from my local county courthouse. I recommend that you visit the county courthouse law library. If you have read this far, even if you decide not to change your status you will probably find it very interesting.

If you have a computer and a modem you can connect up to bulletin boards that are dedicated to the sovereignty issue. A very good bulletin board is located in California. The telephone number is 1-818-888-9882 and the line attributes are BAUD rate up to 14.4, Parity – none, Data bits – 8, Stop bits – 1. If you do not live in the 818 area code, it will cost you the toll charges. There is no charge for using the board. There is a file on there that contains the telephone numbers of other bulletin boards. Perhaps you can find a number with your area code so you can avoid the toll charges. The bulletin board has files pertaining to two subjects. The first is restoring the rights that you lost when you lost your state Citizenship. The second is trying to prevent the loss of more rights by opposing the New World Order, that is losing your US citizenship status to become a UN citizen. A word of warning must be given at this point. Some of the people who do basic legal research start out with some extremely unusual conspiracy theories that they try to prove. You may be offended at these theories. Time will tell if the conspiracies exist or not. Dispite this the research is very valuable.

ANTISHYSTER is a paper that is published six times a year. It is “A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM.” This excellent publication is about 60 pages. The annual subscription is $25.00 but, if you order as a group (3 subscriptions or more at the same time) it is only $15.00. This is money well spent. You can reach them at (214) 418-8993 or send cash, check, or money order to: AntiShyster c/o P.O.B. 540786 Dallas, Texas 75354-0786. You can order by Visa or Master Card at (800) 477-5508.

The AMERICAN’S BULLETIN is a monthly newspaper that is dedicated to be “A VOICE OF OPPOSITION TO TYRANNY”. It is printed in Oregon and is mailed across the nation. Accept for a few articles about unconventional ideas on alternative health care the newspaper seems to be exclusively dedicated to Citizenship. You can call them at 1-503-779-7709. The cost is $25.00 a year. You can get it shipped without a ZIP Code but it cost $30.00 because it will be shipped via first class mail. There are advanced topics that I have not described in this paper printed every month.

PERCEPTIONS is a magazine that is published four times a year. It has articles about Citizenship but it also has articles UFOs, Astrology, and alternative health strategies. The cost is $15.00 a year. You can reach them at: Perceptions, 11664 National Blvd., No. 314, Los Angeles, California 90064.

THE SPOTLIGHT is a newspaper that reports on the New World Order and how it is being implemented. You can reach them at 300 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.

The LA Lawman is a television show that is broadcast on cable TV in California. You can by a copy of the 30 minute videotapes on issues relating to state Citizens and perhaps even get them broadcast in your area. You can reach The LA Lawman at 9245 Reseda Blvd Suite 450 Northridge CA 91324 or at (818) 366-6187.

There are many good books that you may want. LEGAL RESEARCH – How To Find and Understand the Law by attorneys Stephen Elias & Susan Levinkind is a good introduction to the law library. It is published by Nolo Press in 1992. It costs $16.95. Before getting this book, I was never in a law library but now, I can do legal research!

The FEDERALIST PAPERS by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay is published by Mentor. The paperback cost $5.99. This book can be downloaded from the bulletin board listed above. It contains more than 500 pages of arguments that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote to be published in the local papers for the purpose of ratifying the Constitution. The Supreme Court sometimes quotes the Federalist Papers in its decisions. If you want to know what the Constitution means, then this is the book for you.

THE ANTI-FEDERALIST by the Opponents if the Constitution is published by The University of Chicago Press. The articles in this book were published in the local papers for the purpose of not ratifying the Constitution. It is not quite as good as the Federalist Papers but, it also determines what the framers of the constitution were thinking.

LIBERTY LIBRARY publishes a booklet that contains the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and a description of jurors rights. A single copy is $1.50; but if you buy 20 or more, the cost is only $0.50 a piece. I find it amazing that all through public school, I never read more than two paragraphs from any of these documents. Every child should have the opportunity to have a copy of this booklet. You can reach Liberty Library at 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by Alexis De Tocqueville is published by Anchor Books (DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC.) De Tocqueville traveled around the United States of America in the 1830s & 1840s. He compared, in minute detail, the differences between how the American Republics were run and how the French Republic was run. If you want to see how the nation existed without income taxes and government bureaucracies, then this is the book for you. It is kind of long (almost 800 pages).

The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski can be downloaded from the bulletin board listed above. It describes in more detail how the federal government usurped power of the states by creating a federal zone that nearly swallowed the states. The IRS code is explained.

Invisible Contracts by George Mercier can be downloaded from the bulletin board listed above. This book describes the adhesion contracts that bind people into federal jurisdiction. It also about conspiracies by the New World Order people. It is written from the perspective of a Mormon. Mormon religious ideas are described in great detail and with great fervor. The information on adhesion contracts is very enlightening.

Conclusion

The ideas in this paper may be new to you. You may not believe them. You may like the federal system. If you have read this far, I hope you will see the government in a different light.

Let’s restate the central premise of this paper.

The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen. Each has different rights and responsibilities. State Citizens created the states who created the federal government who created federal citizens. Most people are born state Citizens and become federal citizens without their knowledge sometime after birth. You can reclaim your state Citizenship status through a legal procedure. If you remain a federal citizen, you will pay lots of taxes and have no rights. If you reclaim your state Citizenship status, you will have to learn about our legal system and you will have to change the way you bank, and save, and invest, and other aspects of modern living that probably taken for granted. But a state Citizen that knows the legal system has more control over his/her life.

Information is power. For decades the information, and the power, has been centralized by the government class. Today, the balance of power is shifting. As Citizens become more vigilant about government encroachments, the government’s power is lessened. As the number of state Citizens mushrooms, you will hear about them in the press as the empire strikes back. This movement is not trying to change the system — this is the way it works now! In fact, any attempt to change the Constitution via a constitutional convention or international treaty should be opposed strongly. Can you imagine what sort of constitution would be written if our current political leaders do the writing? Now you know what this movement is all about. Whether you decide to change your status is up to you.

Please send a copy of this paper to everybody that you think is smart enough to understand it. _

By T. Collins

22 June، 2014
Arrest Dexter and nullify all his wrong doings

Without Prejudice, lets arrest Dexter, who is not only doing wrong in Oregon, but in the entire Republic for the United States of America. The time has come for the people of the Republic to start learning Constitutional Law, Common Law, Admiralty Law, Commercial Law, and Trust Law, so that way we can defend our rights against the many Dexters that cunningly, deceivingly, and knowingly are depriving the citizens of the Republic of their Common Law rights.

We the people do not consent of any contract by assumption, piracy, and deception. Your actions are nullify, void, done, without prejudice, Nun pro tunc.

Please watch this video so you can start having an idea of what we are talking about.

20 June، 2014
The Two United States and the Law

Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible.

They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!

The United States of America was made up of a union of what is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law. Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens). Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases

(1) at Law,

(2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:

(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it law. [There is a difference between “legal” and “lawful.” Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes thi spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty. By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin. The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.

Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin. The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity.

Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy. Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument’s Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of thefifty States).

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are heldto the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States. The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.

With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic. The answer follows:

Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?” Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.”

Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. Thecitizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no loner needed to pay their debts, that they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.

From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all contracts since Roosevelt’s time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means “That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth.”] Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so- called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States … EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207/308.

When used in conjunction with one’s signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-308” is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-308:4 Sufficiency of reservation. Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “underreservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”

The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended. The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-308 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” …

U.C.C. 1-308:7 Effect of reservation of rights. The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….

U.C.C. 1-308:9 Failure to make reservation. When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date ….

U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.

The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….

A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. … “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”

EXAMPLE

Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308” above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 207/308, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

~Howard Freeman

http://wetheonepeople.com/

1 June، 2014
We the people are the government

We the people are the government; we the people are the power. Thank you Kevin Annets for the courage!

We are excited to all the progress coming along worldwide in dismantling the tyranny of the oldest criminal body in the world: The Roman Mafia Empire, along with the ones from London City in Britain, and their Military might in the City of Washington DC (District of Columbia) in the United States of America (USA Corporation), that ten square miles piece of land/private/corporation/State, that named themselves the “people government” of the Republic for the united States of America (uSA).

We the people say to you, “You are done, and you are gone for ever”. Thank you for the lesson learned, and may The Creator have Mercy on you.

We do not know about you people but in the state where we are, we are kicking ass within many counties by bringing awareness to judges, sheriffs, policemen, and the gold diggers whores of real state agents, mortgage brokers, lawyers, bankers, and the whore of all, the City Circuit Court House Clerk of Office to say the least. We’ve gotten so good at this that we can take properties from them after leaving families on the streets with the stroke of pen/signature! Last month we had an attorney offering/bribing us to take thousands of dollars after we took the title of a property back, when he put a fast title on it, after we had giving him all lawful documents not to do so. We were laughing our heart out! We told him, “ You have the audacity buster”, and hung up.

But wait until we tell you that we find ourselves educating police officers quite often. These guys are really trying to see the light, some of them told us that they are really considering quitting their job but they do not know how to tell their family.

The younger ones said that they cannot do what they are told to do, and the older ones are heartless, full of fear guys that most of them are suffering from diseases as Diabetes, heart issues, liver issues, etc, etc. This is really a pathetic situation, isn’t?

Common Law is the Law, and knowledge gives you freedom, power, dignity, and sovereignty. Truth= Knowledge=light=love. May we all live with peace.

Read more

VANCOUVER, BC – In a wide-ranging Exopolitics TV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, Kevin Annett, Field Secretary of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State, revealed Vatican infighting and rumours of Pope Francis “bad health” as divserions from the evidence of Satanic child sacrifice in the Papal 9th Circle rituals. Evidence of these rituals has been recorded from eye witnesses at the Brussels trial of Pope Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Superior General of the Jesuits and others for child trafficking and genocide. The trial, now in its 3rd session, is expected to continue for as long as a year.

Continue reading…

25 May، 2014

The two United States and the Law

"The Two United States and the Law"
                               by

                         Howard Freeman
                          P. O. Box 364
                        Lusk, Wyo. 82225

Our forefathers,  weary of  the  oppressive  measures  that  King
George III's  government forced  upon them,  in  common  declared
their independence  from England in 1776.  They were not expected
to be  successful in  that resistance.   The  moneyed people  had
backed England  for two  major reasons.   First,  our forefathers
wanted a  rigid, written  Constitution "set  in concrete."   They
were familiar  with the  so-called Constitution  of England which
consisted  largely   of  customs,   precedents,  traditions,  and
understandings, often vague and always flexible.  They wanted the
principle of English common law, that an act done by any official
person or  law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was
simply void.   Second,  the thirteen  little colonies  desired to
base their  union on substance (gold and silver)  --  real money.
They well  knew how  the  despotic  governments  of  Europe  were
mortgaged to the hilt  --  lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the
people, everything  --  to certain wealthy men who controlled the
banks, the  currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not
loan gold and silver!

The United  States of  America was  made up of a union of what is
now  fifty   sovereign  States,   a  three-branch   (legislative,
executive, and  judicial) Republic  known as The United States of
America, or  as termed  in this  article, the  Continental United
States.   Its citizenry  live in one of the fifty States, and its
laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.

Less than  one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole
was discovered  in the  Constitution by cunning lawyers in league
with the  international bankers.   They  realized that a separate
nation existed,  by the  same name,  that Congress had created in
Article I,  Section 8,  Clause 17.   This  "United States"  is  a
Legislative Democracy  within the Constitutional Republic, and is
known as  the Federal United States.  It has exclusive, unlimited
rule over  its  citizenry,  the  residents  of  the  District  of
Columbia, the  territories and  enclaves (Guam,  Midway  Islands,
Wake Island,  Puerto Rico,  etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by
way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens).

Both United  States have  the same  Congress that  rules in  both
nations.   One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has
the "stars  and stripes"  as its  flag, but without any fringe on
it.   The Federal  United States'  flag is  the stars and stripes
with a  yellow fringe, seen in all the courts.  The abbreviations
of the  States of  the Continental  United States  are,  with  or
without the  zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc.  The
abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal
United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA,
etc. (without any periods).

Under the  Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the
Continental United  States provides  for legal cases  (1) at Law,
(2) in Equity, and  (3) in Admiralty:

(1)  Law is  the collective  organization of the individual right
     to lawful  defense.   It is  the will  of the  majority, the
     organization of  the natural right of lawful defense.  It is
     the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to
     do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
     right to do:  to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
     to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign
     over us  all.  Since an individual cannot lawfully use force
     against  the   person,  liberty,   or  property  of  another
     individual, then  the common  force  --  for the same reason
     --   cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty,
     or property  of individuals or groups.  Law allows you to do
     anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the
     life, liberty  or property  of anyone  else.   Law does  not
     compel performance.   Today's  so-called  laws  (ordinances,
     statutes, acts,  regulations, orders,  precepts,  etc.)  are
     often  erroneously   perceived  as  law,  but  just  because
     something is  called a  "law" does not necessarily make it a
     law.   [There is  a difference between "legal" and "lawful."
     Anything the  government does  is legal,  but it  may not be
     lawful.]

(2)  Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any
     contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in
     a particular  situation.   The  term  "equity"  denotes  the
     spirit and  habit of  fairness, justness,  and right dealing
     which would  regulate the  intercourse of men with men.  You
     have  no  rights  other  than  what  is  specified  in  your
     contract.  Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3)  Admiralty is  compelled performance plus a criminal penalty,
     a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938  the gradual  merger procedurally  between law and equity
actions (i.e.,  the  same  court  has  jurisdiction  over  legal,
equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized.  The nation was
bankrupt and  was  owned  by  its  creditors  (the  international
bankers) who  now  owned  everything    --    the  Congress,  the
Executive, the  courts, all the States and their legislatures and
executives, all  the land,  and all  the people.   Everything was
mortgaged  in  the  national  debt.    We  had  gone  from  being
sovereigns over  government to subjects under government, through
the use  of negotiable  instruments to  discharge our  debts with
limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with
gold or silver coin.

The remainder  of this  article explains how this happened, where
we are  today, and  what remedy we have to protect ourselves from
this system.

             Our Present Commercial System of "Law"
           and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

The present  commercial system  of "law" has replaced the old and
familiar  Common Law upon  which our  nation was  founded.    The
following is  the legal  thread which  brought us from sovereigns
over government  to subjects under government, through the use of
negotiable instruments  (Federal Reserve  Notes) to discharge our
debts with  limited liability  instead of  paying  our  debts  at
common law with gold or silver coin.

The change  in our  system of  law from  public  law  to  private
commercial law  was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
States in  the  Erie Railroad v. Thompkins  case  of 1938,  after
which case,  in  the  same  year,  the  procedures  of  Law  were
officially blended with the procedures of Equity.  Prior to 1938,
all U.S.  Supreme Court  decisions were based upon public law  --
or that  system of  law that  was  controlled  by  Constitutional
limitation.   Since 1938,  all U.S.  Supreme Court  decisions are
based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy  concerns commercial  transactions made  under  the
Negotiable  Instrument's   Law,  which   is  a   branch  of   the
international Law  Merchant.  This has been codified into what is
now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was
made uniform  throughout the  fifty States through the cunning of
the Congress  of the United States (which "United States" has its
origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as
distinguished from the "United States," which is the Union of the
fifty States).

In offering  grants of  negotiable paper  (Federal Reserve Notes)
which the  Congress gave  to the  fifty States  of the  Union for
education, highways,  health, and  other purposes, Congress bound
all the  States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the
Federal United  States (as  distinguished  from  the  Continental
United States).  The fifty States accepted the "benefits" offered
by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial
agreement between  the Federal  United States  and  each  of  the
corporate States.   The  corporate States  were then obligated to
obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume
their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States
to the  international banking houses, for the credit loaned.  The
credit which  each State received, in the form of federal grants,
was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system  of negotiable  paper binds all corporate entities of
government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and
is what  has altered  our court  system from one under the Common
Law to  a Legislative  Article I  Court, or  Tribunal, system  of
commercial law.  Those persons brought before this court are held
to the  letter of  every statute  of government  on the  federal,
state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the
REMEDY provided  for them  within that  system of  Commercial Law
whereby, when  forced to  use a  so-called "benefit"  offered, or
available, to  them, from  government,  they  may  reserve  their
former right,  under the  Common Law guarantee of same, not to be
bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not
enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is  exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and
municipal  governments   got  entangled   with  the   Legislative
Democracy, created  by Article  I, Section  8, Clause  17 of  the
Constitution, and  called here  The  Federal  United  States,  to
distinguish it  from the  Continental United States, whose origin
was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

The same  national Congress  rules the  Continental United States
pursuant to  Constitutional limits  upon its  authority, while it
enjoys exclusive  rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it
legislates for the Federal United States.

With the  above information,  we may  ask:  "How did we, the free
Preamble citizenry  of the  Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed
unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable
debt obligations  of the  Federal United  States, and also become
subject to  that entity  of government,  and  divorced  from  our
Sovereign  States  in  the  Republic,  which  we  call  here  the
Continental United  States?"   We do  not reside,  work, or  have
income from  any territory  subject to the direct jurisdiction of
the Federal  United  States.    These  are  questions  that  have
troubled sincere,  patriotic Americans  for many years.  Our lack
of knowledge  concerning the  cunning of  the legal profession is
the  cause  of  that  divorce,  but  a  knowledge  of  the  truth
concerning the  legal thread,  which caught  us in  its net, will
restore our  former status  as a  free Preamble  citizen  of  the
Republic.  The answer follows:

Our national  Congress works  for two  nations  foreign  to  each
other, and  by legal  cunning both  are called The United States.
One is  the Union  of Sovereign  States, under  the Constitution,
termed in  this article the Continental United States.  The other
is a  Legislative Democracy  which has  its origin  in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal
United States.   Very few people, when they see some "law" passed
by Congress,  ask themselves,  "Which nation was Congress working
for when  it passed  this or  that so-called  law?"  Or, few ask,
"Does this  particular law  apply to the Continental citizenry of
the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents
of  the  District  of  Columbia  and  other  named  enclaves,  or
territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?"

Since  these   questions  are  seldom  asked  by  the  uninformed
citizenry  of  the  Republic,  it  was  an  open  invitation  for
"cunning" political  leadership to  seek more power and authority
over the  entire citizenry  of the Republic through the medium of
"legalese."   Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide
a medium  of exchange  for the  citizenry  of  the  Republic,  in
harmony with  its Constitutional mandate.  Instead, it created an
abundance  of   commercial  credit   money  for  the  Legislative
Democracy, where  it was not bound by Constitutional limitations.
Then,  after   having  created  an  emergency  situation,  and  a
tremendous  depression   in  the   Republic,  Congress  used  its
emergency authority  to remove  the remaining substance (gold and
silver) from  the medium  of exchange  belonging to the Republic,
and made  the negotiable  instrument  paper  of  the  Legislative
Democracy (Federal  United States) a legal tender for Continental
United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the  same time,  Congress granted  the entire citizenry of the
two nations  the "benefit"  of limited liability in the discharge
of all  debts by  telling the  citizenry that the gold and silver
coins of  the Republic  were out  of date  and cumbersome.    The
citizens were  told that gold and silver (substance) was no loner
needed to  pay their  debts, that  they were  now "privileged" to
discharge debt  with this  more "convenient"  currency, issued by
the Federal  United States.  Consequently, everyone was forced to
"go modern,"  and to  turn in  their gold as a patriotic gesture.
The entire  news media  complex went  along  with  the  scam  and
declared it  to be  a forward  step for  our democracy, no longer
referring to America as a Republic.

From that  time on,  it was  a falling  light for the Republic of
1776, and  a rising  light  for  Franklin  Roosevelt's  New  Deal
Democracy, which  overcame the  depression, which was caused by a
created shortage  of real  money.  There was created an abundance
of debt  paper money,  so-called, in the form of interest-bearing
negotiable instrument  paper called  Federal Reserve  Notes,  and
other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all  contracts since  Roosevelt's time  have the  colorable
consideration of  Federal Reserve  Notes, instead  of  a  genuine
consideration  of   silver  and  gold  coin,  all  contracts  are
colorable contracts,  and not  genuine contracts.   [According to
Black's Law  Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in
appearance only,  and not  in reality,  what it  purports to  be,
hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]

Consequently, a  new colorable  jurisdiction, called  a statutory
jurisdiction, had  to be  created to enforce the contracts.  Soon
the term  colorable contract  was changed  to the term commercial
agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction,
which is  legislative, rather  than judicial,  in nature.    This
jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent,
rather than  full knowledge,  as it  is with  the enforcement  of
contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-
called "statutes"  of legislative  bodies being enforced in these
Legislative  Tribunals   are  not   "statutes"  passed   by   the
legislative  branch   of  our   three-branch  Republic,   but  as
"commercial obligations"  to the Federal United States for anyone
in the  Federal United States or in the Continental United States
who has  used the equitable currency of the Federal United States
and  who   has  accepted   the  "benefit,"   or  "privilege,"  of
discharging  his  debts  with  the  limited  liability  "benefit"
offered to  him by the Federal United States ... EXCEPT those who
availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of
law, which  remedy is  today found  in  Book  1  of  the  Uniform
Commercial Code at Section 207.

When used  in conjunction  with one's  signature, a stamp stating
"Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to the
magistrate of  any of  our present  Legislative Tribunals (called
"courts") that the signer of the document has reserved his Common
Law right.   He  is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial
obligation, of  any commercial  agreement that  he did  not enter
knowingly, voluntarily,  and intentionally,  as would be the case
in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore,  pursuant   to  U.C.C.  1-103,  the  statute,  being
enforced as  a commercial  obligation of  a commercial agreement,
must now  be construed  in harmony  with the  old Common  Law  of
America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does
not apply  to the  individual who  is wise  enough  and  informed
enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law.
He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his
unalienable rights,  guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
Republic,  while   those  about   him  "curse  the  darkness"  of
Commercial Law  government, lacking  the  truth  needed  to  free
themselves from  a slave  status under the Federal United States,
even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

                             #  #  #

                            ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-207:4  Sufficiency of reservation.

Any expression  indicating any  intention to  preserve rights  is
sufficient, such  as "without prejudice," "under protest," "under
reservation," or "with reservation of all our rights."

The  Code   states  an   "explicit"  reservation  must  be  made.
"Explicit" undoubtedly  is used in place of "express" to indicate
that the  reservation must not only be "express" but it must also
be "clear" that such a reservation was intended.

The term  "explicit" as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means "that which is
so clearly  stated or  distinctively set  forth that  there is no
doubt as to its meaning." ...

U.C.C. 1-207:7  Effect of reservation of rights.

The making  of a  valid reservation  of rights preserves whatever
rights the  person then  possesses and  prevents the loss of such
right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ....

U.C.C. 1-207:9  Failure to make reservation.

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof  causes a  loss of  the right  and  bars  its
assertion at a later date ....

U.C.C. 1-103:6  Common law.

The Code  is "Complementary"  to the  common law which remains in
force except where displaced by the Code ....

A statute  should be  construed in  harmony with  the common  law
unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common
law. ...   "The  Code cannot  be read  to preclude  a common  law
action."

                             EXAMPLE

Your Honor,  my use  of "Without  Prejudice UCC  1-207" above  my
signature on  this document  indicates that  I have exercised the
"Remedy" provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1
at Section  207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to
be compelled  to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I
have not  entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
And, that  reservation  serves  notice  upon  all  administrative
agencies of government  --  national, state and local  --  that I
do not,  and will  not, accept  the liability associated with the
"compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

Name                    CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA              FEDERAL UNITED STATES

Type of government      Constitutional Republic                           Legislative democracy

Territory (venue)       A union of 50 independent sovereign States,       The District of Columbia and all the territories and enclaves
                        not including the District of Columbia,           (American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, Puerto Rico, Wake
                        territories or enclaves                           Island, etc.)

Capital                 The union of the United States is the only        Since June 1800, a "City of Washington" sits in the federal
                        country in the world with no national capital     District of Columbia, which is exempt from all State influence
                        within its venue.  Each sovereign State has       and jurisdiction.  The city is ruled by a federal Commission
                        its own capital.                                  appointed by the President.  It has no local legislature;  the
                                                                          only legislative authority is Congress.  It is the meeting place
                                                                          of Congress and is the seat of federal administration.

Created by              "We the People," free Preamble sovereign          Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution
                        citizens

Citizenry               Each State has rule over its own citizenry,       The citizens of the District of Columbia, all the territories,
                        made up of free Preamble persons:  "We the        enclaves and possessions, and all naturalized citizens (14th
                        People ... and our Posterity."                    Amendment, Section 1)

Executive branch        President                                         President

Legislative branch      A Congress of the Republic consisting of          A Congress of the Legislative Democracy  --  the same persons
                        representatives from the citizenry

Congress' jurisdiction  The States only, not the citizenry of the         The citizenry of DC, the territories, enclaves, and possessions,
                        States except under some form of Commercial       naturalized citizens, and those who put themselves under the rule
                        Agreement                                         of federal regions

Judicial jurisdiction   Law, equity (Article III courts) and              Colorable admiralty (called statutory), Article I legislative
                        admiralty                                         courts

Authorized currency     Real money, based on substance:  gold and         Promises-to-pay money,based on bank credit:  Federal Reserve Notes
                        silver (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1)          non-redeemable in gold or silver (equitable paper involving
                                                                          Commercial Agreements under negotiable instrument law  --
                                                                          later codified as Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

Limitations             Many in the U.S. Constitution                     None, except what are called Unconscionable Agreements under UCC

Flag                    Stars and stripes without yellow fringe           Stars and stripes with yellow fringe

State abbreviations     Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., Colo., etc.       AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, MT, SC, TX, etc.
                        (with or without zip codes)                       (with or without zip codes)

                             #  #  #

Great article for those that are on the road of not being 14th Amendment citizens,

keep in mind as well that UCC 1- 207 is now UCC 1- 308. They keep changing it so we’ll be misled.

12 May، 2014

Taking Back our Country

With the Cliven Bundy storyAmericans are waking up! Maybe after all we can safe the country from being sold to the Chinese, fucking Dubai, and who ever we stole money from.

Great job Utah!

It’s a shock to see a state government turn the tides on the federal government by passing legislation that demands it hand over control of 30 million acres of land.

It’s become commonplace to see news stories of the opposite phenomenon, as the federal government, working through the Bureau of Land Management, has time and again trampled on the private property rights of its citizens and claimed lands for itself. This is not the case in Utah.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill earlier this year that strips massive acreage of land from the overreaching hands of the federal government to help build the state’s economy and resources. Of course, not everyone seems to be happy about the land going back into the hands of its rightful owners.

A non-profit organization known as the Utah Dine Bikeyah have been asking Congress to take a specific 1.9 million acre piece of land and make it a conservation area, since it has cultural significance to the Navajo Nation. Apparently, the government has been shuffling its feet and moving a little too slowly for the group, who is now trying to bypass Congress and appeal to President Obama directly.

According to the Salt Lake City Tribune, Willie Grayeyes, a member of the non-profit, is frustrated by the lack of action being taken by Utah and Congress:

“The Utah delegates are only fumbling the ball. They aren’t really tackling it,” Grayeyes said.

The Navajo Nation are not the only ones who are discussing options for how the land should be used. Meetings have been held by public officials discussing plans and initiatives for different projects the land could be used for.

Many local residents are calling the acquiring of the land a great opportunity as it can be used to develop resources like oil and gas. Local citizens seem to largely support taking the land back and removing the influence of the BLM altogether.

Breitbart reports:

In a public meeting held in Grand County, Curtis Wells, a local resident spoke up about the possibility of using federal lands for resource development such as oil, gas, potash and uranium. “That land is opportunity,” Wells said. Another resident, Darrell Dalton urged the council to scal back the Grand County Council committee’s plans for additional wilderness areas. He urged Gov. Herbert and the state’s lawmakers to take back “our” lands and get rid of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service altogether.

In states where land has been used for the development of natural resources, revenue and job creation has went up, producing a healthier local economy. History has shown time and again that the best management of resources is done at the local and state level, not with the federal government.

It’s a nice change of pace to see a state asserting its property rights in order to consider how land might be used to make its citizens more prosperous.

Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that the federal government needs less control over land and that it would be more beneficial in the hands of state, as well as private owners.

We are taking back our country from the foreign thugs that call themselves Federal Government. Go Home to where you have your jurisdiction, and that is within the ten by ten territory call District of Columbia (DC). We do not need your Usurpations, coercions, extortions, and treason from your bloody selves.

~wethepeople

8 May، 2014
Two Constitutions in the United States

Since 1871 the United States president and the United States Congress has been playing politics under a different set of rules and policies. The American people do not know that there are two Constitutions in the United States. The first penned by the leaders of the newly independent states of the United States in 1776. On July 4, 1776, the people claimed their independence from Britain and Democracy was born. And for 95 years the United States people were free and independent. That freedom ended in 1871 when the original “Constitution for the united states for America” was changed to the “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.

The Congress realized that the country was in dire financial straits, so they made a financial deal with the devil – international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London ) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend the floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a way of taking back control of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.

With the passage of “the Act of 1871” a city state (a state within a state) called the District of Columbia located on 10 sq miles of land in the heart of Washington was formed with its own flag and its own independent constitution – the United States’ secret second constitution.

Pope meeting with the board of directors of The Vatican Bank

POTUS is the Chief Executive (president) of the Corporation of the United States operating as any other CEO of the corporation — governs w/a Board of Directors (cabinet officials) and managers (Senators/Congress) Obama as others before him is POTUS — operating as “vassal king” taking orders once again from “The City of London” through the RIIA (Royal Institute of Intl Affairs). The Illuminati (founded by the The Society of Jesus or Jesuits, the largest Roman Catholic Religious Military Order headed by the Black Pope) created the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in 1919. The American equivalent to the RIIA is the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). The RIIA and CFR set up Round Table Groups (based on the King Arthur myths).

What did the Act of 1871 achieve? The ACT of 1871 put the United States back under British rule (which is under Vatican rule). The United States people lost their independence in 1871.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.

The flag of Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars, each symbolizing a city state within the three city empire. The three city empire consists of Washington D.C., London, and Vatican City. London is the corporate center of the three city states and controls the world economically. Washington’s District of Columbia city state is in charge of the military, and the Vatican controls it all under the guise of spiritual guidance. Although geographically separate, the city states of London, the Vatican and the District of Columbia are one interlocking empire called “Empire of the City”

The constitution for the District of Columbia operates under tyrannical Vatican law known as “Lex Fori” (local law). When congress passed the act of 1871 it created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES and corporate government for the District of Columbia. This treasonous act has unlawfully allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the original constitution of the United States and in total disregard of the best interests of the American citizens.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed – driver’s licenses and Passports. By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.

POTUS Obama at the Vatican Corporate headquarters

5 May، 2014
The United States is Bankrupt

————————————————————————————————————RE: SENATE REPORT NO. 93-549, Etc.

————————————————————————————————————

The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 andExecutive Order 6260, [See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594 under the “Trading With The Enemy Act” [Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917], and as codified at 12 U .S.C.A. 95a. The several States of the Union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such as the “Council Of State Governments,” “Social Security Administration” etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency.” These Organizations operated under the “Declaration Of INTERdependence” of January 22, 193, and published some of their activities in “The Book Of The States.” The 1937 Edition of The Book Of The States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal “Tenants” on their Land. [Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155] This of course was compounded by such activities as price fixing wheat and grains [7 U.S.C.A. 1903], quota regulation I7 U.S.C.A. 1371], and livestock products [7 U.S.C.A. 1903], which have been held consistently below the costs of production; interest on loans and inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit”; leaving the food producers and others in a state of peonage and involuntary servitude, constituting the taking of private property, for the benefit and use of others, without just compensation.

Note: The Council Of State Governments has now been absorbed into such things as the “National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws,” whose Headquarter’s Office is located at 676 North Street, Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and “all” being “members of the Bar,” and operating under a different “Constitution And By-Laws” has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported statutory provisions, to “help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable.” [See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, pg. 2] This is apparently what Robert Dork meant when he wrote “we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” [See: The Tempting Of America. Robert H. Bork. pg. 130]

The United States thereafter entered the second World War during which time the “League of Nations” was reinstituted under pretense of the “United Nations” and the “Bretton Woods Agreement.” [See: 60 Stat. 1401]   The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial), came out of World War II in worse economic shape than when it entered, and in 1950 declared Bankruptcy and “Reorganization.” The Reorganization is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The “Explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The “Secretary of Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. [See: Reorganization Plan No. 26.  5 U.S.C.A. 903.  Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967] The United States went down the road and periodically filed for further Reorganization. Things and situations worsened, having done what they were Commanded NOT to do, [See: Madison’s Notes, Constitutional Convention, August 16, 1787, Federalist Papers No. 44 and in 1965 passed the “Coinage Act of 1965” completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold & silver i.e. Dollar)]. [See: 18 U.S.C.A. 331 & 332, U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L. Ed. 257] At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his Press Release that:

“When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States …””Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.”

    It is important to take cognizance of the fact that NO Constitutional Amendment was ever obtained to FUNDAMENTALLY “CHANGE,” amend, abridge, or abolish the Constitutional mandates, provisions, or prohibitions, but due to internal and external diversions surrounding the Viet Nam War, etc., the usurpation and breach went basically unchallenged and unnoticed by the general public at large, who became “a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or cheap source of slave labor.” [See: Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, TM-SW7905.1, pgs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 56] Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to regulate and maintain the true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, under a corresponding duty and obligation to maintain said gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at and within the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures” clause. [See also: Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 through 16, Public Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211]Those exercising the Offices of the several States, in equal measure, knew such “De Facto Transitions” were unlawful and unauthorized, but sanctioned, implemented and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting “governmental, social, industrial economic change” in the “De Jure” States and in United States of America [See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5936, 5945, 31 U.S.C.A. 314,  31 U.S.C.A. 321,  31 U.S.C.A. 5112, C. (Colorado) R.S. 11-61-101, C.R.S. 39-22-103.5 and C.R.S. 18-11-203, and were and are now under the delusion that they can do both directly and indirectly what they were absolutely prohibited from doing. [See also, Federalist Papers No. 44,  Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Peters 903]

In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the “Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. “Essential Engine” [See: Federalist Papers No. 31] was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. [See: Public Law 89-719, Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see: C. (Colorado) R.S. 5-1-106] The Uniform Commercial Code was, of course, promulgated by the National Conferences Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with the American Law Institute for the “banking and business interests.” [See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, (1966) Ed. pgs, 152 & 153] The United States being engaged in numerous U.N. conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam conflicts, which were under the direction of the United Nations [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287d], and agreeing to foot the bill [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j], and not being able to honor their obligations and rehypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their “Notes” and “obligations” [12 U.S.C.A. 411] i.e. “Federal Reserve Notes” through Public Law 90-262, Section 2,  82 Stat. 50 (1968) to wit:

“Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking ‘and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve notes’.”

    Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970; President Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an “emergency” because the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government(?) for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit.” [See: Senate Report No. 93-549. pg. 596] Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under control of the “Department of Defense.” [See: Department Of The Army Field Manual. FM 41-10(1969 ed.)]

“‘The System has been faltering for a decade, but the bench mark date of the collapse is put at August 15, 1971. On this day, President Nixon reversed U.S. international monetary policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the U.S. dollar [F.R.N.] into gold.” [See: Public Law 94-564,  Legislative History, pg. 5937 & Senate Report No. 93-549, Foreword, pg. III.  Proclamation No. 4074, pg. 597, 31 U.S.C.A. 314 & 31 U.S.C. A. 5112]

    On September 21, 1973. Congress passed Public Law 93-110, amending the Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, 82 Stat. 116, [31 U.S.C.A. 412], and reiterated the “Emergency,” [12 U.S.C.A. 95a], and Section 8 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945 [22 U.S.C.A. 286f], and which included “reports of foreign currency transactions.” [Also see: Executive Order No. 10033] This Act further declared in Section 2(b) that:

“No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.”

    On January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt noted for the record, a second “Declaration Of INTERdependence” and clearly identified the U.N. as a “Communist” organization, and that they were seeking both production and monetary control over the Union and the People through International Organization promoting the “One World Order,” [8 U.S.C.A. 1101(40)] also see [50 U.S.C.A. 781 & 783]The social/economic situation worsened as noted in the Complaint/Petition filed in the U.S. Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76, on February 11, 1976, by 44 Federal Judges. [Atkins et al. vs. U.S.]   Atkins et al. complained that “As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges has been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs … the real value of the dollar decreased by approximately 34.5 percent from March 15th, 1969 to October 1, 1975. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings,” and in the prayer for relief claimed “damages for the constitutional violations enumerated above, measured as the diminution of his earnings for the entire period since March 9, 1969.” It is quite apparent that the persons holding and enjoying Offices of Public Trust, Honor and for Profit knew of the emergency emergent problem and sought protection for themselves, to the damage and injury of the People and Children, who were classified as “a club that has many other members” who “have no remedy.” And knowing that “heinous” acts had been committed, stated that they [judges/lawyers] would not apply the Law, nor would any substantive remedy be applied (“checked more or less, but never stopped) “until all of us [judges] are dead.” Such persons Fraudulently swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and several Republican States of the Union, and breached the Duty to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy encroachment. [See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074,  The Tempting Of America, supra, pgs. 155-159, also see: 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335,  Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69-71,  C. (Colorado) R.S. 24-75-101] This is verified in Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5944, which states:

“Moving to a floating exchange rate for international commerce means private enterprise and not central governments bear the risk of currency fluctuations.”

    Numerous serious debates were held in Congress, including but not limited to, Tuesday, July 27, 1976 [See: Congressional Record – House, July 27, 1976] concerning the International Financial Institutions and their operations. Representative, Ron Paul, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, made numerous references to the true practices of the “International” financial institutions, including but not limited to, the conversion of 27,000.000 (27 million) in gold, contributed by the United States as part of its “quota obligations,” which the International Monetary Fund (Governor-Secretary of Treasury) sold [See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5945 & 5946] under some very questionable terms and concessions. [Also see: The Ron Paul Money Book, (1991), by Ron Paul, Plantation Publishing. 837 W. Plantation, Clute, Texas  77531]On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, [91 Stat. 1227] declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction and control of the corporate “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund [See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5942, United States Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-481]. The Act further declared that:

“(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 822a(b)) is amended by striking out the phrase ‘stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar’ … “” (c) The joint resolution entitled’ Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States’, approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.”

        The United States, as Corporator, [22 U.S.C.A. 286e, et seq.] and “State” [C. (Colorado) R.S. 24-36-104, C.R. S. 24-60-1301(h)] had declared “Insolvency.” [See: 26 I.R.C. 165(g)(1), U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22-103.5, Westfall vs, Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509,Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W.2d 911 Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall 447] A permanent state of “Emergency” was instituted, formed and erected within the Union through the contrivances, fraud, and avarice of the International Financial Institutions, Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their “fiscal and depository agent.” [22 U.S.C.A. 286d] This has lead to such “Emergency” legislation is the “Public Debt Limit- Balance Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,” Public Law 99-177, etc.The government, by becoming a corporator, [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286(e)] lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived form the corporate charter. [See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9 Wheat) 244,U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242] The real party of interest is not the de jure “United States of America” or “State,” but “The Bank” and ‘The Fund.” [22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq., C. (Colordo) R.S. 11-60- 103] The acts committed under fraud, force, and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” i.e. “recapture.” [See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323] Such principles as “Fraud and Justice never dwell together” [Wingate’s Maxims 680], and “A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” [Broom’s Maxims 297, 729; Cowper’s Reports 343; 5 Scott’s New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800,] And do not rightfully contemplate the thought concept, as “Due Process,” “Just Compensation” and Justice itself. Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses, nor will the color of the cloth one wears cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery, and deceits. When Black is fraudulently declared to be White, not all will live in darkness. As astutely observed by Will Rogers, “there are men running governments who shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches,” and is as applicable today as Jesus’ statements about Lawyers.

The contrived “emergency” has created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgments of delegated Powers and Authority. As stated inSenate Report 93-549:

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process.

“Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may; seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.” [See: Foreword, pg. III]

    The “Introduction,” on page 1, begins with a phenomenal declaration, to wit:

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency …”

    According to the research done in 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, no “emergency” justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, “Supremacy Clause” and “Separation of Powers,” it is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has occurred. The statements heard in the Federal and State Tribunals, on numerous occasions, that Constitutional arguments are “immaterial,” “frivolous,” etc., are based upon the concealment, furtherance, and compounding of the Frauds and “Emergency” created and sustained by the “Expatriated,” ALIENS of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations, and Associations. [See: Letter, Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, U.N. Staff Union, New York] Please note that, [8 U.S.C.A. 1481] is one of the controlling Statutes on expatriation, as is [22 U.S.C.A. 611, 612, & 613] and [50 U.S.C.A. 781].The Internal Revenue Service entered into a “service agreement” with the U.S. Treasury Department [See: Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26] and the Agency for International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International Development is an International paramilitary operation [See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7)(c)(1),  22 U.S.C.A. 284], and includes such activities as “Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area.” [See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)] also see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of The United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241. It is to be further observed that the “Agreement” regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to [See: Congressional Record – Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurnond], and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.

The International Organizational intents, purposes, and activities include complete control of “Public Finance” i.e. “control, supervision, and audit of indigenous fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation. expenditures of public funds, currency issues, and banking agencies and affiliates.” [See: FM 41-10, pgs. 2-30 through 2-31, Section 251. Public Finance] This of course complies with “Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars” Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people (See: pgs. 3 & 7), monetary control by the Internationalist, through information etc., solicited and collected by the Internal Revenue Service [See: TM-SV7905.1, pg. 48, also see, 22 U.S.C.A. 286F & Executive Order No. 10033, 26 U.S.C.A. 6103(k)(4)] and who is operating and enforcing the seditious International program. [See: TM-SV7905.1, pg. 52] The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 further describes the International “Civil Affairs” operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the A.I.D. is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at pages 3-8, that the operation is “paramilitary.” The International Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement, and enforce a “DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.” [See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186]

It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service Agents etc., are “Agents of a Foreign Principal” within the meaning and intent of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.”  They are directed and controlled by the corporate “Governor” of “The Fund” also known as “Secretary of Treasury” [See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11),Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10, and the corporate “Governor” of “The Bank” 22 U.S.C.A. 286 and 286a, acting as “information service employees [22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(ii)], and have been and do now “solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contribution [Tax – pecuniary contribution, Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition], loans, money or other things of value for or in interest of such foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal pursuant to Treasury Delegated Order No. 91 i.e. the “Agency For International Development.” [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(2)] The Internal Revenue Service is also an agency of the International Criminal Police Organization and solicits and collects information for 150 Foreign Powers. [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 263a, The United States Government Manual, 1990/91, pg. 385, see also, The Ron Paul Money Book, pgs. 250-251] It should be further noted that Congress has appropriated, transferred, and converted vast sums to Foreign Powers [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 262c(b)] and has entered into numerous Foreign Taxing Treaties (conventions) [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 285g, 22 U.S.C.A. 287j] and other Agreements which are solicited and collected pursuant to 26 I.R.C. 61 03(k)( 4). Along with the other documentary evidence submitted herewith, this should absolve any further doubt as to the true character of the party. Such restrictions as “For the general welfare and common defense of the United States” [See: Constitution (1787), Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1] apparently aren’t applicable, and the fraudulent rehypothecated debt credit will be merely added to the insolvent nature of the continual “emergency,” and the reciprocal social/economic repercussions laid upon present and future generations.

Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. [See: Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100-70, Military Law Review, Vol. 70] The United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 7, further prohibits the U.N. from “intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ….” Korea, Viet Nam, Ethiopia, Angola, Kuwait, etc., etc., are evidence enough of the “BAD FAITH” of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations, not to mention the seizing of two daycare centers in the State of Minnesota by their agents, and holding the children as collateral hostages for payment/ransom of their fraudulent, dishonored, rehypothecated debt credit, worthless securities. Such is the “Rule of Law” “as envisioned by the Founders” of the United Nations. Such is Communist terrorism, despotism and tyranny. ALL WERE AND ARE OUTLAWED HERE.

I hope this communication finds you well’ and mentally strong for the occasion. It is quite apparent that the “Treasonous” and “Seditious” are brewing up a storm of untold magnitude. Bush’s public address of September 11, 1991 [See: Weekly Compilation Of Presidential Documents] should further qualify what is being said here. He admitted “Interdependence” [See also: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5950], “One World Order” [See also:Extension Of Remarks, January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt, 8 U.S.C.A. 1101(40)], affiliation and collusion with the Soviet Union Oligarchy [50 U.S.C.A. 781], direction by the U.N., 22 U.S.C.A. 611, etc.. You might also find it interesting that Treasury Delegation Order No. 92 states that the I.R.S. is trained under direction of the Division of “Human Resources” (U.N.) and the Commissioner (INTERNATI0NAL), by the “Office Of Personnel Management.” In the 1979 Edition of 22 U.S.C.A. 287, the United Nations, at pg. 248, you will find Executive Order No. 10422. The Office of Personnel Management is under direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations. And as stated previously, the I.R.S. is also a member in a one hundred fifty (150) Nation pact called the “International Criminal Police Organization’” found at [22 U.S.C.A. 263a]. The “Memorandum & Agreement” between the Secretary of Treasury/Corporate Governor of “The Fund” and “The Bank” and the Office of the U.S. Attorney General would indicate that the Attorney General and his associate are soliciting and collecting information for Foreign Principals. [See also, The United States Government Manual 1990/91, pg. 385, also see, The Ron Paul Money Book, supra, pgs. 250, 251]

It is worthy of note that each and every Attorney/Representative, Judge or Officer is required to file a “Foreign Agents Registration Statement” pursuant to [22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(I)(iv) & 612], if representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 613, Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L.Ed.2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951]

On January 17, 1980, the President and Senate confirmed another “Constitution,” namely, the “Constitution Of The United Nations Industrial Development Organization,” found at Senate, Treaty Document No. 97-19, 97th Congress, 1st Session. A perusal of this Foreign Constitution should more than qualify the internationalist intents. The “Preamble,” Article 1, “Objectives,” and Article 2, “Functions,” clearly evidences their intent to direct, control, finance and subsidize all “natural and human resources” and “agro-related as well as basic industries,” through “dynamic social and economic changes” “with a view to assisting in the establishment of a new international economic order.”   The high flown rhetoric is obviously of “Communist” origin and intents. An unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable oligarchy of expatriates and aliens, who fraudulently claim, in the Preamble, that they intend to establish “rational and equitable international economic relations,” yet openly declared that they no longer “stabilize the value of the dollar” nor “assure the value of the coin and currency of the United States” is purely misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. [See: Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227, at pg. 1229] This was augmented by [Public Law 101-167], 103 Stat. 1195, which discloses massive appropriations of rehypothecated debt for the general welfare and common defense of other Foreign Powers, including “Communist” countries or satellites, International control of natural and human resources, etc. etc.. A “Resource” is a claim of “property” “and when related to people constitutes ‘slavery’.”

It is now necessary to ask, “Which Constitution they are operating under?” The “Constitution For The Newstates Of The United States.” This effort was the subject matter of the book entitled: “The Emerging Constitution” by Rexford G. Tugwell, which was accomplished under the auspices of the Rockefeller tax-exempt foundation called the “Center For The Study of Democratic Institutions.” The People and Citizens of the Nation were forewarned against formation of “Democracies.” “Democracies have every been the spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” [See: Federalist Papers No. 10, also see, The Law, Fredrick Bastiat, Code Of Professional Responsibility, Preamble] This Alien Constitution, however, has nothing to do with democracy in reality. It is the basis of and for a despotic, tyrannical oligarch. Article I, “Rights and Responsibilities,” Sections 1 and 15 evidence their knowledge of the “emergency.” The Rights of expression, communication, movement, assembly, petition and Habeas Corpus are all excepted from being exercised under and in a “declared emergency.”  The Constitution for the Newstates of America, openly declares, among other seditious things and delusions that “Until each indicated change in the government shall have been completed the provisions of the existing Constitution and the organs of government shall be in effect.” [See: Article XlI, Section 3] “All operations of the national government shall cease as they are replaced by those authorized under this Constitution.” [See: Article XII, Section 4]  This is apparently what Burger was promoting in 1976, after he resigned as Supreme Court Justice and took up the promotion of a “Constitutional Convention.” No trial by jury is mentioned, “JUST” compensation has been removed, along with being informed of the “Nature & Cause of the Accusation,” etc., etc., and every one will of course participate in the “democracy.” This Constitution is but a reiteration of the Communist Doctrines, intents and purposes, and clearly establishes a “Police Power” State, under direction and control of a self appointed oligarchy.

Apparently the present operation of the “de facto” government is under Foreign/Alien Constitutions, Laws, Rules, and Regulations. The overthrow of the “essential engine” declared in and by the ordained and established Constitution for the United States of America (1787), and by and under the “Bill of Rights” (1791) is obvious. The covert procedure used to implement and enforce these Foreign Constitutions, Laws, Procedures, Rules, Regulations, etc., has not, to my knowledge, been collected and assimilated nor presented as evidence to establish seditious collusion and conspiracy.

Fortunately, and Unfortunately, in my Land it is necessary to seek, obtain, and present EVIDENCE to sustain a conviction and/or judgment. Our patience and tolerance for those who pervert the very necessary and basic foundations of society has been pushed to insufferable levels. They have “fundamentally” changed the form and substance of the de jure Republican form of Government, exhibited a willful and wanton disregard for the Rights, Safety, and Property of others, evinced a despotic design to reduce my people to slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude, under a fraudulent, tyrannical, seditious foreign oligarchy, with intent and purpose to institute, erect and form a “Dictatorship” over the Citizens and our Posterity. They have completely debauched the de jure monetary system, destroyed the Livelihood and Lives of thousands, aided and abetted our enemies, declared War upon us and our Posterity, destroyed untold families and made homeless over 750,000 children in the middle of winter, afflicted widows and orphans, turned Sodomites lose among our young, implemented foreign laws, rules, regulations and procedures within the body of the country, incited insurrection, rebellion, sedition and anarchy within the de jure society, illegally entered our Land, taken false Oaths, entered into Seditious Foreign Constitutions, Agreements, Pacts, Confederations, and Alliances, and under pretense of “emergency,” which they themselves created, promoted and furthered, formed a multitude of offices and retained those of alien allegiance to perpetuate their frauds and to eat out the substance of the good and productive people of our Land, and have arbitrarily dismissed and held mock trials for those who trespassed upon our lives, Liberties, Properties, and Families and endangered our Peace, Safety, Welfare, and Dignity. The damage, injury and costs have been higher than mere money can repay. They have done that which they were COMMANDED NOT TO DO. The time for just correction is NOW!

Sincere consideration of “Presentment” to a Grand Jury under the ordained and established Constitution for the United States of America (1787), Amendment V is in order. Numerous High Crimes and Misdemeanors have been committed under the Constitution for the United States of America, and Laws made in Pursuance thereof, and under the Constitution for the States, and the laws made in Pursuance thereof, and against the Peace and Dignity of the People including, but not limited to, C. (Colorado) R.S. 18-11-203 which defines and prescribes punishment for “Seditious Associations” which is applicable to the other constitutions, and the intents and professed purposes of their Organizations, Corporations and Associations. If the Presentment should be obstructed by the members of the Bar, ARREST THEM.

I could go on, but the story is long! I hope this information and research is of assistance to you. Much remains to be uncovered and disclosed, as it is necessary and imperative to secure the Lives, Liberties, Property, Peace and Dignity of the People and our Posterity. Good Hunting and the Good Lord be with you in all your endeavors.

SOURCE

5 May، 2014
The Declaration of Human Sovereignty
Regarding Contact with Extraterrestrial Nations and Forces

We, the People of Earth, extend greetings to all races in the Greater Community of the Universe. We acknowledge our common heritage before the Creator of all the Universe, both visible and invisible. We declare the planet Earth as humanity’s Planet of Genesis, our Homeworld, and our sacred inheritance. We pledge henceforth to sustain and preserve the Earth for all generations to come. We call upon all humanity to treat all races everywhere with wisdom and justice, here on Earth and throughout the Universe.

Fundamental Rights

We, the People of Earth, regard the need for freedom to be universal. Therefore, we hold that all individuals in all worlds are created equal and are endowed by the Creator with sacred and inalienable rights. Fundamental among these are the right to live as a free race on their Planet of Genesis, their Homeworld; the right of self-determination, self-sufficiency, and creative expression; the right to life without oppression; and the right to pursue in life a higher purpose and a higher calling that the Creator has provided to all.

Before the Greater Community of the Universe, we, the People of Earth, do now invoke these fundamental rights for ourselves and for our Homeworld, along with certain rights that naturally derive from them, including:
- The right of sovereignty. The People of Earth shall be self-governed and independent, neither subject to nor dependent upon any other authority. No extraterrestrial force shall contravene or abrogate the human sovereignty of this planet.
- The right of planetary sanctity. As our Planet of Genesis, the Earth shall be free from extraterrestrial intervention, intrusion, interference, or exploitation, both mental and physical. No extraterrestrial force shall make close approach, or assume close orbit, or make any landing, or engage in trade, except openly and with the expressed consent of the People of Earth achieved through a democratic means.
- The right of sanctity of biological and genetic material. No extraterrestrial power shall take, possess, or manipulate human biological or genetic material for any purpose whatsoever.
- The right of occupation. As the native people of the one known inhabited planet of this Solar System, we claim this Solar System as our sphere of influence. No extraterrestrial bases may be established on bodies or stations orbiting the Earth, nor on other planets or bodies of this Solar System, except with the expressed consent of the People of Earth.
- The right of peaceful navigation. We claim the right to travel and explore within our Solar System without interference or restraint from extraterrestrial forces, and maintain the right to deny access to this Solar System by any extraterrestrial forces.
We, the People of Earth, consider it our rightful responsibility to assert and defend these fundamental rights, and to give and receive aid consistent with these rights. In the case of any dispute with extraterrestrial forces, the burden of proof of innocence shall fall on those who are not native to Earth.

The Assessment

When in the course of their evolution it becomes necessary for the native people of a planet to unite, to transcend the conflicts and differences that have separated them from one another, and to assume among the powers of the Universe a separate and equal sovereignty, a respectful consideration of that sovereignty requires that they declare the causes which impel them to this present course of action.

Although the Earth has undergone a long history of extraterrestrial visitation, the current situation is that the People of Earth are now suffering the effects of a global extraterrestrial intervention into human affairs. This intervention employs a strategy of deception, manipulation, and exploitation, the goal of which is control over humanity, which will result in the loss of human freedom and self-determination. It is now the sacred right and duty of the People of Earth to oppose, resist, and repel this extraterrestrial intervention, to declare and defend our sovereignty, our freedom, and our independence from all extraterrestrial forces.

Let these violations be considered by those supporting the cause of freedom throughout the Greater Community:
- Intervening extraterrestrial forces have refused to openly disclose and reveal the nature and intent of their activities on and around Earth. This extraterrestrial presence is clandestine, covert, uninvited, and unapproved by the People of Earth. These extraterrestrial forces have concealed their own identity, their political or economic alliances and allegiances, as well as the authorities and powers which they serve.
- As is becoming increasingly apparent from their actions, extraterrestrial forces intend to exploit the Earth, its resources, and its people, and are engaged in a systematic program of colonizing humanity into a subservient client state to be ruled by agents of these extraterrestrial forces. The extraterrestrial intervention and occupation seeks commercial gain, economic power, and the strategic advantage offered by this world in relation to other worlds.
- Extraterrestrial forces have repeatedly and with impunity violated national and international laws of the Earth’s people. These offenses, which still continue today, have included violation of restricted airspace; abduction and transportation of humans without their consent; murder, rape, torture, sexual abuse, interbreeding with humans, and cruel experimentation; theft and trade of human biological and genetic materials; theft and trade of Earth’s natural resources; covert mental and psychological influence; mutilation of humans and animals; tampering with and disabling of military defense systems; and clandestine infiltration into human society.
- Extraterrestrial forces have secretly negotiated treaties and agreements with human individuals and groups, without the informed consent of the People of Earth.
- Extraterrestrial forces have systematically attempted to persuade and mislead humans through extending false hopes and promises of wealth, power, and protection; rescue from planetary catastrophe; membership in a “galactic federation”; and spiritual salvation and enlightenment.
- Extraterrestrial forces have exploited and exacerbated human conflicts to serve their own ends.
- Extraterrestrial forces have been disempowering humanity by leading us to believe that we can only survive with their help and their advanced technology, thus fostering our complete dependence upon them and denying our ability to ensure our own survival.
Demands and Declarations

Accordingly, we, the People of Earth, do hereby declare all previously existing agreements or treaties between any human government, group, or individual and any extraterrestrials to be forthwith null, void, and permanently suspended. We demand that any such previously existing treaties or agreements be fully and publicly disclosed. Any future agreements or treaties between human governments, groups, or individuals and extraterrestrials must be negotiated only with the full consent of the People of Earth, publicly and openly expressed by an international democratic body representing the nations and peoples of Earth.

We demand that all extraterrestrials now cease all operations and activities and immediately vacate and depart from the Earth and its surroundings including the Sun, Earth’s Moon, and all planets of this Solar System. This includes vacating any natural or artificial satellites, as well as all space within the Solar System.

We demand that all extraterrestrial organizations who have established or operated bases on the Earth, its Moon, or anywhere else within this Solar System, dismantle these bases and fully disclose their nature.

We further demand that all living humans who are now in custody of extraterrestrials be returned immediately in good health; further, we demand a full accounting of all humans who have been taken or held by extraterrestrials, including those who have died in captivity. In addition, we demand that all human biological or genetic materials taken from any individuals be accounted for and destroyed, and their intended use be identified. Any devices implanted in living individuals must be identified so that they may be safely removed.

We demand full public disclosure of the purpose and details of the extraterrestrial hybridization program, including the location, identity, and activities of all living human-extraterrestrial hybrids, whether on Earth or elsewhere.

Be it known throughout the Universe that from this time forward, extraterrestrials may only enter our Solar System, approach our Earth, fly in our skies, set foot on our soil, or enter our waters with the explicit consent of the People of Earth.

We, therefore, do solemnly declare that the People of Earth are and should be a free and independent people; that all humans are hereby absolved from all allegiance to extraterrestrial powers, and that all political and economic connections between them and the People of Earth are totally dissolved; that as a free and sovereign race in the Greater Community of the Universe, we assume full power within this Solar System to conclude peace, levy war, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to undertake all other actions which a sovereign planetary race may rightfully and ethically do.

Concluding Statement

Let it be understood that in making this Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we, the People of Earth, affirm our future and destiny as a free race within a Greater Community of intelligent life. We recognize that we are a part of this Greater Community and that we are destined over time to encounter many different races from beyond our world.

To them and to all others, we hereby declare that our intention is not conquest or domination in space. We declare that the rights and privileges that we affirm here for ourselves, we also affirm for all races of beings whom we might encounter.

In making our Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we proclaim our rights, responsibilities, and privileges as a free race in order that we may pursue greater unity, peace, and cooperation within the human family without unwanted or unwarranted intrusion and interference by any outside nation or force from the Greater Community. We make this proclamation as an expression of our Divine right and honorable intent for the human family and for all races in the Universe who seek to be free.

~We The People of Earth
3 May، 2014
A Message For Law Enforcement

Actions have consequences. The only legitimate use of force in America against any citizen is when that citizen infringes on another citizen’s rights. The law has been perverted and Law Enforcement is charged today with enforcing laws in conflict with that principle… Your oath is to the Constitution, not the legislature. By enforcing laws that are in contravention of the Constitution you are making yourselves enemies of the people.

Being a cop isn’t an easy job but that doesn’t give you the authority to abuse the law or the citizens of this Republic. If the Supreme Law of this Land was adhered to, you’d be mostly cleaning up, after the more violent thugs were dealt with by armed citizens exercising their God-given right of self-defense; instead, by enforcing usurpatious legislation depriving citizens

of that right, YOU have to deal with them in ever increasing numbers. It isn’t long now before your enforcement of usurpation and abuse of the people reaches such a level that you find yourselves on the wrong side of a revolt. I’m sure you are aware of arm sales since that foreign agent usurper calling himself the President was imposed on us. The time is rapidly approaching where you will have chosen your side by where you stand in relation to your oath.

Not every cop is abusive but most of them cover up for those that are, making them just as dirty and giving police everywhere a more tarnished reputation in the eyes of the people. The more the Constitution is ignored by police and the judiciary the more injustice will tear the fabric of society until it comes apart. The thin blue line really doesn’t know just how thin it is until the people at arms rise up.

I miss the beat cops I knew when I was a child in Detroit… walked a beat, talked with people, helped kids like me, established a rapport with the community and actually made friends with us. What has happed to those guys?

“Every law passed by the legislature that is in contravention of the Constitution is not law and is void.

Anyone attempting to enforce legislation in contravention of the Constitution is enforcing usurpation, violating their oath of office.”

~Thomas Mick

3 May، 2014
COMMON LAW-THE FACTS

Common Law is the beginning of all Law and in its perfection is the absence of all Law and in today’s society it is known as PUBLIC POLICY Common Law summed up in simple terms is the will of the people and will manifest itself in separate cases as people so rule with their conscience and a sense of fair play.

Common Law is a Law that is Common to all People.

Common Law is Common Sense and is the Law of the Creator God of this Universe-Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Common Law supersedes all Law and is Superior in all Cases to Statutory Law, Codified Law, and Rules and Regulations.

Common Law establishes Constitutions, as all Power is inherent in the People.

Common Law establishes through the Constitution all restrictions on the government.

Constitutions never give the government power for legislating People.

Government only has the power to Legislate the workings of the different functions of the various departments to allow the people Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

Constitutions can never establish Common Law for then all Power would not be in the People, but would be in the Constitution and it is only a piece of paper, and the Peoples right to address grievances or to amend, change, or address any problem could not be.

The Creator God created man, man (with help) created government, government started CORPORATIONS.

The Creator rules over man, man rules over government, and government rules over CORPORATIONS.

Governments are mere pieces of paper to be altered and changed to the whim of the living souls.

CORPORATIONS are mere pieces of paper that government can change and alter at their whim.

The Creator is Superior over Man, government, and CORPORATIONS.

Man is superior to government and CORPORATIONS. If man says they do not exist-they do not exist.

Simply said, Common Law-PUBLIC POLICY-the Will of the People, a Law Common to all People.

~wethepeople

3 May، 2014

Category: Sovereignity

Regarding Contact with Extraterrestrial Nations and Forces

Fundamental Rights

The Assessment

Demands and Declarations

Concluding Statement