A TIME FOR CHOOSING

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/02/a-time-for-choosing-part-1/

PART 1

 

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG BANKLORDS, FIAT CURRENCY, AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP

by Steven Wayne Pattison©2011

President John F. Kennedy indicated that he suspected a conspiracy

(Nov. 2, 2011) — By reading the following, you will learn the reason for our current situation and how it took place in other countries with the same results we will have soon.

Some will not believe what they are about to read!  Others such as J. Edgar Hoover and President John F. Kennedy have reported about the fact that there is a conspiracy:

J. Edgar Hoover – The Elks Magazine (August 1956):

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”

President John F. Kennedy address before ‘The American Newspaper Publishers Association’ at Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.”

A sign of the present, and just what does the future hold for America?

A JOYOUS FUTURE, yes there will be, if you get involved!

America is “Temporarily” out of order!

All ‘We the People’ need is to get in Order so you can be a service to our country.

To get into Order, all anyone has to do is learn the truth and the Plan will happen with all the good people working collectively. It will never work any other way, for it took the banklords over 200 years to totally take over our Country. The following presentation of history may not be completely accurate, but it will connect the dots leading most of us to a better understanding of what is going on today.   For that reason I implore you to just read this document before going to any web links.

I would have to believe there are a lot of people even today that just want to be left alone, which was the reason most people came to America in 1643, the beginning of our Country. The people who came to America were running from what was happening in Great Britain involving the King of England, Parliament, the aristocracy, the middle classes, the commoners, and the army, called the English Civil War of the mid-17th Century. It was part of a wider series of conflicts that spanned the entire British Isles, involving Scotland and Ireland as well as England, Wales and the division of the Catholic Church which occurred over whether or not Jesus Christ was a spirit. The English Civil War was also called “The Great Rebellion,” “The English Revolution” and “The Wars of the Three Kingdoms.”

The British Civil Wars and Commonwealth period witnessed the trial and execution of a king, the formation of a republic in England, a theocracy in Scotland and the subjugation of Ireland. The first attempt was made to unite the three nations under a single government, and the foundations of the modern British constitution were laid. As the oldest branch of Christianity, along with Eastern Orthodoxy, the history of the Catholic Church plays an integral part of the History of Christianity as a whole and the execution of a king. The history that covers a period of over 2,000 years reveals an overwhelming fight for Freedom and the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America is a statement in an attempt to stop all the fighting in the world at that time:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And the First Amendment to the Constitution provided that there would be freedom of religion along with the other listed Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is happening today is a continuous struggle in the Fight for Freedom and  not just a repeat of history where the People wanted their Freedom with Laws to protect them from others as in early Roman times.  The Roman legal system was characterized by a formalism that lasted for more than 1,000 years, drawn from custom and statutes, a form of Common Law. Later, during the times of the empire, the emperor asserted his authority as the ultimate source of law known as Roman Civil Codes, causing everyone to be subject to the Emperor. Roman Civil Codes are similar to the Napoleonic Code established under Napoléon I in 1804 and the Lieber Codes installed in 1863 with the General Orders No. 100 here in our Country. Both are Codes by a dictator.

If it were not for dictators, emperors, Kings and Presidents causing most all the wars in history by obtaining the authority to change the laws from Common Law to Roman Civil Codes which converted all the people into ‘Subjects,’ requiring everyone within their jurisdiction to have to use ‘Debt Money’ controlled by the banklords, our Country with Freedom for all could have lasted forever. Changing of the Law to Codes has happened in many countries throughout history, destroying Freedom for the People inhabiting those Countries. See the list of Countries that are in trouble with the debt money which they have been forced to use, and don’t be surprised that the United States is listed first:   List of countries by external debt in the World Factbook.

The United States officially ended in 1968 when the redemption of pre-1963 Federal Reserve notes for gold or silver officially ended. Without Lawful Money, a country by the People, for the People and of the People cannot exist except as a dictatorship under the control of whoever supplies the money used within the country. The plan to spend all the money backed by gold and silver is exposed in 1958 in this video by Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society (Watch this nine minute video now.). Once the people behind this scheme spent all the money backed by gold and silver, the only option was to print IOUs, which is what we still have today. All we have in our pockets are IOUs, which means that we really don’t own a thing; even our homes are owned by the government. We even have to pay interest to the banklords to use these IOUs, and this was all accomplished by the changing of our Law.

Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83. “Under the new law the ‘debt’ money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts; notes; trade acceptances; and bankers acceptances. The ‘debt’ money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation.” Internet search

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States promoted in the 1960s by President Lyndon B. Johnson with a goal of spending all the money they could as reported by Robert Welch in 1958. What everyone was told were the two main goals of the Great Society simply never worked: social reforms to eliminate poverty, and racial injustice! If they had worked then the following would not be headline news in 2011:

Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit by Sara Murray – Posted October 5, 2011 in The Wall Street Journal. See the timeline that shows the spending of the government de facto.

These numbers will continue upward until we restore the lawful Union States. If we do not fix the problem, something major is going to happen. What, I do not know! Please understand that many people knew about these events and some of them leading up to 2007 are reported on this website,including:

Henry Ford, Sr. in 1921 stated that if we removed the power of money from the banklords, we would stop all wars. This knowledge caused further research which is posted on this webpage – A Time Line focusing on Taxes, Money and War.

There are a lot of problems with the schemes presented to fix our money problem which will have to be addressed at some point, but first we have to regain our sovereignty so the money can be owned collectively by the People.  Then and only then will we not have to pay interest to our foreign enemies.

PART 2

HOW COMMON LAW WAS REPLACED WITH ROMAN CIVIL CODES TO THE DETRIMENT OF FREEDOM

by Steven Wayne Pattison, ©2011

King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, uniting the two kingdoms under one monarchy

(Nov. 9, 2011) —Editor’s Note:  The following essay is a continuation of the ideas presented in Part 1 of this series.

The major systems of law in European history were Roman law, feudal law, canon law, civil law, English common law and the Napoleonic Code. The use of international law in the twentieth century was for the purpose of the banks having control over trade. Napoleonic Code is the laws of Louisiana and Roman Civil Codes titled here in our Country as ‘United States Codes’ which are what every State of the Union is using, making them all de facto, a point which will be covered later.

Today there is nowhere to run to escape what is happening to our Country because the banklords control all the money of the other countries through the IMF. If you don’t get involved now, our Country will continue down the path of corruption under the current Conspiracy. Even the Congress of the United States reports the same facts of our destruction within its Congressional Findings:

(a) Findings Relating to Federal Income Tax- Congress finds the Federal income tax–

(1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public;

(2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry;

(3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times;

(4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase;

(5) lowers productivity;

(6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers;

(7) is unfair and inequitable;

(8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens;

(9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy;

(10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and

(11) impedes upward social mobility.

The following is documented information leading to the fact we have to collectively act to restore what we once had, our Freedom:

The Articles of Confederation were the first constitution governing the 13 original colonies

The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643

The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity. And forasmuch as the natives have formerly committed sundry Insolence and outrages upon several Plantations of the English and have of late combined themselves against us: and seeing by reason of those sad distractions in England which they have heard of, and by which they know vie are hindered from that humble way of seeking advice, or reaping those comfortable fruits of protection, which at other times we might well expect. We therefore do conceive it our bounder duty, without delay to enter into a present Consociation amongst ourselves, for mutual help and strength in all our future concernments: That, as in nation and religion, so in other respects, we be and continue one according to the tenor and true meaning of the ensuing articles: Wherefore it is fully agreed and concluded by and between the parties or Jurisdictions above named, and they jointly and severally do by these presents agree and conclude that they all be and henceforth be called by the name of the United Colonies of New England.

Things have not changed much, have they?

They knew they had to join forces to help one another against foreign influence and corruption as President George Washington warned us about during his farewell speech. His whole speech was a warning against the ‘Political Parties’ that were being manipulated just like today with foreign influence and corruption which also controls the Media.  An example is the Federalist party that became the Whig party; their scheme is covered later in this document.  There was also Jefferson’s democratic republican party. President George Washington’s farewell speech even included mention of the problems that emerged with the American Civil War. Today it is all about a book written approximately in 475 B. C., meaning “Before Christ,” titled ‘The Art Of War’ which is all about dividing and conquering your enemy.

Washington’s farewell speech:

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

This control over all Political Parties is still going on today!

The Colonies of New England in 1643 knew, just as Ronald Reagan warned us on 27 October 1964, known as – “A Time For Choosing” when he stated:

We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind.

Full Transcript in part states:

Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future.

When will you get that ‘uncomfortable feeling’ and get involved? You need to Choose:   Will it be Freedom or Slavery for the rest of your life? This is not rocket science but a simple conspiracy where you get to choose either to be a Freeman or Freewoman, a sovereign under Common Law, or a slave under Roman Civil Codes because the people who made all of this happen did it without lawful authority. They never destroyed the lawful governments, so they are all still in place and could be restored with very little effort with lawful money of, for and by the People, not the banklords.

You will have to figure out what the truth is for yourself and your family starting with which law applies to you. The following is part of the last paragraph of a Law Book from 1871 whose cover page addressed itself to the ‘ALUMNI OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF COLUMBIAN COLLEGE.’ The book was being used to educate the students of law, newly called ‘Attorneys’:

When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles – interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those “indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled.” And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties (emphasis mine).

If our Founding Fathers used common law, don’t you think we should also? Were you taught anything about ‘common law’ in any schools you attended? The ‘Congressional Records’ from 1941 report the “Subversion of Textbooks in American Public Schools,” and there is no evidence that the history books were ever corrected by anyone. Please go to the Articles of Confederation website and answer these questions. Why is the following part of what they wanted, “preserving and propagating the truth”? Was the truth of our history being changed?

Why is the term “Jurisdiction” used so many times?

Things to ponder – Do a search within this webpage for the word ‘jurisdiction’ to find the following:

“A judgment would be null, if the judge had not jurisdiction of the matter.”

“There is nothing in the constitution of the United States to forbid or prevent the legislature of a state from exercising judicial functions but a state legislature cannot annul the judgments, nor determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” NOTE: The only time the state legislature would want to argue a case against the ‘courts of the United States’ would only be when the ‘courts of the United States’ did not have jurisdiction in the defined borders of their Union state.

“Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.”

“It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may wave the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213.”

Have you unknowingly waived your privilege by going to a court where they use something other than ‘Common Law’? Go to this webpage and do a search for ‘common law’ to find the following:

LIBERTY OF SPEECH – “The greatest latitude is allowed by the common law to counsel.”

“It is a maxim of the common law, that a right never dies and, as far as contracts were concerned, there was no time of limitation to actions on such contracts.”

“LOCUS REI SITAE. The place where a thing is situated. In proceedings in rem, in real actions in the civil law, or: those which have for their object the recovery of a thing; and in real actions in the common law, or those for the recovery of land, the proper forum is the locus rei sitae. 2 Gall. R. 191.”

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.

Missouri was admitted to the Union in 1821 as the 24th state

An example of one Union state that ‘adopted by statute’ common law – Missouri Revised Statutes,Chapter 1, Laws in Force and Construction of Statutes – Section 1.010:

Common law in force — effect on statutes.

1.010. The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, but no act of the general assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that it is in derogation of, or in conflict with, the common law, or with such statutes or acts of parliament; but all acts of the general assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof.

(RSMo 1939 § 645, A.L. 1957 p. 587)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 645; 1919 § 7048; 1909 § 8047

If you do any real research about ‘James the First’ you will learn why it was made prior to the fourth year of his reign! It was the year that their Law started to change to Roman Civil Codes. It was also one of the reasons for many to leave the country for America.

3. The phrase “common law” occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars says that article, “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The “common law” here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554.

Section 2 of Article III of the ‘Constitution for the United States of America you will find the judicial Power listed:

Section. 2 – The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Please note the distension of “Citizens thereof meaning one of the Union ‘States’ vs. ‘foreign States, Citizens or Subjects’.)

The term “Common Law” is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554 which has to mean that the term “in Law” in ‘Section. 2’ above can only mean ‘Common Law’ for there was no other law in our Country at that time and place than ‘Common Law’.

The Laws of the United States applies only to a person as defined in their Codes and only if the person is within their jurisdiction. For more information, please read the first paragraph in the Introduction of the book posted here which states, in part:

There have grown up in the history of nations only two great systems of law, the civil law of ancient Rome, and the common law of England. All the most civilized nations in the world are governed by either of these two great schemes of justice. Though the civil law and the common law have much in common, yet in many important particulars they are the opposites of each other. In the course of his studies, the student of law finds so much said, in an incidental way, about the civil law, that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice, that it is important, at the outset of his walks over the fields of the common law, to give him some account of the civil law, and point out in what it differs essentially from the common law. This is a matter of much importance to every student who aspires to a comprehensive and enlightened knowledge of jurisprudence (emphasis mine).

The above was a law book used to teach attorneys and has very important information you should be aware of such as this statement:

…that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice…

Yes the conspiracy started out as a ‘Scheme’ to misinform the attorneys of the real reason for Common Law! Doesn’t this tell you that today’s attorneys have been misled? Now for more facts on how and when they started to change our Common Law to Roman Civil Codes – ‘PREFACE’ where it states:

The love of innovation induced the State of New York, some years ago, to abrogate common-law pleading, and introduce a code of procedure for the regulation of litigation in her courts; and notwithstanding the lamentable confusion and uncertainty, and the greatly increased expense which has thereby been brought into the administration of justice in that State, other States have followed in her track of barbaric empiricism. Mr. Justice Grier has, from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, rebuked the folly of abolishing common-law pleading, and substituting the common-sense practice, as it may be called, in its stead. “This system, (says that able judge,) matured by the wisdom of ages, founded on principles of truth and sound reasonhas been ruthlessly abolished in many of our States, who have rashly substituted in its place the suggestions of sciolists, who invent new codes and systems of pleading to order. But this attempt to abolish species and establish a single genus is found to be beyond the power of legislative omnipotence. The result of these experiments, so far as they have come to our knowledge, has been to destroy the certainty and simplicity of all pleadings, and to introduce on the record an endless wrangle in writing, perplexing the court, delaying and impeding the administration of justice.” This strong condemnation is more than justified by the experience of the New York courts, as may be seen in the chaos of the reports of the code practice in that State. And the evil effects of the code on the administration of law in New York has been signalized in a recent letter from Mr. Charles O’Conor, published in the Albany Law Journal. It is stated in that letter, as the effect of the decisions of the courts, that because of the mixture of law and equity by the code, a case may begin as a common-law case, with a jury impanneled to try it, and if, at the close of the testimony, a case in equity instead of a common-law case, is proved, the judge may dismiss the jury and try the case himself, as chancellor. And the confusion in practice is increased by the want of logical skill in the lawyers trained in the code practice. “All the lawyers (says Mr. O’Conor) who have been admitted to practice in this State for the last twenty years are conversant with the code, and, of course, are not experts in the old common-law practice and pleading. Most of them are entirely ignorant of it, and you may imagine that the code could not easily be displaced by any attempt at reaction. The courts of the United States do not recognize the code, but adhere to the old practice, with its settled distinction between law and equity. This circumstance often leads to much confusion, as you may see illustrated in some reported decisions of the Supreme Court. It is truly laughable, to one conversant with both systems, to see the blunders into which lawyers of great ability, who have come to the bar within the last ten or fifteen years, sometimes fail in framing a declaration, plea, or subsequent pleading at common law in the circuit court of the United States (emphasis mine).

They changed the Laws in the State of New York without any delegated authority by, of and for the People inhabiting the State of New York. The reason for changing from Common Law to Roman Civil Codes was to do away with our sovereignty, because Roman Civil Codes were rules for persons who were subject to the government of Rome.  Soon thereafter, all persons inhabiting all of the Union States became subjects to the Codes.

Now back to this webpage to continue the search for ‘common law’:

4. The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson’s Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362.

Everyone needs to use Common Law because it is still in force. Everyone using Common Law will have ‘Standing’ as ‘Freemen’ and ‘Freewomen’ so that they can protect their Unalienable Rights. Unalienable means “The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.”  But our ‘Unalienable Rights’ over time were stolen from all of us. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but please continue reading.

 PART 3

 HOW COMMON LAW WAS CHANGED TO ROMAN LAW, ERODING INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY ESTABLISHED BY THE FOUNDERS

by Steven Wayne Pattison, ©2011

Thomas Jefferson opposed Alexander Hamilton regarding the creation of a national bank

(Nov. 11, 2011) — Editor’s Note:  The following essay is the final in a three-part series regarding the topics of common law, statutory law, liberty, global monetary and financial conspiracy, and individual and state sovereignty.  Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here, respectively.

—————–

‘WE’ all allowed Common Law to be taken from us without a thing being said. Our State and National Constitutions are not understandable without Common Law, as HENRY BALDWIN, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States explained in his book published in 1837:

I have long since been convinced that there are better and safer guides to professional and judicial inquiries after truth, on constitutional questions, than those which have been so often resorted to, without effecting the desired result; a clear and settled understanding of the terms and provisions of an instrument of writing, which operates with supreme authority wherever it applies. To me it seems that it can be made intelligible in all its parts, by applying to it those established rules and maxims of the common law, in the construction of statutes, and those accepted definitions of words, terms, and language, in which they had been used, and been received, as well known and understood, in their ordinary, or legal sense, according to the subject matter. In appealing to the common law, as the standard of exposition, in all doubts as to the meaning of written instruments; there is safety, certainty, and authority. The institution of the colonies were based upon it; it was their system of jurisprudence, with only local exceptions, to suit the condition of the colonists, who claimed it as their birth-right and inheritance, 9 Cr. 333, in its largest sense, as including the whole system of English jurisprudence, 1 Gall. 493; the inexhaustible fountain from which we draw our laws, 9 S. & R. 330, 39, 58. So it continued after the colonies became states, in most of which the common law was adopted by acts of assembly, which gave it the force of a statute, from the time of such adoption, and as it was then; so that in the language of this Court-”At the adoption of the constitution, there were no states in this Union, the basis of whose jurisprudence was not essentially, that of the common law in its widest meaning; and probably no states were contemplated, in which it would not exist.” 3 Pet. 446, 8. It is also the basis on which the federal system of jurisprudence was erected by the constitution, the judiciary and process acts, which refer to “cases in law and in equity,” “suits at common law,” “the common law, the principles and usages of law,” as they had at the time been defined and settled in England; 5 Cr. 222; 3 Wh. 221; 4 Wh. 115, 16; 7 Wh. 45; 10 Wh. 29, 32, 56, 8; 1 Pet. 613: and were adopted as then understood by the old states.

WE have determined that since the only law was ‘Common Law’ when the National Constitution was written, in Section 2 of Article III of the ‘Constitution for the United States of America’, ‘in Law’ can mean only ‘Common Law’. In fact, everything except “admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” should be under Common Law Jurisdiction.

Remember from page 5 above, it states:

“It is the law which gives jurisdiction…”

And jurisdiction has a lot to do with where you inhabit and if you walk into what you believe is a court of law without knowing what you are doing, you could be putting yourself in a jurisdiction which might put you in jail for whatever reason:

JURISDICTION, Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.

Judges today are not following any Constitutions because they have no power constitutionally conferred upon them because they are not using Common Law in their courts.

You will need to know and understand the “tract of land or district” that you inhabit and that you really cannot prove that you lawfully own any land. More on this can be provided if you ask for it. It is too long to cover here.

First you have to understand that the Internet is not a very good source for researching the Law but just a starting place.  You should end up in a good Law Library to document everything you can learn from the Internet. For those going up against a judge, you will need to fully study and understand “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and In Personam Jurisdiction. You should also use the correct dictionary when using Common Law, which is posted here. In the court case we have been involved in, we start out with the following:

Comes now the Defendant, (First and last name only), In Propria Persona appearing specially, not generally or voluntarily herein, to demand all unalienable rights protected under the common law, pursuant to the laws for the state of Kansas based upon the status of the accused as a matter of due process of law to Motion this Court move the Court to dismiss action based on violations of statutes and state:

Most of the People don’t know who they are because they don’t know what their ‘Character’ or ‘Status’ really is when inhabiting one of the Original Union States! If you do inhabit one of these Union states, each of their constitutions has within it a Declaration of Rights. If it doesn’t, you are not living in a free sovereign state. For example, the Missouri Constitution of 1820 has 22 items listed under Article XIII. Declaration of Rights, starting with the following:

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare,

1. That all political power is vested in, and derived from, the people.

Are you sure you are one of the People as that term is used today?

For more proof that the state constitutions have been changed, see Missouri Constitution currently being published where you cannot find any ‘Declaration of Rights’.

We need to collectively act or we will lose one at a time. “The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.” — Benjamin Franklin

In the early 1800s, the ‘Powers to be’ started using Roman Civil Law when Common Law was the only law that they could use, which was an unconstitutional act.  Over time, the people stopped standing up for their Rights to use Common Law because of the attorneys. As it has been explained herein, our Rights are a maxim of the common law; a right never dies, and it is the law which gives jurisdiction. Common Law is the only law a sovereign should use to protect all of his unalienable Rights!

Abraham Lincoln was the first president to be assassinated on April 15, 1865. His Gettysburg Address is the most frequently-quoted speech in U.S. history

Lincoln recognized, or I should say discovered, a ‘Conspiracy’ to ‘Divide’ the People. and on June 16, 1858, more than 1,000 Republican delegates met in the Springfield, IL statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech’s introduction, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Please note that some of the websites do not post the whole speech), a concept familiar to Lincoln’s audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Lincoln asked a few questions in his speech which are essential to what we have today. You should read the whole speech, but following are three paragraphs you really need to understand.

After reading and knowing what is reported in this document, you should understand that the American Civil War was a planned event as told to us by Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, with three different quotes; About 991 results from Internet searchAbout 153 results from Internet search; and About 117,000 results from Internet search. Now, years later, these quotes are in question by someone’s opinion calling them ‘Bogus’, meaning that they say it is without any facts or documents to prove that Bismarck did say it. Does it really matter when you have a myriad of other facts which lead you to the same place?

Lincoln (para. 16):

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” subject only to the Constitution. What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now – the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after – indorsement of the decision by the President and others? (bold emphasis mine)

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen – StephenFranklinRoger, and James, for instance – and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly matte the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece. too many or too few, – not omitting even scaffolding – or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in – in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as a Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial lawWhy are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief-Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska Bill-I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska Act Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche which we may ere long see filled with another Supreme Court decisions declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not wether slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon he public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made.

There are other Presidents who have attempted to warn us but are not included here because of space.

We should be able to agree that except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of anything within its jurisdiction.

And here we go again using the term ‘jurisdiction’ – “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” This is true because a judge declared it several times, and those court cases, as far as I understand, have never been overturned, making the actions of  StephenFranklinRoger, and James acting together to cause the American Civil War. Do you believe they were the only ones to want the war?  And what was the reason – Control of the Money the people were required to use to survive!

Please remember if someone does something that is unconstitutional, it stands until challenged. This is the reason for the Constructive Notice covered later.

The major event in 1886 during our Civil War which is well-documented where ‘citizens’ separated themselves from the parent state – Black’s Law Dictionary, SEVENTH EDITION page 703 – De facto government:

1. A government that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a nation.

2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country’s inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state.

During this time period, some of the lawfully-elected state officials were removed from office and replaced by the U.S. Government, another unconstitutional act. Then these separated citizens made new state constitutions, creating a new de facto government within the Lawful state governments, which was another unconstitutional act. These new governments started using Roman Civil Codes to control everyone as subjects, not sovereigns. From early on, the definitions of terms were being changed to deceive the People which was another unconstitutional act. Following is just one example of changing the definition of the term ‘PERSON’:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm

In the beginning in our country, it was only “PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called “natural persons.” When the banklords found out how great things were for the Colonists before 1750, they had to stop them. Back in those days, most of the people knew that they were ‘Freemen’ and when the King of England fell under the control of the Banklords, Khazars, the King started doing things to the Colonists that were against their unalienable Rights as Freemen, causing our Revolutionary War with England.

See the “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” which at some point in history was changed to the Declaration of Independence, which is a misnomer because it was not about Independence, but rather, a list of wrongs being done against the Colonists by the King. The unanimous Declaration lists the Law as being changed by the King doing away with ‘Common Law’.

This ‘unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America’ by the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare was their ‘Last Resort’ so therefore we have a LAST RESORT:

A court of last resort, is one which decides, definitely, without appeal or writ of error, or any other examination whatever, a suit or action, or some other matter, which has been submitted to its judgment, and over which it has jurisdiction.

2. The supreme court is a court of last resort in all matters which legally come before it; and whenever a court possesses the power to decide without appeal or other examination whatever, a subject matter submitted to it, it is a court of last resort; but this is not to be understood as preventing an examination into its jurisdiction, or excess of authority, for then the judgment of a superior does not try and decide so much whether the point decided has been so done according to law, as to try the authority of the inferior court.

But without ‘Common Law,’ this and any other Court of Law will never do one thing to restore the Lawful State Governments. Our Last Resort is to make it public, just as the Founding Fathers did with their ‘Declaration’ of wrongs being done by the King. Because WE are the Kings collectively, we have to use a ‘Constructive Notice’ under Common Law to notice the people who work for the people as our agents or servants.  The following is a sample of the first paragraph:

The United States of America is a republican form of government (Art. IV, Sec. 4, of the constitution of the United States) with a Presbytery type of representation thus constituting a Democratic commonwealth, not a democracy.  That all power is vested in, and derived from the people.  The people are the principal and the people who work for the people are the agents or servants of the people.  You are either one of the people with unalienable or natural rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and all lawful amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the state in which you inhabit which are protected by the common law or you are a public servant bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution of the United States (Art. VI, sec, 3 of the constitution of the United States) and the constitution of the State in which you work.  If you are not one of these two, then you are a foreign individual and/or state involved in espionage and/or terrorist activities against the people of the United States of America.  Servants of the people are under Constitutional restrictions to their duties as outlined in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitution of the State in which they work, and in the statutes of that state.  Any servant with knowledge and with willful intent operating outside the Constitutional and statutory restrictions placed upon them is a violation of their oath.  This will be an attack on the people for whom you serve.  If the action is done willingly and with intent then it is an act of treason and may be considered an act of war.  The damaged individual may seek monetary damages and criminal prosecution.

We cannot use any part of the “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” because, unlike the Colonies, WE are not part of the current ‘government de facto’. The current de facto government is not the People’s government, and WE do not have the right under their laws to change their laws. WE collectively or individually do have the Right under Common Law to separate from them because of their acts of Sedition. WE do have the power to restore the lawful De jure state governments by using their first Constitutions with Section. 4 of Article IV of the Constitution for the United States of America:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

This guarantee’s to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

The current fifty state government de facto are not instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed as the Colonists were because under their government de facto WE are “person(s)” as defined in their ‘Roman Civil Codes’ titled U.S. Codes and not Freemen or Freewomen as sovereigns. You need to prove that you are not a person as defined this term U.S. Codes:

Please note the very important information in (a) “When used in this title” which means there could be other meanings – “When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof”. § 7701 (1) Person “The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

I do not believe we are corporations or any other terms, but if you create one of them, you may be required to act for them at some point in your life. The only term that I believe is not something WE create is an  “individual.” I located the Code’s definition in § 552 (a) (2), and the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

Now compare the terminology used:

―When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.‖

―We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.‖

What you believe are our elected and appointed officials are really only “foreign individuals and/or states involved in espionage and/or terrorist activities against the people of the united States of America.”

Agents of a Foreign Government: A Bizarre Saga by Dan Meador (April 5, 2000):

There are no implementing regulations for section 7621 of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes the President to establish revenue districts. Consequently, there are no revenue districts in States of the Union. The Cooper article explained why. With enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Federal income tax administration had for all practical purposes been turned over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue; Puerto Rico, which in 1953, via executive name change, had become the Internal Revenue Service.

That history of war with England and Common Law is nicely explained in the last paragraph:

In all the various revolutions, with their dark and dreary scenes of violence and bloodshed, through which England has passed, the people have clung to their ancient laws with a devotion almost superstitious. When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles – interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those “indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled.” And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties.http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/TO_THE_ALUMNI_OF_THE_LAW_DEPARTMENT_OF_COLUMBIAN%20_COLLEGE.pdf

Common Law is for ‘natural persons,’ while Roman Civil Law is actually Codes for ‘artificial persons’ or subjects of the state. The term ‘state’ means a government.

Are you, your spouse and children ‘natural persons’ inhabiting the soil, within a specified boundary, ordained and established by the sole and vested authority of the people, through their lawfully-elected representatives, creating a free and independent republic, one of the united States of America as that term was used in the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”? If you are, then you are a sovereign and you cannot lawfully change that fact, and no one else can change it either!

There is much more documentation about what happened to our ‘Republican Form of Government’ that is guaranteed to all ‘natural persons’ within the Union states –

The Khazars control the people by causing wars. Have you ever watched Norman Dodd’s dying testimony on ‘You tube’?

Henry Ford, Sr. stated that if we removed the power of money from the banklords, we would stop all wars.

A Time Line focusing on Taxes, Money and War

We cannot survive while being controlled by all the wars we have been duped into over the years. Have you read my web pages?http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/I_want_my_Country_back!.html:

How Tyranny Came to America

“It was the old story: In order to learn, first I had to unlearn. Most of what I’d been taught and told about the Constitution was misguided or even false. And I’d never been told some of the most elementary things, which would have saved me a tremendous amount of confusion.” by Joe Sobran

Stan Jones running for Senate from Montana tells the Truth about Globalization, North American UNION, our new money the AMERICO and the NAFTA SUPER Hwy. Short Video Now removed!

My first webpage was about how inflation was controlling us so that most all of us would die broke and would not be able to pass on our wealth to our children. The bigger picture is that we went from 90% self-employed to employees of all those big corporations controlled by the Khazars. Alexander Hamilton lobbied for the first privately-owned federal bank. However, Thomas Jefferson opposed it writing:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.” What Jefferson said is coming true; it is being predicted that home values are going to lose 20% more by 2012. A record 2.82 million homes faced foreclosure in 2009. Will 2011 break 2010′s record-setting year for foreclosure filings in the U.S., with almost 2.9 million properties being forecloses on nationwide? It is predicted to be 20 million total home foreclosures by 2012. Even if you are not one of them, your home value will most likely be affected in a big way. Some have lost everything and others are looking at a 50% loss in value.

My second web page is about wars and the connection to the banklords causing wars because they wanted to control us by their money- A Time Line focusing on Taxes, Money and War.  It took the banklords over 200 years to totally control our money:

An audio explaining just how they are controlling all of us with their money but his solution will not work because the current governments are de facto, and we are no longer one of the People as in ‘We the People;’ therefore, we have no ‘Standing.’ Voting in their de facto elections will not change anything because they control the counting of the votes; see Hacking the Democracy video.

Is printing more paper money the answer to our economic woes?

A 20-second clip where Alan Greenspan states: WE CAN ALWAYS PRINT MORE MONEY – If you watch it and like it click on that you liked it. There is “No Chance of Default, US Can Print Money” as reported on CNBC. You have to understand that the U.S. is totally controlled by the banklords. It is their country, not ours. If it were our country, it would be our money and we could print more so the 2.9 million homeowners would not have lost their homes just in 2010. 

My third web page was about the Conspiracy JFK talked about in his speech – You Be The Judge & Jury. JFK didn’t explain the Conspiracy and I attempt to explain it here – The Conspiracy explained and documented!

Our plan is for all the money stolen by the Municipal Corporations controlled by the Khazars will be returned to the Lawful state government of Kansas. CAFR accounts explained here and Your State CAFR Is Just Like Oregon’s:

Oregon State agencies have $4.9 billion in combined ending fund balances, according to the 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report released by the Governor’s Office. The state claims that of this amount, 71.5 percent is available for spending at the states discretion. In this clip, House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) said the Legislature should utilize these cash-on-hand revenues before raising taxes on Oregonians and businesses.

We need your help in alerting the people!

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it” —Albert Einstein

A 16-minute ‘youtube’ video explaining the Slave World known today as the System – U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million

The Internal Revenue Codes are for subjects, not sovereigns, but there may be exceptions.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Only the truth will set us free, and with more people learning the truth, it will happen so that one day soon, we all will be able to say, “Thank God I’m free at last!”

“The individual is handicapped by living with the monstrous conspiracy known today as the System, all of their adult life and they will not realize that it really exists until they first listen to President John F. Kennedy’s audio posted on his Presidential Library website and then read the research about the subject.” ~ Steven Pattison

Audio from JFK library or Six minute clip

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” – Henry David Thoreau, American author (1817-1862)

WE are completing JFK’s mission of alerting the American people and we need your help because the root is so enormous that it will take more than just one to dig it up and get it out of our country. All we would ask anyone to do is listen to JFK and alert others with the research about the subject.

You have to know if we don’t do something soon, we will have what Thomas Jefferson said a very long time ago:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.”

Albert Einstein developed theories on physics and statistical mechanics. Some of his research led to the development of the first U.S. atomic bomb.

We are only asking you to do what you can.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Albert Einstein

Please do something different today! If you just forward this to one man or woman who wants to learn the truth and they email me or call, then it will be a step in the right direction for the Truth to be known by all! That is all that JFK wanted for the people for the people to be informed of the truth.

All rights reserved,

/S/ Steven Pattison, one of the People within the boundaries of Kansas, a state of the Union.

Contact:  (913) 461-1661

© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: